Everyone knows he didn't get shot because he's a thug. He was a thug, robbed a store with a weapon, and was shot in the process. You're misrepresenting of the situation is sad.

 

In case it wasn't clear, my major gripe with this case isn't necessarily the guy getting shot, it's the characterization of the mother as being a "whiner". Asking for a proper investigation into the death of her son isn't whining.

 

 

Actually, yes, it does. My right to safety from great bodily harm supersedes your right to rob a convenience store. No one is asking for an improper investigation.

 

Your right to defend yourself from a lethal threat is as valid as a person's right to life. Neither supersedes the other because what you're doing is essentially defending your own right to life. But the problem here is that the shooter wasn't defending himself from a lethal threat, he was shooting a man who was already on his way out and was no longer posing a direct threat to anyone. There is a small but very important difference in the situation.

 

Your argument that no one is "directly threatened" is irrelevant since several subjects were already threatened. If a subject presents a means and capability to cause great bodily harm to someone (robbing a store with a weapon) and attempts to flee, then one has the legal right / authority to end the situation with equal force. The court system has already decided that if ANYONE (Officer or otherwise) suspects that the fleeing felon has the ability and can actually cause harm to another, then they're justified in shooting that person.

 

 

 

 

This isn't about the Stand Your Ground Law. Not that it matters to you, but the murder rate in Florida has dropped 36% since the onset of the SYG law--more than double the national average.

 

Yeah, that's because SYG laws change what would have been murders into shootings. The Zimmerman incident is a classic case, under old laws that incident would be a murder and Zimmerman would probably have been convicted. Under SYG it's a shooting. It's why politicians love SYG laws, they get act like they're tough on crime and wave skewed statistics around to make it seem like crime is going down when in fact all they did was change the definition of the crime. Changing what is counted as murder what doesn't make the victims any less dead.

 

 

Most gun owners I know fully support background checks. They don't support the government's attempt to make it more difficult by increasing wait times, fees, any other pointless efforts to prohibit the lawful carry of firearms. The government had been proven to be ineffective in background checks. For example, approx. 10% of those denied firearm carrying licenses were incorrectly denied. Approx. 20% of those that were denied and appealed were then given a license to carry. 

 

Again with the "rights"... He doesn't have the right to threaten the lives of others. Despite you opinion, the law says this man was justified in shooting those criminals. 

 

No he doesn't, but that's doesn't mean he loses his inalienable human right to life. The law may say the shooting was justified, but I see nothing justifiable about shooting a man who is essentially running away and no longer an immediate threat. If the shooter was so concerned about protecting others, why didn't he step while the robbery was taking place? Why did he wait until the criminal has halfway out the door to open fire?

 

 

You couldn't be more wrong. 

 

Your argument doesn't address an increased use of weapons to commit murders. 

 

Having actual experience in this conversation, I've never arrested anyone that was lawfully carrying a firearm (if they used or attempted to use a firearm). Never. Obviously, it happens but its so rare that it's almost meaningless. On a side note, I work in one of the more dangerous areas in Georgia. The only reason the murder rate isn't in line with European countries is because of gang-on-gang violence. Your "average" person isn't at the same risk as members affiliated with criminal gangs.

 

As for your other claim, the US is lower than or equal to many European countries in robberies, kidnapping, rapes, other "major crimes". In fact the US has a lower murder rate than a lot of European countries. I think it's interesting that you say gun violence. While gun violence is higher here, the murder rate is lower.

 

If you avoid cities like Chicago, St. Luis, Oakland, bla bla bla... then you're as safe here as anywhere in Europe.

 

The murder rate in the US is lower than most European countries? What have you been smoking? The homicide rate in the US is 4.7 per 100,000 inhabitants. That's higher than all but 6 European countries, with those 6 all being former USSR states. The homicide rate in my country is 1.1 per 100,000. Germany is at 0.8, France at 1.1, the UK at 1.2. I could list at least a dozen more countries that are hovering around the 1.1 mark. Gang-on-gang violence would certainly raise the murder rate, but I doubt it would quadruple it. It's the same for most violent crimes, Europe's rates are lower across the board even though that's hard to say outright because of differing definitions of what violent crime is.

 

As for gun control, I agree that most efforts that currently being presented are futile because of the large amount of unregistered or outright illegal guns in the US. If people really want gun violence to drop it's going to take a concerted effort across the board from citizens, local, state and federal government as well as firearms manufacturers and especially legal gun owners. Of course, it'd be easier to find unicorns on Mars than it would to get everyone to buy into this.

 

See underlined.

---

 

 If only shooting paper targets at the range constituted defensive/tactical training...


While I am very much pro 2A, I think the process for being issued a CCW should include more than a background check, a review of statutes and gun parts, loading and discharging 24 rds at a piece of paper, and mailing a ck to the state. I'm not suggesting everyone needs SWAT training, but some form training under stress should be required.

I agree and there are plenty of places in Florida to take defensive handgun courses as well as advanced classes for rifles and shotguns too.

 

See underlined.

That last sentence says it all my friend. 

---

 

 If only shooting paper targets at the range constituted defensive/tactical training...


While I am very much pro 2A, I think the process for being issued a CCW should include more than a background check, a review of statutes and gun parts, loading and discharging 24 rds at a piece of paper, and mailing a ck to the state. I'm not suggesting everyone needs SWAT training, but some form training under stress should be required.

 

This is exactly my point.

 

Hard_Eight, on 08 Nov 2013 - 4:13 PM, said:<a class="" href='http://jungle.jaguars.com/index.php?app=forums&module=forums&section=findpost&pid=50104'></a>

 


I agree and there are plenty of places in Florida to take defensive handgun courses as well as advanced classes for rifles and shotguns too.

 

Those courses are voluntary.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Rodney Carrington rules.

 

I liked his sitcom ... I was a bit surprised it didn't make it all that long ... Or I should say, my perception is that it didn't make it that long.

---

See underlined.

 

No.

---

I agree and there are plenty of places in Florida to take defensive handgun courses as well as advanced classes for rifles and shotguns too.

 

That last sentence says it all my friend. 

 

 

Who's plan B are we looking at here?

 

When Plan B is a Kalashnikov AK-47 ... I find myself a bit confused.  

---

I like Plan B.......

---

I like Plan B.......

 

Commie !!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Can you read the ammo boxes? mmmmm-hhmmm :yes: 

---

I like Plan B.......

I do too, but purely as a marvel of engineering.

 

I think part of my misgivings with the American attitude towards firearms is the refusal to admit that that these are instruments of death. They are not toys to be admired, collected or polished, they have one function; to kill. I think a lot of people seem to forget that.

---

Yeah, that's because SYG laws change what would have been murders into shootings. The Zimmerman incident is a classic case, under old laws that incident would be a murder and Zimmerman would probably have been convicted. Under SYG it's a shooting. It's why politicians love SYG laws, they get act like they're tough on crime and wave skewed statistics around to make it seem like crime is going down when in fact all they did was change the definition of the crime. Changing what is counted as murder what doesn't make the victims any less dead.

OOPS! The Zimmerman trial was NOT stand your ground.

 

Don't you just hate it when you discredit your argument by simply being flat out wrong?

---

What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.







 

OOPS! The Zimmerman trial was NOT stand your ground.

 

Don't you just hate it when you discredit your argument by simply being flat out wrong?

 

Zimmerman was acquitted in the shooting death of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin after claiming self-defense. While "stand your ground" was not directly mentioned in the trial, the law was included in the jury instructions

 

From this article; http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-5761...committee/

---

From this article; http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-5761...committee/

 

I'll see your slanted media and raise you a copy of the ACTUAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS given in the case.

 

http://www.wftv.com/documents/2013/jul/1...man-trial/

 

You are a victim of the media. They have lied to you, and you bought it hook, line, and sinker.

---

What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.







 

I'll see your slanted media and raise you a copy of the ACTUAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS given in the case.

 

http://www.wftv.com/documents/2013/jul/1...man-trial/

 

You are a victim of the media. They have lied to you, and you bought it hook, line, and sinker.

 

From the document you linked (emphasis added by me):

 

 

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

 

That sounds like a textbook description of stand your ground laws to me.

---

Tread lightly. 

---

Live long and prosper \\// 

Commie !!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Can you read the ammo boxes? mmmmm-hhmmm :yes: 

 

Been my experiance that the AK-47 is a far Superior weapon them the M-16 (AR-15). Sure the fire rate is slower but it doesn't JAM!

---

From the document you linked (emphasis added by me):

 

 

That sounds like a textbook description of stand your ground laws to me.

Just because the 3 words, "stand your ground" are found in the instructions to the jury, it does not mean that the case was a "stand your ground" case. It wasn't a stand your ground case. Any attorney will verify this for you. As much as you and people who share your mindset want it to be, this case simply was not a stand your ground case.

 

Better luck next time.

---

What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.







 

I'll see your slanted media and raise you a copy of the ACTUAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS given in the case.

 

http://www.wftv.com/documents/2013/jul/1...man-trial/

 

You are a victim of the media. They have lied to you, and you bought it hook, line, and sinker.

 

There is no law named "Stand Your Ground". It's in the part of Florida law that defines self-defense and self-protection, and was indeed included in the jury instructions. See page 12 of the document.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

There is no law named "Stand Your Ground". It's in the part of Florida law that defines self-defense and self-protection, and was indeed included in the jury instructions. See page 12 of the document.

Wrong.

 

It is also part of the pre-trial process. Just as taking an innocent by reason of insanity plea, using a stand your ground defense fundamentally changes parts of a trial.

 

Again, 3 words of jury instruction do not make a law. The case was not stand your ground. Don't take my word for it. Ask any judge or attorney.

---

What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.







 

More on this from the slanted media. This time, they actually got it right though.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/30/justice/fl...n-defense/

---

What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.







 

I think part of my misgivings with the American attitude towards firearms is the refusal to admit that that these are instruments of death. They are not toys to be admired, collected or polished, they have one function; to kill. I think a lot of people seem to forget that.

 

You are sooo wrong. If it can't kill, I ain't buying it for protection. Americans know this, even the bad guy Americans know this... That is why bad guys don't hold up a bank with a hotdog, and the good guy doesn't throw a bun, and pack of mustard at then to stop them.

 

Been my experiance that the AK-47 is a far Superior weapon them the M-16 (AR-15). Sure the fire rate is slower but it doesn't JAM!

 

Good catch (very minimal though), you shall be forgiven for this transgression (this time) ... I got my eye on you though ... Comrade. :pirate:  ... Wait, not that eye, that is my bad eye ... the other eye, my good 1. :pinch:  Not that one either. ... I shall request a new smiley be created to represent the correct eye. Until then, watch your step ... I am on to you.

---