No, but I have reason to believe you are either a) ill informed or b) relying on edited evidence.
Well said.
This is a really encouraging post, and I thank you for making it.
For what it’s worth, I traveled a bit of ground myself on the issue: when the discussion first started, I was making points about generic SYG laws. As it continued, I researched the specific Florida version and got appalled quickly.
Wait, I’m not quite clear.
So do you still maintain that your “most important fact” is that Zimmerman was an “anti-racism activist?”
And was he on a “campaign to create awareness of racism in his local police force” or was he inciting already inflamed tensions in a community all too familiar with the problems, and attempting to misdirect their anger onto a convenient scapegoat who was already set to retire in a month?
No they’re not, dude. They are observing conflicts and tensions between the two communities. They weren’t disparaging anyone…in fact, I’ve never seen anyone talk as much trash about black people as a group as my black co-workers/friends, in some cases. They’re brutal and accurate. They pull no punches.
Many middle-class blacks have serious disregard for their less affluent/hardworking/fortunate brothers and sisters. OTOH, they often have a lot of RESPECT for how hard most Hispanic immigrants work. They mention it as a very positive tendency, at the same time they make jokes about how they live 40 to a house, etc..
The hilarious part is, I probably know more actual black people (and know them well, I work with them every day, and grew up around them) than every white person in this forum in toto does. Hilarously, yet and still, you want to argue.
There is one point on which you and I will never agree, I fear. I say, when safety and common sense are at odds with the law, FUCK the law. I say this particularly when it comes to handgun laws, badly-written SYG laws, etc..
You love the law. You’d marry the law, if you could. ROFL
And let’s be clear, I do think that a well-written SYG law can be a…well, not wonderful, but useful.
I think the British laws that prevent you from killing home invaders is ridiculous. If you invade my home, and make me think you might hurt someone, I’m going to either kill you, or sell you to some trucker to keep as his gimp in a box in the back of his truck cab.
To me, it makes no difference if George Zimmerman is the most well-intentioned citizen in his town. He and handguns do not mix well, and, as such, he needs to be kept away from them. Since that’s not possible if he goes free, he needs to be locked up, for his and the community’s safety.
Who on this thread wants to live next to Zimmerman? Who wants him driving around, armed, at night, in your neighborhood?
Those are not happy thoughts, to the sane.
I feel like I’m totally stating the obvious here, but this issue, even more than most, is not one that ought to be viewed as having only two sides. For instance, without having followed the case particularly closely, if I had to make fairly uninformed judgments, I would guess that the following statements are all simultaneously true:
(1) George Zimmerman is a somewhat racist jerk, and his actions more than anything else fairly directly led to the tragic death of Treyvon Martin. Morally and ethically, he holds a high degree of responsibility for that tragedy.
(2) Treyvon Martin would be alive today if he had acted somewhat more calmly
(3) George Zimmerman’s actions may not have violated the law
(4) But that may be because it’s a stupid law
(5) The police/DA likely don’t have sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman committed murder, and thus Zimmerman should not go to jail
(6) The police/DA may well have done a poor job of investigating what happened initially
(7) Which may be due to some racism on their part, or may not
Note that I will not debate any of those statements because, as I said, I’ve only peripherally been paying attention to his case. My point is that in this case, even more than in many public issues, it’s crazy to think of there being “two sides”, or assuming that someone who makes one statement about one aspect of the situation that is perceived as “pro-Zimmerman” or “pro-Treyvon” therefore subscribes to any of a laundry list of other positions on “the same side”.
Oh, and one other side note concerning my pet SDMB debate topic, which is how partisan these boards are. I note that in this thread, Bricker (who I strongly believe is not a bigot) was accused of bigotry… and then a whole lot of people, many of whom disagree with his politics, defended him against that charge. So on the one hand, at some point in the future it would be entirely truthful for someone to say that in this thread, Bricker was called a bigot, presumably by a liberal… and it’s pretty clear what that implies about the level of partisanness on the SDMB. But, while technically true, that statement would be incredibly misleading.
You want to lock him up because you don’t like the thought of him in your neighbourhood? It’s astonishing that people are posting stuff like this, and yet I’m being accused of bigotry…
If his story turns out to be true, I’d say him and his handgun worked perfectly together, by successfully defending him from an attack. That’s presumably the reason he owned it in the first place.
But then, in your post to Bricker, you make it clear that you have no respect for the protection the law gives all of us, and don’t understand that ignoring a bad law to lock up someone because you dislike them is dangerous to everyone, as you have no way of knowing you won’t be the next person disliked.
It’s not the SYG law that matters here - if Zimmerman’s story is true, he’d have been justified in shooting Martin anywhere he was allowed to carry a gun.
Cite please.
In the UK you are allowed to use “reasonable force” to protect yourself or your property. That goes all the way up to lethal force, if you (reasonably) felt your life was at risk. There’s substantial amounts of precedent establishing that.
The most well known case that led to controversy was Tony Martin, who was convicted of manslaughter after he shot two burglars, killing one of them. This is purely because the two youths were trying to flee, and both were shot in the back, leading the jury to believe that Martin used excessive force.
My 2 year old daughter’s day care has a “Guns are not allowed on this premises”, on what fucking planet does it make sense for a preschool to be legally obligated to ban firearms with a sign.
But if you own a weapon, or keep something that could be repurposed as a weapon near your person, or you actually attempt to invoke this law, or you’re in a political period where burglary is considered a legitimate occupation, then no dice on any of this, de facto.
(As you can tell, I strongly support gun ownership rights and self-defense and look down on countries where it is, effectively, illegal; I also strongly oppose hunting down and killing racial minorities for sport and then claiming “self-defense” after you do so. Perhaps this makes me part of a small crossover on this topic.)
I haven’t posted on this topic yet because I am pretty neutral on this until the facts come out completely. But I am curious about this sentiment:
I don’t understand the definition of attack here. If I were in a SYG state with a CCP and walked up to some bikers and antagonized them until someone attacked me, then shot and killed my attacker would that also be a case of me and my handgun working perfectly together?
You are allowed to defend yourself with whatever you have to hand, as long as it is within reason and not viewed as an excessive reaction.
If I lay out a burgler with a cricket bat in my house, then there’s a good reason for me to have one. If I defend myself with a cricket bat on the way to/from a game, then again that is not a problem. If I happen to be walking around at night with a baseball bat, then questions may well be raised about just why I happened to have such an implement on me at the time of getting into a fight, and I will almost certainly face a charge. A metal shafted golf umbrella, on the other hand…no problem.
I’m also curious as to just which political party in the UK is anything but publicly supportive of victims defending themselves against criminals? As a form of electoral suicide, it’d be a very effective tactic.
As an example: Father who killed burglar with meat cleaver was 'justified' coroner rules | Daily Mail Online
Yes. One does not have the right to attack someone because of something they say.
Within the first two months of moving into my current residence I had a 5 gallon gas can and an air compressor stolen in addition to having someone smash the window of my truck and rifle through it for valuables. In addition, on occasion we experience rashes of burglaries (one of which resulted in the death of a 17 year old who was shot by a resident). I bring this up because it has changed how I interpret people walking up and down my street.
The vast majority of pedestrians are young black males (teens mostly) and almost none of them look suspicious to me. On occasion I will see someone walking through the neighborhood slowly and starting intently at houses, car ports and peeking in the windows of every car they pass. While I’ve never called 911 it is the kind of behavior I find suspicious.
I missed this gem:
As a Brit who legally owns guns, may I ask what the fuck you’re talking about?
OK. So the gun owner kills the biker, and another biker, fearing for his life, pulls his gun and kills the gun owner. Is he justified by SYG laws?
Quite possibly, yes. It would depend on the first shooter’s actions after the shooting. The only way I can see that it wouldn’t be covered under SYG is if the second biker was involved in the assault on the first gun owner.
I think I know where you’re going with this, and I suspect it’s along the lines of the idea that SYG laws will permit massive OK Corral style shootouts. My opinion is that, whilst it may technically allow them, it’s not going to do anything to encourage them, as people likely to act like that would do so anyway. There are certainly negative consequences to SYG laws, but I’m not convinced that this is one.