Trayvon Martin

[Jenksismyhero]

Well, it basically is 2 additional cases where the states with SYG laws wind up filing the case as a murder, not as a justifiable homicide or as a lesser offense (only about 10% of the increase was taken up by justifiable homicides). So yeah, according to those states, yes. Lots more murders. But that doesn't concern people because guns make them "Feel" safer.

 

I'm pretty sure i've made the point before that the use of SYG defenses has also risen, which makes sense because it's now available. That inherently would increase the rate of homicides in this area of the law. They've created a new classification for a crime.

[Balta1701]

I'm pretty sure i've made the point before that the use of SYG defenses has also risen, which makes sense because it's now available. That inherently would increase the rate of homicides in this area of the law. They've created a new classification for a crime.

And that classification of homicides in those states accounts for 10% of the total increase in homicides.

[Soxbadger]

There's no question of guilt there. None. Why waste the time/money and resources on that?

 

As to the bolded, that's the point. They ARE acting within their legal right and they still make mistakes. So what's the big deal? Make them take mandatory training classes. I'm fine with that. You say that like it would make a difference in your opinion. I could mandate 100 hours of safety gun classes a year and you still wouldn't like the idea of people being able to use a gun to protect themselves. They could be MORE safety conscious than police (who btw, understand they're on the benefit side of the law there) and you still wouldn't be ok with it.

 

I fail to see why the designation of being a cop or a private citizen has any relevance to the main moral issue here. Being a cop is a man made construct: Here, you're a cop. You're still human, you're still prone to mistakes, you're still just as likely to make a bad decision as the most highly trained private citizen. Yet for some reason the badge means it's an acceptable loss, but being a private citizen it's not. Makes no sense to me.

 

Because I dont think its a waste of time. You say there is no question of guilt, but you have no idea if there are outstanding circumstances. What if it was shown that the molester had been drugged by a criminal who kidnapped his family and threatened to kill them unless he molested that girl. Its extremely unlikely, but in a situation like that, it would be unlikely that the molester would get a death sentence, which you are saying is okay. The other problem is that child molestation generally does not carry a life sentence, so you are giving the public the right to punish worse than the actual system can, which is another issue.

 

Your making a lot of assumptions on what my beliefs are. Guns in the home is much different than guns on the street. Being a police officer who is imbued with the power to use deadly force, is different than being a regular person and making that decision.

 

Mistakes will always happen, the only thing we can do as a society is try and prevent the most mistakes as possible. It is my opinion that the way to prevent the most mistakes is to completely remove guns from society. But that is likely impossible, therefore we have to come up with another alternative, to which I believe the reasonable answer is to remove guns from the street, but allow people to have them in their homes as long as they have been properly trained on safety (that includes use and securing the weapon.)

 

The actual reality is, I dont really care. I care more about the hypocritical nature of people who support gun rights, but dont support other personal freedoms.

 

I supported gun rights for a long time, I just got sick of gun rights activists who are against all other rights.

 

Bitter hypocrisy to the end, but sometimes the ends justify the means. I do really believe that the world would be better off without guns, I just dont think you can put that back in the box though.

Edited June 13, 2012 by Soxbadger

[Jenksismyhero]

And that classification of homicides in those states accounts for 10% of the total increase in homicides.

 

Which again means that it could have been entirely justified, so the 7-9% increase isn't "2 innocent people a day are dead now." Just 2 people a day that have been labeled in the SYG area of homicides.

 

I also had an issue with them using pre-2005 data. Isn't that sort of bogus since SYG laws have pretty specific language in the statutes and that's the language the state prosecutors use to bring the type of charge they're going to bring?

[Jenksismyhero]

Because I dont think its a waste of time. You say there is no question of guilt, but you have no idea if there are outstanding circumstances. What if it was shown that the molester had been drugged by a criminal who kidnapped his family and threatened to kill them unless he molested that girl. Its extremely unlikely, but in a situation like that, it would be unlikely that the molester would get a death sentence, which you are saying is okay. The other problem is that child molestation generally does not carry a life sentence, so you are giving the public the right to punish worse than the actual system can, which is another issue.

Your making a lot of assumptions on what my beliefs are. Guns in the home is much different than guns on the street. Being a police officer who is imbued with the power to use deadly force, is different than being a regular person and making that decision.

 

Mistakes will always happen, the only thing we can do as a society is try and prevent the most mistakes as possible. It is my opinion that the way to prevent the most mistakes is to completely remove guns from society. But that is likely impossible, therefore we have to come up with another alternative, to which I believe the reasonable answer is to remove guns from the street, but allow people to have them in their homes as long as they have been properly trained on safety (that includes use and securing the weapon.)

 

The actual reality is, I dont really care. I care more about the hypocritical nature of people who support gun rights, but dont support other personal freedoms.

 

I supported gun rights for a long time, I just got sick of gun rights activists who are against all other rights.

 

Bitter hypocrisy to the end, but sometimes the ends justify the means. I do really believe that the world would be better off without guns, I just dont think you can put that back in the box though.

 

That's a pretty far fetched scenario. Is Steven Seagal working as a cook somewhere too? And yes, I do have problem with the sentencing guidelines for rapists/molestors. Short of being shot they should have their balls removed. But anyways.

 

I'm talking even in the streets. A well trained private citizen is every bit as safety conscious as someone we've given some authority to. That's the point. If society would get off this "oh well police are safe but private citizens would just keep shooting each other" thing then this whole issue would become moot. We trust individuals to carry around guns and shoot people and if they kill someone innocent it's not ok, but it's acceptable. Now take that badge off and it should be the same situation.

Edited June 13, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[Soxbadger]

That's a pretty far fetched scenario. Is Steven Seagal working as a cook somewhere too? And yes, I do have problem with the sentencing guidelines for rapists/molestors. Short of being shot they should have their balls removed. But anyways.

 

I'm talking even in the streets. A well trained private citizen is every bit as safety conscious as someone we've given some authority to. That's the point. If society would get off this "oh well police are safe but private citizens would just keep shooting each other" thing then this whole issue would become moot. We trust individuals to carry around guns and shoot people and if they kill someone innocent it's not ok, but it's acceptable. Now take that badge off and it should be the same situation.

 

The scenario is far fetched, but that is the point, you never know what is really going on in the moment. If you have a problem with sentencing guidelines, then the appropriate response is to try and change the system, not to have people going out and giving their own sentence.

 

A well trained citizen may be as competent or better than someone that we have given authority to, but we have rules and a system, so until we decide that there is no reason for police and we should all just police ourselves, Im going to stick with the system.

 

Its the same argument for why shouldnt I be able to get top secret information from the US govt. The people who have clearance are just individuals, and there is no evidence that they are any more trustworthy or smart than me, so why shouldnt I have access? Take away their security clearance they are no different than me.

 

Or why shouldnt I get to have access to nuclear codes and the ability to fire nuclear weapons. The people who have access are nothing more than humans with badges who are capable of mistakes, just like me.

 

For better or for worse our system is that individuals do not have the right to take justice in their own hands. Why is that better? Well for one if youre a third party you are much more likely to take an impartial stance and not let emotions/connection get in the way of clear thought.

 

Its the same reason most Dr's wont do surgery on a loved one, or why a lawyer wouldnt represent himself. You cant think clearly when its something that actually impacts you.

 

So when you see someone might hurt your family, you are more likely to make a rash/emotional decision as opposed to a third party.

 

The problem with your argument is that I dont think police are necessarily safer, I just think that they are a necessary evil, and therefore you limit the damage as much as possible.

Edited June 13, 2012 by Soxbadger

[Texsox]

Again, it is just so simple.

 

Criminals have guns. You want to reduce guns so you take them away from the honest people. Serves the honest folks up like Fourth of July tourists on Amity Island. But it does keep the criminals safe. Hide in your closet while they take all your stuff. The cops will show up, eventually.

[Texsox]

Oh come on, its not about "safe" in that circumstance, its about whether as a society we allow regular people to take justice into their own hands.

 

As much as I would love to say that people should be allowed to be vigilantes, it just isnt in society's best interest to have people acting like Judge Dredd.

 

If someone is threatening myself or my family, if someone is harming my daughter, this isn't about justice, this is about stopping a crime as it is occurring. No one is being a judge, jury, or executioner. They are stopping someone from attacking someone. They are potentially saving a life.

 

Imagine if I walked by and someone was getting stabbed and I said, I'm not here to judge. Y'all just keep going, I am going to find a judge and have him decide . . .

[Soxbadger]

Tex,

 

Each situation is its own animal.

 

If someone's life is in imminent threat, I believe most people agree deadly force is warranted.

 

Its situations where the threat is not imminent that the question arises.

 

Its not black and white.

[Balta1701]

Again, it is just so simple.

 

Criminals have guns. You want to reduce guns so you take them away from the honest people. Serves the honest folks up like Fourth of July tourists on Amity Island. But it does keep the criminals safe. Hide in your closet while they take all your stuff. The cops will show up, eventually.

It is just so simple. When a person is carrying a gun, they put themselves and everyone around them in danger. Not just the criminal. If you are carrying a gun, you have put me in danger. And no matter how much you or anyone else wants to pat yourself on the back and tell yourself you're the safe one, if you decide to carry, and you're not going to run into a bear, you have made a reckless choice and justified it using your gut.

[Balta1701]

Which again means that it could have been entirely justified, so the 7-9% increase isn't "2 innocent people a day are dead now." Just 2 people a day that have been labeled in the SYG area of homicides.

 

I also had an issue with them using pre-2005 data. Isn't that sort of bogus since SYG laws have pretty specific language in the statutes and that's the language the state prosecutors use to bring the type of charge they're going to bring?

No, it means we're struggling with percentages. It means that 0.2 of the 2 dead people per day are counted as justifiable homicides under these laws.

 

If they were only using pre-05 data, you'd have a point. However, what you do is compare the same states pre-and-post "SYG" law, and then you also compare those states to states that don't have SYG laws, and you also compare states based on when they enacted the SYG law. That's how you can evaluate whether a trend is statistically significant.

[Texsox]

It is just so simple. When a person is carrying a gun, they put themselves and everyone around them in danger. Not just the criminal. If you are carrying a gun, you have put me in danger. And no matter how much you or anyone else wants to pat yourself on the back and tell yourself you're the safe one, if you decide to carry, and you're not going to run into a bear, you have made a reckless choice and justified it using your gut.

 

Again, you believe there are too many guns and you want to take away the guns from the honest, law abiding citizens so that only the criminals will have guns. That makes you feel safe. You think smugly that the criminal that breaks into your home will treat you nicely because you can't protect yourself. Perhaps you will take him around, show him where your valuables are, and make him your friend. After all, the important thing is that no one gets hurt.

 

Balta, this really isn't worth debating any further. You believe you are safer hiding in the dark, waiting on the police to come save you. I want a fighting chance against a home invader. People have been killed both ways. Defenseless and fighting it out. It all depends on how you want to go. I'd rather not depend on the generosity of a criminal or the speedy response of police.

[EvilMonkey]

Yes, it is a blog, but is a legal professor at Cornell, so take it for what you want. He claims that the prosecutor is overreaching for the perjury charge in an attempt to pressure George. The key section are these where she edited testimony for her Affidavit of Probable Cause. The text used in the affidavit:

Q. And you mentioned also, in terms of the ability of your husband to make a

bond amount, that you all had no money, is that correct?

A. To my knowledge, that is correct.

Q: Were you aware of the website that Mr. Zimmerman or somebody on his

behalf created?

A: I’m aware of that website.

Q: How much money is in that website right now? How much money as a result

of that website was —

A: Currently, I do not know.

Q: Do you have any estimate as to how much money has already been obtained

or collected?

A: I do not.

 

The text as it appears in the actual transcripts:

Q: How much money is in that website right now? How much money as a result of that website was —

 

A: Currently, I do not know.

 

Q: Who would know that?

 

A: That would be my brother-in-law.

 

Q: And is he — I know he’s not in the same room as you, but is he available so we can speak to him, too, or the Court can inquire through the State or the Defense?

 

A: I’m sure that we could probably get him on the phone.

 

Q: Okay. So he’s not there now.

 

A: No, he is not, sir.

 

Q: Do you have any estimate as to how much money has already been obtained or collected?

 

A: I do not.

 

 

So she could have honestly not known at that time, offered up the brother in law for the details and was not taken up on the offer. First allegations of her trying to go after critics of her handling of the case, now altering testimony like she was a MSM reported, what next?

 

http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/06/perju...l-overreaching/

[Jenksismyhero]

No, it means we're struggling with percentages. It means that 0.2 of the 2 dead people per day are counted as justifiable homicides under these laws.

 

If they were only using pre-05 data, you'd have a point. However, what you do is compare the same states pre-and-post "SYG" law, and then you also compare those states to states that don't have SYG laws, and you also compare states based on when they enacted the SYG law. That's how you can evaluate whether a trend is statistically significant.

 

But the problem is in relying on the classification of the homicide instead of what actually happened. They even admit that using the FBI definition is bogus because none of the states classify the "crime" in the same way. So it's left up to how individual state prosecutors decide to charge a person based on their own version of the SYG law. The better study would be to look at who successfully used the defense and who did not (guilty/not guilty) and then analyze if it was truly a "without provocation" type situation. Unless I missed it in skimming over the report, it seemed to me they were relying on those classifications made by the states, not the specific factual scenario at play (because again, once the SYG laws came into effect, anyone who could reasonably argue self-defense under SYG did, so there's going to be an increase in "SYG" homicide numbers.)

 

[Balta1701]

Again, you believe there are too many guns and you want to take away the guns from the honest, law abiding citizens so that only the criminals will have guns. That makes you feel safe. You think smugly that the criminal that breaks into your home will treat you nicely because you can't protect yourself. Perhaps you will take him around, show him where your valuables are, and make him your friend. After all, the important thing is that no one gets hurt.

 

Balta, this really isn't worth debating any further. You believe you are safer hiding in the dark, waiting on the police to come save you. I want a fighting chance against a home invader. People have been killed both ways. Defenseless and fighting it out. It all depends on how you want to go. I'd rather not depend on the generosity of a criminal or the speedy response of police.

No, Tex, I beleive that if the statistics clearly showed that having guns present increased security or safety, I would strongly consider purchasing one. On the other hand, if the statistics showed that people who were carrying were 4.5x more likely to be killed in an assault , that having a gun in a home caused a 75% increase in the chances of you or your family dying from a homicide, that having a gun in the house causes a significant increase in the chances of other types of death, then I would respond to any claim that having a gun makes you safer with derision.

 

If you note, all that you and the other gun defenders have provided here are anecdotes. Yet, I can provide just as many anecdotes. The person who tries to pull their concealed weapon during a robbery attempt and is shot and killed by the robber over the value of the contents of their wallet. The kid who commits suicide because he was able to do so easily. The guy who pulls a gun and kills a cop who is coming into his house unannounced (which Indiana is trying to make legal, btw). Yet your anecdotes are the ones that count, but my anecdotes don't...and the thing that especially doesn't count is my data.

 

Why? Because you have something more important than data. You have that surge of neurotransmitters that happens when you''re holding life and death in your hand. I can make a wound that won't heal. 38 millimeter, like the police. I don't need to apply rational decision making here, I don't need to actually consider whether or not having a gun puts my family at significantly greater risk in virtually every setting where it has been tested, because the family's safety isn't what's important here. It's the feeling. So I can go and tell other people that they need to take into account my anecdotes, and data on actual results of weapons from even some of the harshest urban areas in the country don't count. There's no level of evidence that can be provided that having a gun puts a person at greater risk, puts their family at greater risk, puts everyone around them at greater risk, that can overwhelm that feeling.

[Texsox]

You are taking away guns from honest citizens who do not do any of the things you mention. Out of the millions and millions of firearms in the US, very few are ever used by honest people in the manner you are outlining. After you take them away from the honest citizens, you made the world much safer for criminals. Do you believe criminals will be less violent once they have no fear of someone shooting back?

 

I understand you have this fear of being shot by an honest person who mistakes you for a criminal. I fear more being shot by a criminal.

 

I am offering the real world example of the most likely scenario that I would use my gun for self protection, an intruder in my home. I'm not going to be following some suspect in my neighborhood, I'm not going to be walking around with my gun. There are millions more like me. You choose to dismiss this as just an anecdote. And respond with stats. Since most of the stats do not apply to my unique situation, and include such craziness as following someone as part of a neighborhood watch, I can safely ignore those stats. Same as I can ignore stats that show how likely I am to freeze to death while snowmobiling.

 

You will calmly tell the intruder you respect his safety and do not have a gun in the house and to please leave. I will explain I have two guns and will begin using them in two seconds if he doesn't get his ass out of my house.

 

We both feel safer that way. You worry that my situation will escalate with both of us firing guns in the house. I believe the intruder will leave, in a hurry. I am also betting he is not carrying a gun, most home invaders do not. I believe the chance of violence escalating is greater in your case when he knows he has a chance to overpower you. I do not wish to bet my safety on hiding, the benevolence of criminals or the speedy response by police to find my address and pick the best response.

[Texsox]

The problem with the stats, IMHO, is they lump all gun owners together. There are violence junkies who dream of shootouts, and sportsman who dream of the perfect kill shot on a whitetail. There are folks who carefully clean their weapons and lock them up in gun safes each night and (IMHO) crazies who sleep with a gun under their pillow with a few more in easy to access positions. You can see how attitude can affect your individual chance of the kinds of dangers you have outlined. Just as a calm 50ish woman driving a corvette versus a 17 year old guy. You can give the stats on people dying in corvette accidents all you want, but if you were a betting person the odds are the 50ish woman is much less likely to die than the 17 year old male. That's common sense.

 

I am far less likely to have a situation escalate as you describe because I would choose the path of retreat if there is one. There are other people who are looking for a confrontation. They are more likely to have a situation like started this thread happen. But they are the tiny minority. Let's not screw over the majority to help a few crazies and criminals.

 

And Balta, I will try to raise my level of discussion here. I realize I was giving it short attention. You bring up some excellent points. But work in a gun shop for a month and you will be both scared and relaxed about gun owners.

[EvilMonkey]

So, no comments on the prosecutor editing testimony?

[Texsox]

So, no comments on the prosecutor editing testimony?

 

Isn't editing standard practice? If not the jury would have to hear word for word hours and hours of questioning. Isn't it then up to the defense to offer their own?

[Balta1701]

So, no comments on the prosecutor editing testimony?

Why do you post this without adding a link? Augh!!!! Extra clicks!

[Soxbadger]

So, no comments on the prosecutor editing testimony?

 

Because the prosecutor didnt edit testimony. The prosecutor merely left out certain portions, which is standard practice when you are trying to impeach a witness. The prosecutor doesnt have to argue for the defense, its up to the defense to argue that when the statement is taken in its entirety that it was not perjury etc.

 

So there really is nothing to comment on. It would be like arguing I did something wrong because I made a witness out to be a liar over a certain part, but didnt also bring out a part that may have been exculpatory.

 

Editing testimony would have been if the answer was "no" in the transcript and the Prosecutor changed it to "yes".

[Jenksismyhero]

Balta, I was thinking of something on my drive in this morning re: our discussion of guns increasing/escalating crime. By your same logic, shouldn't we ban iphones/smart phones? If you carry an iphone/smart phone, the data would show (if a report would ever be conducted) an increase in criminal activity relating to people carrying iphones/smart phones. Shouldn't we ban them for the safety of all individuals? And before you say it's not to the same degree of harm, keep in mind a victim last year died as a result of an attack over an iphone.

[Balta1701]

Balta, I was thinking of something on my drive in this morning re: our discussion of guns increasing/escalating crime. By your same logic, shouldn't we ban iphones/smart phones? If you carry an iphone/smart phone, the data would show (if a report would ever be conducted) an increase in criminal activity relating to people carrying iphones/smart phones. Shouldn't we ban them for the safety of all individuals? And before you say it's not to the same degree of harm, keep in mind a victim last year died as a result of an attack over an iphone.

No, but I have little issue with regulating where and when they can be used. For example, if you're using one while driving, you've put other people at increased risk, taken away their rights, and that's something we might want to avoid. If you could illustrate a practical method by which removing smart phones from people's hands/pockets while on the street would substantially decrease the crime rate, I'd listen.

 

But of course, that's not going to happen, because any time people take an item of nonzero value outside, it's possible for it to be stolen. It would be just as sensible to ban automobiles because they might be stolen.

 

The point of course also differs in another way. If I try to rob someone on the street, I'm unlikely to try to steal a concealed weapon from them. Thus, the setup and motivation is fundamentally different. And smartphones, cars, money, etc., presumably everything else you'd be carrying that could be stolen, would likely be expected to have some use other than killing people.

[EvilMonkey]

Why do you post this without adding a link? Augh!!!! Extra clicks!

Link was a few posts up when I originally said it.

[EvilMonkey]

Because the prosecutor didnt edit testimony. The prosecutor merely left out certain portions, which is standard practice when you are trying to impeach a witness. The prosecutor doesnt have to argue for the defense, its up to the defense to argue that when the statement is taken in its entirety that it was not perjury etc.

 

So there really is nothing to comment on. It would be like arguing I did something wrong because I made a witness out to be a liar over a certain part, but didnt also bring out a part that may have been exculpatory.

 

Editing testimony would have been if the answer was "no" in the transcript and the Prosecutor changed it to "yes".

Even mildly dishonest journalists use ... to indicate that they left something out that was there. Piecing together lines that didnt go together IS editing.