Trayvon Martin

Manwë was known for many things, but wisdom and power are two that lead the rest of his attributes. Join the Councils and discuss the more weighty matters of Tolkien Fandom.

Re: Trayvon Martin

Postby The Heretic » Fri Nov 22, 2013 4:38 am

Jnyusa wrote:For the record, I did not say, nor did I conclude from reviewing the case over the summer, that George Zimmerman was motivated by racism. On the contrary, I think that racism probably was not part of the actual confrontation between these men except in a very peripheral way. It is the posting in this thread by solicitr and Heretic that represents the face of racism in America today. I'm not sure what 'details' of their inner lives I might have overlooked in judging them so harshly, but I do judge them harshly for the volume of factoids they simply invented and their wholly unwarranted and vicious conclusions about the inner life of Trayvon Martin.


Previously it was 'fabrications' that I posted, and yet you have been unable to provide any of these supposed fabrications.
Now you claim that I 'simply invented factoids', yet I don't see you providing any of these 'factoids' I 'simply invented' either. Why is that?
Because as previously seen with your playing of the race card (for example, here: viewtopic.php?p=3965312#p3965312 ) you are simply delusional. Delusional, rather than dishonest, because, you actually believe it.
The Heretic
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 7:01 am
Top

Re: Trayvon Martin

Postby solicitr » Fri Nov 22, 2013 6:13 am

"It is the posting in this thread by solicitr and Heretic that represents the face of racism in America today."

And it is your reference thereto, together with the ridiculous assertion that criticism by conservatives of the most left-wing President in US history is "racist" (an idiocy I've heard from plenty of the dimmer sort of lefty but never before, I believe, from one with a claim to being intelligent and educated), which is off-base, offensive, and a clumsy attempt to deal the greasy, dog-eared Race Card from the bottom of the deck.

You and Tosh, again, are playing out in the left field of what he calls "the techniques of covert racism," which totally is Secret Racism Decoder Ring territory. Again, I challenge you to come up with your "evidence" of my racism (together with translations for those of us without decoder rings).

It strikes me that it was the Left from the outset that injected race into this affair, from NBC and CNN shamelessly editing the 911 call to make Zimmerman appear racist to the reclassification of Zimmerman as a "white Hispanic" to the irresponsible posturing of Sharpton and his fellow race-vultures to the "open season on young black men" absurdity, right down to the present game of "Zimmermann support = racism." It seems that, unlike we of our part, those on the left can't see individuals as individuals but only as exemplars of Identity Groups.



(As an aside to Minardil, it was also the Left that falsely and dishonestly attempted to inject Florida's stand-your-ground law into the case, in a cynical attempt to drum up gun-control support. It's hardly surprising then that Second Amendment supporters, and those who despise sleazy demagoguery, would respond)
User avatar
solicitr
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1390
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:45 am
Top

Re: Trayvon Martin

Postby Minardil » Fri Nov 22, 2013 9:29 am

(As an aside to Minardil, it was also the Left that falsely and dishonestly attempted to inject Florida's stand-your-ground law into the case, in a cynical attempt to drum up gun-control support. It's hardly surprising then that Second Amendment supporters, and those who despise sleazy demagoguery, would respond)


Counterfactual nonsense.

SYG was a part of the case from the earliest days. It was the reason cited by police for NOT arresting Zimmerman on the night of the shooting:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/sanford-fla-posts-letter-about-why-zimmerman-has-not-been-arrested-in-teens-death/2012/03/21/gIQAdm1ISS_blog.html

it was included in instructions to the Jury prior to their deliberations, and discussed by the Jury DURING their deliberations.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/16/3502481/juror-we-talked-stand-your-ground.html

You continue to claim that it was not a factor, and perhaps by the very narrow definition of whether or not it was directly argued by Zimmerman's defense lawyers, it wasn't a factor in HIS legal teams specific plans, but in the overall scope of the case, from arrest through jury deliberation, the SYG law was very much a factor in this case.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: Trayvon Martin

Postby solicitr » Fri Nov 22, 2013 12:35 pm

There is no conceivable interpretation of the facts, including the prosecution's theory, under which SYG would be involved. SYG only applies to the option of retreat which was simply never an issue in either interpretation of the facts.

Its inclusion in jury instructions macht nichts; judges tend to throw the kitchen sink at them, it's safer.
Last edited by solicitr on Fri Nov 22, 2013 7:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
solicitr
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1390
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:45 am
Top

Re: Trayvon Martin

Postby The Heretic » Fri Nov 22, 2013 3:48 pm

solicitr wrote:There is no conceivable interpretation of the facts, including the prosecution's theory, under which SYG would be involved. SYG only applies to the option of retreat which was simply never an issue in either interpretation of the facts.

I pointed this out probably a year and a half ago.
The Heretic
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 7:01 am
Top

Re: Trayvon Martin

Postby portia » Sun Nov 24, 2013 9:54 am

Well, at least you are consistent. It was wrong then, and is still wrong.

Judges do not "put in" what is in instructions. They are proposed by the parties, and the judges chooses among the the sugestions whatever fits the facts/evidence. If no-one had proposed the stand your ground rule, it would not have been in the instructions.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: Trayvon Martin

Postby The Heretic » Sun Nov 24, 2013 11:23 am

portia wrote:Well, at least you are consistent. It was wrong then, and is still wrong.

No, it was not wrong then, and it is not wrong now (and I kind of recall you agreeing with it when I first posted it).
The Heretic
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 7:01 am
Top

Re: Trayvon Martin

Postby solicitr » Sun Nov 24, 2013 9:50 pm

portia wrote:Well, at least you are consistent. It was wrong then, and is still wrong.


Explain to me then the point at which SYG was a factor. A self-defense situation and an available avenue of retreat. Sorry, doesn't work.


-----------------------
In criminal cases, most trial judges are reluctant to deny any instruction request from the defense unless it's pal[pably absurd, for fear of future reversdal. DAs don't appeal.
User avatar
solicitr
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1390
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:45 am
Top

Re: Trayvon Martin

Postby solicitr » Sun Nov 24, 2013 9:53 pm

This strikes me as remarkabl;y appropriate to this thread:

Roger Kimball wrote:Particularly egregious was the behavior of the “Group of 88,” a congeries of faculty activists and fellow-travelers who signed “What Does a Social Disaster Sound Like?,” a full-page manifesto published in April 2006 in the Duke student newspaper. The statement, which purported to be “listening” to students on campus, mingled anonymous student comments with racialist agitprop. “Regardless of the results of the police investigation,” ran part of the introductory comment, “what is apparent every day now is the anger and fear of many students who know themselves to be objects of racism and sexism.” There followed a mosaic of histrionic proclamations: “We want the absence of terror,” one student is supposed to have said. “But we don’t really know what that means.” “This is not a different experience for us here at Duke University. We go to class with racist classmates, we go to gym with people who are racists . . .”

Some of the Group of 88 were common or garden-variety academic liberals—timid souls whose long tenure in the protected purlieus of the university surrounded by adolescents has nurtured their risible sense of self-importance and political enlightenment. . .

Many people suffered because of the Duke farce. But what of Professor Bakers and his preening, activist colleagues? What of the Group of 88? Only one member apologized. The rest issued a statement that categorically rejected all “public calls to the authors to retract the ad or apologize for it.” I’ve often had occasion in the space to allude to Glenn Reynolds’s contention that higher education in this country is experiencing a dangerous and unsustainable bubble. What happened at Duke, up to and including the grisly aftermath of the conviction of Crystal Mangum for murder, is part of that story of hyperinflation. Travesty finally met tragedy. But the Group of 88 and their enablers sail blithely on.
User avatar
solicitr
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1390
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:45 am
Top

Re: Trayvon Martin

Postby portia » Wed Jan 15, 2014 6:38 pm

Concerning the recent shooting over texting, in Fla.
A bag of popcorn, even the ginormous size, is not a weapon that calls for shooting. It wouldn't do any good against such an object. A punch in the mouth might be arguable.
However, I wonder what the Management was thinking in not intervening. Our theater has 3 or 4 announcements before the movie about not texting, as well as that commercial with a camel.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: Trayvon Martin

Postby Minardil » Thu Jan 16, 2014 2:56 pm

portia wrote:Concerning the recent shooting over texting, in Fla.
A bag of popcorn, even the ginormous size, is not a weapon that calls for shooting. It wouldn't do any good against such an object. A punch in the mouth might be arguable.
However, I wonder what the Management was thinking in not intervening. Our theater has 3 or 4 announcements before the movie about not texting, as well as that commercial with a camel.


Have Rush Limbaugh and Fox News decided yet which side the Conservatives are going to be on?

I mean, are they going to defend the shooter (well, the gun really) and demonize the guy doing the texting (I think Bill O'Reilly has already called texting an "epidemic" or some such), or will they do it the other way around?

Personally, I'm pretty down with who ever says that the shooter was a crazy a$$ b@$T@rd who murdered a guy who was texting his babysitter (during the previews, apparently), and he should go to jail for ever. But I'm curious to see how this might be spun into a gun rights case that would force Conservatives to support the shooter at all costs.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: Trayvon Martin

Postby portia » Fri Feb 21, 2014 12:05 pm

Concerning the shoting over loud music, I do not understand why there was no "2d degree" option. It would seem to me that this shoting was a text book 2d degree shooting, impulsive, spur of the moment, etc.
Based on what I have heard about the case, the prosecution can retry 1st degree murder until the cows come home and not get it. This was not a premeditation case. I can understand why the family is upset with an "attempted murder" charge, but what they should get is 2d degree, not 1st degree.

Maybe the shoter's mind played tricks on him and he thought he saw a shotgun, but I cannot see a "mind-trick" gun as a reasonable threat.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: Trayvon Martin

Postby Minardil » Fri Feb 21, 2014 12:49 pm

portia wrote:Concerning the shoting over loud music, I do not understand why there was no "2d degree" option. It would seem to me that this shoting was a text book 2d degree shooting, impulsive, spur of the moment, etc.
Based on what I have heard about the case, the prosecution can retry 1st degree murder until the cows come home and not get it. This was not a premeditation case. I can understand why the family is upset with an "attempted murder" charge, but what they should get is 2d degree, not 1st degree.

Maybe the shoter's mind played tricks on him and he thought he saw a shotgun, but I cannot see a "mind-trick" gun as a reasonable threat.


I don't buy the story that the shooter thought he saw a shot gun in the car. As I understand the train of events - and I am open to correction if this account is in error - the shooter got out of his car, walked around it, and shot into the driver side door of the victim's car. While this might only take a few seconds, I think it also gives the shooter plenty of time to assess whether or not the occupant of the other car is holding something so large as a shot gun.

The culprit here is Gun Culture. The idea some people have that they just can't go anywhere or do anything without their guns being handy, and whenever they encounter a problem - such as a d-bag blasting awful music from the next car over - their impulse is to reach for their guns.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: Trayvon Martin

Postby GlassHouse » Sun Apr 27, 2014 8:31 pm

The NRA is setting us up for a reign of terror by armed butt heads.

Just a few days after the Georgia governor signed the “guns everywhere” bill into law - basically, just about anybody will be able to carry a gun just about everywhere in Georgia, starting in July - parents pulled their children out of a Little League game because some gun nut was waving a gun around.


Georgia man flaunts gun at local Little League field intimidating parents and children

According to witnesses who spoke with WSB-TV, the man wandered around the Forsythe County park last Tuesday night showing his gun to strangers, telling them “there’s nothing you can do about it.”

“Anyone who was just walking by – you had parents and children coming in for the game – and he’s just standing here, walking around [saying] ‘You want to see my gun? Look, I got a gun and there’s nothing you can do about it.’ He knew he was frightening people. He knew exactly what he was doing,” said parent Karen Rabb.

Rabb said that the man’s intimidating behavior panicked parents causing them to hustle children who were there to play baseball to safety after the man refused to leave.

“It got to the point where we took the kids and brought them into the dugout and the parents lined up in front of the dugout,” Rabb said.

Police report they received 22 calls to 911 reporting the man.



It turns out the guy had a permit, so the cops couldn’t arrest him. He was right - there was nothing anybody could do about him.

Forsythe Sheriff Duane Piper said that he didn’t believe the parents and children were in any danger


He didn’t *believe* the children were in any danger. But how can you tell a whackjob who doesn’t intend to shoot from one who does? Whackjobs don’t come with warning lights. Legally, the cops can’t do anything until after the shooter starts shooting and possibly kills a few people.

Parent Paris Horton, whose son was playing on the baseball diamond at the time of the incident, questioned the man’s motives.

“Why would anyone be walking around a public park, with a lot of children and parents and people here playing baseball, and he’s walking around with a gun?” said Horton. “I don’t think the parents would have been nervous had he just had the gun in his holster and was just watching the game.”


Why do jerks do anything? Because they’re jerks, that’s why. He was enjoying the power. He was enjoying frightening people - but the police couldn't do anything to him because even though he was deliberately intimating a bunch of kids and their parents, showing off his gun at a Little League game, he hadn't broken the law. This won’t be the last time this happens.
User avatar
GlassHouse
Mariner


 
Posts: 7479
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2001 6:51 pm
Location: NH
Top

Re: Trayvon Martin

Postby Minardil » Mon Apr 28, 2014 5:59 am

Glasshouse, I'm going to reply to your post by quoting my own words, from the last line of the post directly above yours:

The culprit here is Gun Culture. The idea some people have that they just can't go anywhere or do anything without their guns being handy, and whenever they encounter a problem - such as a d-bag blasting awful music from the next car over - their impulse is to reach for their guns.


This guy at the park is a perfect example of what I was talking about. Why does he need to take his gun to the park and wave it around at people? And what happens when there is ANOTHER guy at the park, say a dad at the baseball game, who gets offended by the first nut scaring his kids, so HE gets HIS gun???? Suddenly a nice day at the park turns deadly, because two a-holes can't go out to enjoy the sunshine without their guns.


Guns are fine. Gun NUTS are the problem.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: Trayvon Martin

Postby hamlet » Mon Apr 28, 2014 6:07 am

Minardil wrote:Glasshouse, I'm going to reply to your post by quoting my own words, from the last line of the post directly above yours:

The culprit here is Gun Culture. The idea some people have that they just can't go anywhere or do anything without their guns being handy, and whenever they encounter a problem - such as a d-bag blasting awful music from the next car over - their impulse is to reach for their guns.


This guy at the park is a perfect example of what I was talking about. Why does he need to take his gun to the park and wave it around at people? And what happens when there is ANOTHER guy at the park, say a dad at the baseball game, who gets offended by the first nut scaring his kids, so HE gets HIS gun???? Suddenly a nice day at the park turns deadly, because two a-holes can't go out to enjoy the sunshine without their guns.


Guns are fine. Gun NUTS are the problem.


It should also be noted that actual gun nuts, i.e., the folks that wave guns around at Little League games, are in a dramatic minority compared to folks who are responsible gun owners. That's a fact that simply gets lost in the discussion quicker than any other.
User avatar
hamlet
Ringbearer
 
Posts: 10559
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 12:01 pm
Top

Re: Trayvon Martin

Postby Minardil » Mon Apr 28, 2014 7:16 am

hamlet wrote:
Minardil wrote:Glasshouse, I'm going to reply to your post by quoting my own words, from the last line of the post directly above yours:

The culprit here is Gun Culture. The idea some people have that they just can't go anywhere or do anything without their guns being handy, and whenever they encounter a problem - such as a d-bag blasting awful music from the next car over - their impulse is to reach for their guns.


This guy at the park is a perfect example of what I was talking about. Why does he need to take his gun to the park and wave it around at people? And what happens when there is ANOTHER guy at the park, say a dad at the baseball game, who gets offended by the first nut scaring his kids, so HE gets HIS gun???? Suddenly a nice day at the park turns deadly, because two a-holes can't go out to enjoy the sunshine without their guns.


Guns are fine. Gun NUTS are the problem.


It should also be noted that actual gun nuts, i.e., the folks that wave guns around at Little League games, are in a dramatic minority compared to folks who are responsible gun owners. That's a fact that simply gets lost in the discussion quicker than any other.



I'd say that I have no argument, but then, what percentage of" responsible gun owners" in Georgia pushed for this new un-restricted carry law, which so dramatically reflects the Culture I am describing?
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: Trayvon Martin

Postby hamlet » Mon Apr 28, 2014 7:37 am

Minardil wrote:I'd say that I have no argument, but then, what percentage of" responsible gun owners" in Georgia pushed for this new un-restricted carry law, which so dramatically reflects the Culture I am describing?


I don't know, but I suspect that it's the same problem that, for lack of a better label, "The Left" has, that it's difficult to keep the most ignorant and obnoxious amongst any group away from the television cameras. Or, perhaps, the exact inverse since the reporters go hunting these folks out.

It works just like that in terms of actual governance, I suspect, in that the loudest group, the ones shouting most frequently, are not neccessarily representative of the general consensus but only of a minority group whose greatest virtue is volume rather than a well thought out idea or a genuine political position. I cite, as support, about 99% of the 99% movement.
User avatar
hamlet
Ringbearer
 
Posts: 10559
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 12:01 pm
Top

Re: Trayvon Martin

Postby solicitr » Mon Apr 28, 2014 8:08 am

Jail 'em both. I have no idea where the idea has taken root, save in irrational phobias, that responsible gun owners somehow advocate irresponsible gun ownership, as demonstrated by these two stinkers.
User avatar
solicitr
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1390
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:45 am
Top

Re: Trayvon Martin

Postby portia » Mon Apr 28, 2014 9:00 am

I agree that responsible gun owners do not advocate irresponsible gun use.
(I would classify myself with responsible gun owners, but since I have no useable ammunition, I probably do not qualify, and my guns are more useable as clubs).

But it is true in all situations that the responsible people far outnumber the irresponsible. Not all people who are in line at the bank are robbers; not all drivers are irrespnsible or under the influence of something. We still need to understand that the irresponsible people exist (and that everyone is a "law abiding citizen"--until he isn't) and figure out a way to protect ourselves.

I also foresee a parent, carrying a gun, deciding that the guy brandishing the gun is actually dangerous and shooting him.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: Trayvon Martin

Postby GlassHouse » Mon Apr 28, 2014 9:15 am

I agree with portia. The problem isn't these "stinkers" or similar outliers. The problem is the law that allows them to do things like wave guns around at Little League games without consequence. Of course this guy is crazy. Of course he's an outlier. But how does that help? According to the gun aficionados, to use a politically correct term, the correct response for any of these parents, lined up in front of the dugout to protect their kids, (IMO feeling justifiably threatened) would have been to stand their ground and shoot first. Evidently, this is how the new system is supposed to work. Congratulations Ga! You’re now another state that’s too small to be a country, but too large to be an insane asylum.
User avatar
GlassHouse
Mariner


 
Posts: 7479
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2001 6:51 pm
Location: NH
Top

Re: Trayvon Martin

Postby GlassHouse » Mon Apr 28, 2014 9:27 am

So here's the question. Why do we as a society continue to allow this man to carry a weapon around?

He is clearly not capable of responsible and safe gun use. What behavior is it going to take for us to take someones guns away?
User avatar
GlassHouse
Mariner


 
Posts: 7479
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2001 6:51 pm
Location: NH
Top

Re: Trayvon Martin

Postby Minardil » Mon Apr 28, 2014 9:43 am

I also foresee a parent, carrying a gun, deciding that the guy brandishing the gun is actually dangerous and shooting him


Which is exactly the scenario I was talking about above, one guy decides to take his gun to a Little League game, he starts waving it around, another guy has also brought his gun to the game, gets worried and confronts the first guy, somebody gets shot. Instead of passing laws which actively encourage everybody to bring their guns to the game, why not try to encourage people to leave their guns at home?
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: Trayvon Martin

Postby Minardil » Mon Apr 28, 2014 9:47 am

I also foresee a parent, carrying a gun, deciding that the guy brandishing the gun is actually dangerous and shooting him


Which is exactly the scenario I was talking about above, one guy decides to take his gun to a Little League game, he starts waving it around, another guy has also brought his gun to the game, gets worried and confronts the first guy, somebody gets shot. Instead of passing laws which actively encourage everybody to bring their guns to the game, why not try to encourage people to leave their guns at home?
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: Trayvon Martin

Postby hamlet » Mon Apr 28, 2014 11:02 am

GlassHouse wrote:So here's the question. Why do we as a society continue to allow this man to carry a weapon around?

He is clearly not capable of responsible and safe gun use. What behavior is it going to take for us to take someones guns away?


Well, you can't punish him for a crime he might commit, or one he hasn't commited, and until successfully argued otherwise before the appropriate authorities, i.e., the courts of the land, he has the right to carry and, I presume, brandish stupidly the weapon in his possession.
User avatar
hamlet
Ringbearer
 
Posts: 10559
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 12:01 pm
Top

Re: Trayvon Martin

Postby GlassHouse » Mon Apr 28, 2014 12:08 pm

hamlet wrote:
GlassHouse wrote:So here's the question. Why do we as a society continue to allow this man to carry a weapon around?

He is clearly not capable of responsible and safe gun use. What behavior is it going to take for us to take someones guns away?


Well, you can't punish him for a crime he might commit, or one he hasn't commited, and until successfully argued otherwise before the appropriate authorities, i.e., the courts of the land, he has the right to carry and, I presume, brandish stupidly the weapon in his possession.

My question is more of a philosophical one than a procedural one. Of course it has to go through the legislative or judicial process but at what point do people stop buying the crap put out by the gun lobby? "An armed society is a polite society" OK, sure.
Does it have to get to the point where you've had your own kids intimidated in the park by a wacko? Do ordinary people, who would not otherwise have felt the need to arm themselves in public, need to start packing just to feel safe in the parks?

My favorite part is when the scared parent starts working overtime to somehow fit this into her beliefs on the second amendment.

“I own a gun. I have no problems with the Second Amendment. But they do not belong in a parking lot where we have children everywhere. If you want to make a statement, go to the Capitol,” said Rabb"

I've owned guns too and I believe that Americans should have a right to own a firearm but it should come with defined responsibilities and restrictions and should be subject to immediate revocation if a person is shown not to be able to handle those responsibilities .

The situation as it is, is nuts.
User avatar
GlassHouse
Mariner


 
Posts: 7479
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2001 6:51 pm
Location: NH
Top

Re: Trayvon Martin

Postby GlassHouse » Mon Apr 28, 2014 12:12 pm

Minardil wrote:
I also foresee a parent, carrying a gun, deciding that the guy brandishing the gun is actually dangerous and shooting him


Which is exactly the scenario I was talking about above, one guy decides to take his gun to a Little League game, he starts waving it around, another guy has also brought his gun to the game, gets worried and confronts the first guy, somebody gets shot. Instead of passing laws which actively encourage everybody to bring their guns to the game, why not try to encourage people to leave their guns at home?

The laws are working as planned. The NRA wants more guys like this shmuck, they will scare the crap out of people who in turn will buy more guns to protect themselves. The arms race is on! More money for the arms industry, that’s the point. The 2nd amendment is being used as a marketing tool!
User avatar
GlassHouse
Mariner


 
Posts: 7479
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2001 6:51 pm
Location: NH
Top

Re: Trayvon Martin

Postby hamlet » Mon Apr 28, 2014 12:23 pm

GlassHouse wrote:I've owned guns too and I believe that Americans should have a right to own a firearm but it should come with defined responsibilities and restrictions and should be subject to immediate revocation if a person is shown not to be able to handle those responsibilities .

The situation as it is, is nuts.


Well, as I've said to somebody else very recently on this very issue, the problem isn't neccessarily with the fact that the guy has a gun. Or even that he has it while at this public outing. It's that he used it in a manner you (and most sane people) consider irresponsible and dangerous.

What you're problem is with is that the law wasn't enforced. That's not an issue with "the gun lobby." That's an issue with local law enforcement not doing its job.
User avatar
hamlet
Ringbearer
 
Posts: 10559
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 12:01 pm
Top

Re: Trayvon Martin

Postby Minardil » Mon Apr 28, 2014 1:43 pm

What you're problem is with is that the law wasn't enforced. That's not an issue with "the gun lobby." That's an issue with local law enforcement not doing its job.


And it begs the question, WHY wouldn't local law enforcement consider a guy menacing people with a gun to be against the law somehow? There isn't any doubt that large numbers of people felt menaced and threatened, and that the man was being deliberately provocative with the gun, even though I'd agree that he probably had zero intention of shooting anyone, his behavior was reckless and irresponsible and may well have led to actual violence. So, why did the local cops say that the new law protected this sort of behavior in public?
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: Trayvon Martin

Postby hamlet » Tue Apr 29, 2014 6:03 am

Minardil wrote:
What you're problem is with is that the law wasn't enforced. That's not an issue with "the gun lobby." That's an issue with local law enforcement not doing its job.


And it begs the question, WHY wouldn't local law enforcement consider a guy menacing people with a gun to be against the law somehow? There isn't any doubt that large numbers of people felt menaced and threatened, and that the man was being deliberately provocative with the gun, even though I'd agree that he probably had zero intention of shooting anyone, his behavior was reckless and irresponsible and may well have led to actual violence. So, why did the local cops say that the new law protected this sort of behavior in public?


Forgive me, I haven't examined the article, but . . .

Were the police summoned? A complaint filed?

It's kind of depressing, but the number of things that go unpunished because nobody bothered to pick up a phone and notify the police is staggering. We had, in my current town, a drug dealer working out of a local restaurant for several years. And when I say a dealer, I don't mean dime bags to local folks, I'm talking tons of product. He was there for years and never got touched.

Why?

Because nobody ever bothered to call the police and have them look into it. Not a single one. The police, busy with day to day operations and dealing with daily things, never had cause to actually go into the building and look. It took one person to pick up the phone and make a complaint about strange goings on in the middle of the night for it all to happen because for years the locals (some of whom literally lived across the street) never thought to call it in and report it.

Did the parents in this instance call up the police and say "hey, there's a crazy guy waving a gun around at a little league game over here!"?
User avatar
hamlet
Ringbearer
 
Posts: 10559
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 12:01 pm
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy: Councils of Manwë

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests