RE: Stand Your Ground II

RE: Stand Your Ground II (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

BamaD -> RE: Stand Your Ground II (6/5/2012 10:41:40 AM)
Each time we bring up evidence that concealed carry and syg bring down crime the other side comes up with their "authority" who claims they have no effect on crime. So the anti gun crowd has provided total refutation of their claims that these things will cause gang like shootouts and a return to the wild west.

GotSteel -> RE: Stand Your Ground II (6/5/2012 12:00:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun I dunno, look at what BamaD said: Yes, do take a look at what he said: quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Just a thought, could it be that violent crime dropped 23% because justifiable homosides went up? More dead bad guys, more dangerous for the rest ? No that couldn't be it. quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun It does, in fact, look like Politifact agreed with BamaD's statement. Note, BamaD's statement didn't have causality mentioned in it for Politifact to agree or disagree with. I'm assuming you missed his causal claim the first time around?

kalikshama -> RE: Stand Your Ground II (6/5/2012 12:20:57 PM)
quote: And conveniently omitted by our oh-so-sincere defender of righteousness and justice. You give me a hard time when I quote an entire article and you give me a hard time when I snip. What's your problem with me recently?

BamaD -> RE: Stand Your Ground II (6/5/2012 12:22:31 PM)
I stated that A followed B I did not state that A was the sole cause of B. Clearly as opposed to your possition A did not prevent B. Your authority did not totaly dismiss A merely stated that it was not proven that A caused B and that there were other factors envolved.

GotSteel -> RE: Stand Your Ground II (6/5/2012 12:45:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Each time we bring up evidence that concealed carry and syg bring down crime the other side comes up with their "authority" who claims they have no effect on crime. What do you mean "their authority" I cited yours. Let me point that out again, I went and tracked down your source it doesn't actually agree with you.

BamaD -> RE: Stand Your Ground II (6/5/2012 12:50:17 PM)
Yes it does, all I said was that crime had dropped 23% since the passage of syg taken directly from their charts. You found a quote that said it can't be proven that syg had anything to do with it. Of course it also can't be proven that it didn't help. It is self evident though that it did not lead to a bloodbath and you and others insist that it would. I cited numbers, you cited a viewpoint.

Kirata -> RE: Stand Your Ground II (6/5/2012 12:58:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama quote: And conveniently omitted by our oh-so-sincere defender of righteousness and justice. You give me a hard time when I quote an entire article and you give me a hard time when I snip. What's your problem with me recently? Nothing with you personally. My problem was (let's assume it's past tense) that while affecting a concern for rights and justice, you weren't showing any for the rights of the sources you were copying; and while excerpting is fair, snipping out parts to give a false impression isn't. Not that you're the only person who ever did that, and maybe it wasn't even intentional, but sometimes the shit starts to get too thick. It's all Nosanthro's fault. [:D] K.

kalikshama -> RE: Stand Your Ground II (6/5/2012 1:01:30 PM)
Glad it's past tense. [:)] In my defense, I was bringing up the other side of the story already mentioned by BamaD: quote: Check dominionofnewyork.com it says that blacks are helped more by stand your ground laws than whites are As for this: quote: you weren't showing any for the rights of the sources you were copying I do attribute; I don't always excerpt; but I don't believe Fair Use is relevant to this discussion forum for which I receive no remuneration.

GotSteel -> RE: Stand Your Ground II (6/5/2012 1:12:24 PM)
Gang shootouts have been around for a while it's not a new thing. Criminal thugs murdering each other but now those gang members have been legislated into law abiding citizens seeing who can stand their ground the fastest. quote: ORIGINAL: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/state/public-divided-at-stand-your-ground-gun-law-2286012.html Arthur Jacobs, general counsel for the Prosecuting Attorneys Association, which represents all 20 state attorneys in Florida, said his organization recently voted unanimously that the law should be repealed. "It's not a thing that can be tweaked," Jacobs said. He said there was no need for the law, since self-defense was already a right before the law passed in 2005. He also said prosecutors are seeing cases where gang members and individuals involved "in drug deals gone bad" are invoking the law, after shooting rivals. "We work with it every day," Jacobs said. "We've studied it and we have decided it needs to be repealed."

BamaD -> RE: Stand Your Ground II (6/5/2012 1:25:28 PM)
The Florida law which I have read on numerous sites says that you are not covered if engaged in illegal activity. If applied properly those instances would not be covered. Your problem is not with the law but with it's enforcement. There is nothing in the actual law that legalizes gang violence.

FullCircle -> RE: Stand Your Ground II (6/5/2012 1:50:12 PM)
Are you saying that if one person shoots the other then a court can decide that the person was acting in self defence based on their testimony alone? Who isn't allowed to claim self defence? Those without a license obviously (gang members) but who else? It's fascinating how such incidents can be seen in such black and white ways. I've never encountered a situation where one person kills another and it's so straightforward. How do we know these people aren't known to one another or have had previous encounters? Two people can have these personal disagreements that nobody else knows of and to settle them all one has to do is kill the other. It just sounds a bit crazy to be true.

BamaD -> RE: Stand Your Ground II (6/5/2012 2:40:07 PM)
There is always physical evidence. Syg does not give an automatic pass to the shooter. Read the law, there are a number of exceptions to the claim of self defence. Do you honestly think it is better to assume that every time this comes into play the person who defends themselves should be assumed guilty? All this does is give people the right to fight back befroe they are dead. Unfortunatly while I'm sure this is not your desire the alturnative is to assume the thugs own the streets.

Whiplashsmile4 -> RE: Stand Your Ground II (6/5/2012 3:03:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Are you going to make a point, or just keep on posting more crap about how people who disagree with you don't value human life? K. Since when does all human life need to be valued? (Quick in/out on this thread).. No I've not read everything nor care to.

GotSteel -> RE: Stand Your Ground II (6/6/2012 9:53:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD The Florida law which I have read on numerous sites says that you are not covered if engaged in illegal activity. If applied properly those instances would not be covered. Your problem is not with the law but with it's enforcement. Actually, I don't consider killing another human being in a situation where one could have simply walked away reasonable or necessary so I do have issues with these laws. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD There is nothing in the actual law that legalizes gang violence. Isn't there? Here's a hypothetical, say a member of gang A happens upon a member of rival gang B, at this point both gang members have a reasonable expectation that their lives are in danger and start blasting away instead of heading in opposite directions. With the average self defense law the surviving gangbanger would be guilty of I don't know...maybe 2nd degree murder. But if this happens under stand your ground what's he guilty of? Wouldn't this guy simply be a law abiding citizen who happens to be better at standing his ground than his opponent?

mnottertail -> RE: Stand Your Ground II (6/6/2012 9:57:40 AM)
And we come to the fact that if Zimmerman is found to be innocent of the charge, any black teenager that meets him on the street should have every reason to baseball bat the shit out of him in fear for their life. Thats the logical contrapositive to what everybody is arguing who is standing on that side of the issue at the core.

lovmuffin -> RE: Stand Your Ground II (6/6/2012 10:26:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Gang shootouts have been around for a while it's not a new thing. Criminal thugs murdering each other but now those gang members have been legislated into law abiding citizens seeing who can stand their ground the fastest. That doesn't meet the logic test. First off criminal thugs are likely to be engaged in some type of criminal activity thus not covered under SYG. And I would bet any amount of money ya can't find a gang banger or any other type of criminal thug with a concealed carry permit not to mention these guys have felony records which bars them from possessing a gun in the first place.

lovmuffin -> RE: Stand Your Ground II (6/6/2012 10:31:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Here's a hypothetical, say a member of gang A happens upon a member of rival gang B, at this point both gang members have a reasonable expectation that their lives are in danger and start blasting away instead of heading in opposite directions. With the average self defense law the surviving gangbanger would be guilty of I don't know...maybe 2nd degree murder. But if this happens under stand your ground what's he guilty of? Wouldn't this guy simply be a law abiding citizen who happens to be better at standing his ground than his opponent? I highly doubt it. See post #136. If any one of these guys has a concealed carry permit and there is no evidence that contradicts his story then maybe SYG would cover that individual but it would be a freak of nature and I still highly doubt it. You're grasping at straws.

BamaD -> RE: Stand Your Ground II (6/6/2012 10:33:52 AM)
Thank you, I had written a lengthy response to this and my computer locked up when I tried to enter it but you covered the central point.

Nosathro -> RE: Stand Your Ground II (6/6/2012 10:34:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail And we come to the fact that if Zimmerman is found to be innocent of the charge, any black teenager that meets him on the street should have every reason to baseball bat the shit out of him in fear for their life. So now the story is Martin had a baseball bat? Thats the logical contrapositive to what everybody is arguing who is standing on that side of the issue at the core.

Nosathro -> RE: Stand Your Ground II (6/6/2012 10:37:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD The Florida law which I have read on numerous sites says that you are not covered if engaged in illegal activity. If applied properly those instances would not be covered. Your problem is not with the law but with it's enforcement. Actually, I don't consider killing another human being in a situation where one could have simply walked away reasonable or necessary so I do have issues with these laws. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD There is nothing in the actual law that legalizes gang violence. Isn't there? Here's a hypothetical, say a member of gang A happens upon a member of rival gang B, at this point both gang members have a reasonable expectation that their lives are in danger and start blasting away instead of heading in opposite directions. With the average self defense law the surviving gangbanger would be guilty of I don't know...maybe 2nd degree murder. But if this happens under stand your ground what's he guilty of? Wouldn't this guy simply be a law abiding citizen who happens to be better at standing his ground than his opponent? Actually there have been some reports. Flordia is holding hearings about them and changes in the law that will correct the weakness. http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/florida-stand-your-ground-law-yields-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875