Zimmerman

Dumbass pinko-nazi-neoconservative-hippy-capitalists.
Post Reply
Ddrak
Save a Koala, deport an Australian
Posts: 17478
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:00 pm
Location: Straya mate!
Contact:

Re: Zimmerman

Post by Ddrak » Sun Jul 21, 2013 9:38 am

Embar Angylwrath wrote:Ok, California requires minimal force to defend, thanks for that.

However, if your fists aren't doing the job of defending, and the next tool you have is a gun, you're justified in using the only tool left to you.

Just like Zimmerman did. The fight went on for nearly 30 seconds to a minute, according to expert testimony, IIRC. For any of you that have been in a fight, that's a long ass time. Especially if you are getting your ass kicked. Let's say that all went down in California, where one has the duty to retreat and the duty to use the least amount of force to defend. Zimmerman would still have walked here. He could not retreat, his use of fists was getting him nowhere, the only tool left to him was his firearm, which he used in self defense, not in an intent to kill.

Dd's position that SYG is synonymous with principles of self defense is incorrect. SYG expands on already established rights to defend person and property, and Zimmerman didn't even need to invoke it since he already met the lower standard of simple self defense.
Completely disagree.

i) Claim that a jury in CA would let him walk is speculation.
ii) Losing a fist fight doesn't give you the right to *kill* the other guy.
iii) If you kill someone by accident with a lethal weapon, it's called manslaughter.

My position is just fine. Yours, on the other hand, enshrines escalation as a viable and legal path, which is pretty dumb.


@Torakus: As I said, it's all irrelevant anyway, and I *didn't* say it was the law that killed him.

Embar wrote:I think the average citizen is justified in using deadly force against any attacker.
I think that is horrific, frightening and completely sociopathic.

Dd
Image

User avatar
Harlowe
Nubile nuptaphobics ftw
Posts: 10640
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 8:13 pm
Location: My underground lair

Re: Zimmerman

Post by Harlowe » Sun Jul 21, 2013 10:36 am

Ddrak wrote:
Embar wrote:I think the average citizen is justified in using deadly force against any attacker.
I think that is horrific, frightening and completely sociopathic.

Dd
Couldn't agree more with that.

Embar Angylwrath
President: Rsak Fan Club
Posts: 11674
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2003 2:31 am
Location: Top of the food chain

Re: Zimmerman

Post by Embar Angylwrath » Sun Jul 21, 2013 11:20 am

Harlowe, would you use deadly force to stop someone from raping you?
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.

Embar
Alarius

User avatar
Harlowe
Nubile nuptaphobics ftw
Posts: 10640
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 8:13 pm
Location: My underground lair

Re: Zimmerman

Post by Harlowe » Sun Jul 21, 2013 11:54 am

I don't walk around or sleep armed. So, no I wouldn't. I'd have pepper-spray and whatever self-defense moves I remember.

Massterloo
Intimate Sexretary
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 3:09 pm

Re: Zimmerman

Post by Massterloo » Sun Jul 21, 2013 4:07 pm

I love how this went from a wannabe cop that deserved an ass kicking, to the kid's frame of mind was similar to rape. Trolling Genius.
Mastrloo
70 Iksar Monk
7 years later.
The hills are still triangles.
And the trees are still blocks.

Partha
Reading is fundamental!!!1!!
Posts: 11322
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2002 9:42 am
Location: Rockford, IL

Re: Zimmerman

Post by Partha » Mon Jul 22, 2013 4:19 am

Harlowe wrote:I don't walk around or sleep armed. So, no I wouldn't. I'd have pepper-spray and whatever self-defense moves I remember.
Slut. You had it coming, then. Get a gun, and prove your virtue! :P
Well, it’s the Super-Monroe Doctrine: “Get off our oil, people who dress funny!” - M. Bouffant

"You're a bad captain, Zarde. People like you only learn by being touched, and hard. And you will greatly disapprove of where these men put their hands." - M. Vanderbeam.

User avatar
Harlowe
Nubile nuptaphobics ftw
Posts: 10640
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 8:13 pm
Location: My underground lair

Re: Zimmerman

Post by Harlowe » Mon Jul 22, 2013 7:07 am

I've wanted to check out Krav Maga, since there is a studio right in town, but I'll most likely never have a gun.

My dad had a lot of guns. My family in general (military folks) enjoy guns. I have no problem with target practice or shooting a 22, but I have an aversion to them in my home. Probably stems from when I was little. I think I was around 4ish, but I was messing with a small gun I found with my dad's other handguns and I somehow shot myself in the stomach. I'm not sure what was in it, a blank maybe, because I don't remember a lot about it other than it knocked me over and there was a hole in my shirt and I remember a wound of some kind. Also my mom freaking out at my dad.

Embar Angylwrath
President: Rsak Fan Club
Posts: 11674
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2003 2:31 am
Location: Top of the food chain

Re: Zimmerman

Post by Embar Angylwrath » Mon Jul 22, 2013 11:19 am

I think its a safe assumption to say almost every woman would use a gun to stop themselves from being raped, if a gun was available. Would you disagree with that statement Harlowe?

If you had access to a firearm, would you use it in self defense? If faced with shooting a rapist or taking the rape, which do you think you'd do?
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.

Embar
Alarius

Embar Angylwrath
President: Rsak Fan Club
Posts: 11674
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2003 2:31 am
Location: Top of the food chain

Re: Zimmerman

Post by Embar Angylwrath » Mon Jul 22, 2013 11:22 am

@ Dd... what in the hell is a lethal weapon? Almost anything can be a lethal weapon, including fists, a sewing needle, a pair of scissors, a rock, the sidewalk, etc.

If you accidently kill someone it MAY be manslaughter. If you kill someone defending yourself, no matter what you use to defend, a gun, your fists, whatever, it's called justifiable homicide.
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.

Embar
Alarius

User avatar
Harlowe
Nubile nuptaphobics ftw
Posts: 10640
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 8:13 pm
Location: My underground lair

Re: Zimmerman

Post by Harlowe » Mon Jul 22, 2013 3:08 pm

Embar, I'd say the counter to what you are saying is true - most women wouldn't shoot their rapist, because most women aren't packing heat while they go about their daily business.

Ddrak
Save a Koala, deport an Australian
Posts: 17478
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:00 pm
Location: Straya mate!
Contact:

Re: Zimmerman

Post by Ddrak » Mon Jul 22, 2013 3:43 pm

I think its a safe assumption to say almost every woman would use a gun to stop themselves from being raped, if a gun was available.
That's not even close to a safe assumption.
@ Dd... what in the hell is a lethal weapon? Almost anything can be a lethal weapon, including fists, a sewing needle, a pair of scissors, a rock, the sidewalk, etc.

If you accidently kill someone it MAY be manslaughter. If you kill someone defending yourself, no matter what you use to defend, a gun, your fists, whatever, it's called justifiable homicide.
A lethal weapon is one that is significantly lethal - is good at killing. Firearms are definitely in this category. Claymores probably are too. Weapons whose primary purpose is a kill.

If you kill someone defending yourself it can be pretty much anything on the spectrum depending on how disproportionate your action was. Firearm in a fist fight - disproportionate. Claymore in a grenade fight - probably ok.

Dd
Image

Embar Angylwrath
President: Rsak Fan Club
Posts: 11674
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2003 2:31 am
Location: Top of the food chain

Re: Zimmerman

Post by Embar Angylwrath » Mon Jul 22, 2013 5:31 pm

Harlowe wrote:Embar, I'd say the counter to what you are saying is true - most women wouldn't shoot their rapist, because most women aren't packing heat while they go about their daily business.
That's a dodge Harlowe. The question was, if you had the opportunity to use a firearm to defend yourself from a rape, would you? And by extension, do you think most other women would use a firearm to defend themselves from a rape, if they had the opportunity? Simple question.
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.

Embar
Alarius

Embar Angylwrath
President: Rsak Fan Club
Posts: 11674
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2003 2:31 am
Location: Top of the food chain

Re: Zimmerman

Post by Embar Angylwrath » Mon Jul 22, 2013 5:38 pm

Ddrak wrote:
If you kill someone defending yourself it can be pretty much anything on the spectrum depending on how disproportionate your action was. Firearm in a fist fight - disproportionate. Claymore in a grenade fight - probably ok.

Dd
That's not how the law sees it. In the most restrictive sense, such as is the case here in California, you get to defend yourself using the minimum amount of force needed to do so. If someone is assaulting you with their fists, and your fists are insufficient to stop the assault, and you can't retreat, if you are packing heat, the next tool you have is a firearm, and you're allowed to use it. You are not required by law to take endure the assault just because your tool to stop the assault is disproportionate to the initial attack. You're daft if you think just because you can't defend yourself hand-to-hand you're prohibited form using disproportionate force.
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.

Embar
Alarius

User avatar
Alluveal
vagina boob
Posts: 3982
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 6:11 pm
Location: COLORADO

Re: Zimmerman

Post by Alluveal » Mon Jul 22, 2013 6:07 pm

If I had a gun and a guy was going to rape me, then yeah, I'd absolutely shoot the fucker. But, I don't have a gun with me. Ever. So, unless I think I can karate-fu the dude with my fists of fury and snap his neck, I'm not defending with intent to kill.

Arkaron
50 Helens Agree: Necros > All
Posts: 1030
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 2:49 pm
Location: Apparently Ohio

Re: Zimmerman

Post by Arkaron » Mon Jul 22, 2013 7:19 pm

Most women are raped by someone they know, so it might be more difficult to shoot say, your boyfriend / husband / friend / classmate.

Also, if guns made women safer, the United States military would be the safest place ever for women, and there is a huge problem with assault there.

ETA: these responses have no bearing on the case, because there's less ambiguity in the defensive wounds that come from "This person was trying to rape me and I shot them."
arkaron / last of the chiksar / veteran crew

User avatar
Harlowe
Nubile nuptaphobics ftw
Posts: 10640
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 8:13 pm
Location: My underground lair

Re: Zimmerman

Post by Harlowe » Mon Jul 22, 2013 8:25 pm

It's not a dodge at all Embar. It's real answer, not a fantasy, trying-to-make-your-point answer. If I wanted a gun "just in case I need it during a rape" I can have one. I choose not to, so the answer will always be "no" because I would never have one.

Are you going to bring up some weird scenario where a magic gun happens to be nearby just conveniently while I'm being raped....if so, that's preposterous. You just want to hear the answer that validates your point whether it's realistic or not.

Jarochai Alabaster
The Original Crayola Cleric
Posts: 2380
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 3:52 pm
Location: Behind you

Re: Zimmerman

Post by Jarochai Alabaster » Mon Jul 22, 2013 9:18 pm

Embar Angylwrath wrote:
Harlowe wrote:Embar, I'd say the counter to what you are saying is true - most women wouldn't shoot their rapist, because most women aren't packing heat while they go about their daily business.
That's a dodge Harlowe. The question was, if you had the opportunity to use a firearm to defend yourself from a rape, would you? And by extension, do you think most other women would use a firearm to defend themselves from a rape, if they had the opportunity? Simple question.
Jarochai Alabaster wrote:
Embar Angylwrath wrote:
Jarochai Alabaster wrote:Embar,

If you were being suspiciously followed by someone both in their vehicle then again on foot and upon face-to-face confrontation they immediately reached for something concealed when you asked for an explanation, would you or would you not believe they meant you harm?
If I felt uncomfortable with someone following me, I'd high tail to a safe spot (literally seconds away for Martin), and not seek a confrontation.
The exact same could be said for Zimmerman, but that wasn't the question. Answer the question, please.
"I find it elevating and exhilarating to discover that we live in a universe which permits the evolution of molecular machines as intricate and subtle as we."
-Carl Sagan

Ddrak
Save a Koala, deport an Australian
Posts: 17478
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:00 pm
Location: Straya mate!
Contact:

Re: Zimmerman

Post by Ddrak » Tue Jul 23, 2013 2:41 am

Embar Angylwrath wrote:That's not how the law sees it. In the most restrictive sense, such as is the case here in California, you get to defend yourself using the minimum amount of force needed to do so. If someone is assaulting you with their fists, and your fists are insufficient to stop the assault, and you can't retreat, if you are packing heat, the next tool you have is a firearm, and you're allowed to use it. You are not required by law to take endure the assault just because your tool to stop the assault is disproportionate to the initial attack. You're daft if you think just because you can't defend yourself hand-to-hand you're prohibited form using disproportionate force.
So your position is the guy losing in a pub fight is validated in shooting his assailant? /golfclap.

Precedent or it didn't happen, and defining "CA as the most restrictive" is somewhat laughable:
The Queensland Police wrote:In Queensland, you have the right to physically defend yourself with reasonable force, provided the force is authorised, justified or excused by law.

The law does not allow you to carry anything that can be described as an offensive weapon. E.g. mace or spray dyes, or items that have been specially adapted, such as a sharpened comb, or knife carried for the purpose of self defence.
Link

Dd
Image

User avatar
Fallakin Kuvari
Rabid-Boy
Posts: 4109
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 11:51 pm
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Contact:

Re: Zimmerman

Post by Fallakin Kuvari » Tue Jul 23, 2013 4:29 am

Ddrak wrote:
Embar Angylwrath wrote:That's not how the law sees it. In the most restrictive sense, such as is the case here in California, you get to defend yourself using the minimum amount of force needed to do so. If someone is assaulting you with their fists, and your fists are insufficient to stop the assault, and you can't retreat, if you are packing heat, the next tool you have is a firearm, and you're allowed to use it. You are not required by law to take endure the assault just because your tool to stop the assault is disproportionate to the initial attack. You're daft if you think just because you can't defend yourself hand-to-hand you're prohibited form using disproportionate force.
So your position is the guy losing in a pub fight is validated in shooting his assailant? /golfclap.

Dd
That's a simple question of self defense. Of course the person would be validated in shooting their attacker if it was their last means of defense.

Hell, Zimmerman won his case on that.
Warlord Fallakin Kuvari - 85 Wood Elf Warrior, Brell Serilis forever.
Grandmaster Nikallaf Kuvari - 70 Iksar Monk.

Ddrak
Save a Koala, deport an Australian
Posts: 17478
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:00 pm
Location: Straya mate!
Contact:

Re: Zimmerman

Post by Ddrak » Tue Jul 23, 2013 4:35 am

I just don't get why people see nothing wrong with that.

Dd
Image

Post Reply