RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimersquiquit

RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimersquiquit (Full Version)

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

Message

GotSteel -> RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimersquiquit (3/5/2014 12:54:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy quote: When did simple trespassing become a capital crime in Georgia? Punishable when committed? You have hit the nail on the head. I don't know how it is in Georgia but around here unless there are signs it's not trespassing. If you call the cops they'll escort the people off your land but that's the end of it. There are no charges.

mnottertail -> RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimersquiquit (3/5/2014 12:57:03 PM)
rarely is there criminal trespass, you have to do it while breaking the law, otherwise it is a civil matter.

GotSteel -> RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimersquiquit (3/5/2014 1:37:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail rarely is there criminal trespass, you have to do it while breaking the law, otherwise it is a civil matter. So do you think a stranger could knock on a homeowners door in the middle of the night, feel imaginary threatened by the homeowner and legally stand your ground against him? Assuming the stranger is white of course.

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimersquiquit (3/5/2014 1:44:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess FR How nice that all the pro-gun people feel that shooting down someone simply because you thought they might be dangerous is okay. Most white males in this country vote Republican; they are definitely dangerous to my well-being; I guess I should just start taking them out. What am I waiting for. Seriously, this is what some of your arguments sound like. Hope all of you pro-gun types will be happy defending me when I shoot the next Republican I meet. What a sad state of affairs…..[&:] A completely irrational assessment of our position. Not at all. And as the thread continues the pro-gun folks are getting more and more ridiculous. I am sorry but I truly fail to see how an old man on one's doorstep constitutes imminent danger that necessitates fatal self-defense. My analogy is right on point. As for those who are asking how does one verify if the person is old - how about looking with one's eyes? Does this person not have a light on the porch/door? Are people seriously trying to say they don't know how to identify that someone is OLD? wtf. Again, you pro-gun types are sounding seriously stupid. You want us all to believe that it is impossible to identify that someone is old. Here are homicide offenders by age: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Homoffendersbyage.svg A person 71 years old is about as likely to commit a crime (meaning a HOMICIDE -please look at the graph) as a child under the age of 14. I hope very much that all of you pro-gun people never have a child approach you for help. Because according to your arguments, you would perceive a threat and put a bullet into a 5 year old's head. Seriously, what is the threat here from an old man? And now this poor man is DEAD. If this were my parent, I would want the shooter behind bars for life. Who does this? This is as awful as killing a child. Any of you who think otherwise are not using any kind of rational fact based argument to support your position. [sm=2cents.gif] edited to make clear the graph I posted is about HOMICIDES because some people on this thread can't read or interpret graphs.

LadyPact -> RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimersquiquit (3/5/2014 2:03:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Really? You would have left the protection of your home to wander around in the dark trying to find what you considered a deadly threat? GotSteel, it's entirely possible. I tend to think it's more probable now than a year ago. Particularly if the person in the dark stood a certain height. quote: ORIGINAL: angelikaJ Most houses are equiped with lights by their doors and it was as much his responsibility to replace the burned out bulbs as it was for the unfortunate victim of alzheimer's caregiver to keep him safe. Bulb, yes. It was the comments regarding putting in motion detector lights, etc that made Me want to bring up that really, really adequate lighting isn't always an option to somebody when they are renting. quote: His taking the shot when he couldn't see is what bothers me about it. People on the thread have pointed out that a flashlight could be a weapon. It certainly can. But the guy who took the shot, didn't even know it was a flashlight. Much blame has been put on the caregiver. However, there are all sorts of other scenarios, that could exclude that element: Someone had a car accident with head trauma and couldn't speak. Someone out for a walk with their dog having a stroke. A battered spouse with a broken jaw. I can understand the desire to protect one's home and family from dangerous assailants. I just think that it is the responsibility of the person who is doing the shooting to know exactly what it is they are shooting at. Too often in this collective mindset of shoot first, ask questions later, it is apparent that irrevocable mistakes are being made and there should be some accountability. I'm going to attribute this to thinking how this would play out where I live. That includes the house layout, the neighborhood layout, and the location. The chance of any of the above plausible reasons for somebody to be at the door at 4:00 AM really aren't the same as they would be in other places.

Yachtie -> RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimersquiquit (3/5/2014 2:04:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess A person 71 years old is about as likely to commit a crime as a child under the age of 14. 3rd-Graders Caught Smoking Pot In Sonora School Bathroom Two 8-year-olds and a 9-year-old were caught by another student, who immediately informed school administrators. Those officials then alerted local police. You were saying...

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimersquiquit (3/5/2014 2:06:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess A person 71 years old is about as likely to commit a crime as a child under the age of 14. 3rd-Graders Caught Smoking Pot In Sonora School Bathroom Two 8-year-olds and a 9-year-old were caught by another student, who immediately informed school administrators. Those officials then alerted local police. You were saying... The graph I posted is about HOMICIDES. You think smoking pot is the same as killing someone? What planet are you on? Try reading people's posts properly before just providing a knee jerk stupid response. My point, because obviously you didn't understand it, is that the shooter was at a very low risk of being killed by a 71 year old - they were as much at risk of being killed by the 71 year old as they would be of being killed by a 5 year old (and I am speaking from facts not just assertions as all the pro-gun people are). Fatal self-defense is only justified if you think your LIFE is in danger.

DomKen -> RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimersquiquit (3/5/2014 2:35:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Actually if you knew anything about tactical work in the dark you'd know that movement in the dark is movement and discerning in what direction it is going is very difficult. Actually, you're just tossing out something that's irrelevant to the case in point, which you may already know, of course, and certainly would if you really knew what you were talking about. Our visual processing system relies on a mix of inputs from rods and cones. Rods are much smaller than cones (cones are about three times the size of rods) and rod-vision is much more sensitive to movement. But speed of motion is under-estimated when only rods are involved, and over-estimated when only cones alone are involved, because the cortex is wired to calculate a weighted value of both (see here). So while you may misjudge the speed, direction is a separate matter. And while lower luminance requires longer integration times for movement detection (ibid), we're talking about fractions of a second. It increases only about 75% with a three log unit decrease in photopic target luminance. It can be difficult to determine the exact direction of a movement with a vector that lies across the line of vision, because determining the degree of obliqueness depends on the change in size of the object, which will be minimal for any vector close to 90 degrees. But change in size reaches maximum detectability when the object is directly approaching or receding, and that determination can be made quickly. K. So like I said it is very difficult to tell if someone is retreating or advancing in the dark. Or do you have trouble reading?

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimersquiquit (3/5/2014 3:20:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess The graph I posted is about HOMICIDES. You think smoking pot is the same as killing someone? What planet are you on? Try reading people's posts properly before just providing a knee jerk stupid response. My point, because obviously you didn't understand it, is that the shooter was at a very low risk of being killed by a 71 year old - they were as much at risk of being killed by the 71 year old as they would be of being killed by a 5 year old (and I am speaking from facts not just assertions as all the pro-gun people are). Fatal self-defense is only justified if you think your LIFE is in danger. Yet your quote that Yachtie posted was "A person 71 years old is about as likely to commit a crime as a child under the age of 14". You didn't specifically state 'homicides'. And FYI: "Many people are surprised by our finding that approximately 940 children were convicted of personally taking the life of another human being in the entire nation in one full year" Source: http://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1856&context=vulr Several cases described here: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/03/18/When-children-commit-murder/UPI-12851332055800/ Plus a few more (2,225 cases) here: http://www.hrw.org/news/2005/10/11/united-states-thousands-children-sentenced-life-without-parole Those were just a selection of "About 905,000 results" from a Google search of 'homicides perpetrated by children in the USA' Your statement doesn't exactly make it a rarity does it! [:D]

cloudboy -> RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimersquiquit (3/5/2014 3:35:50 PM)
quote: Forgive me if I don't believe you. It's certainly not the first time you've referred to gun owners as paranoid or cowards. It's pretty clear what your feelings on the matter are, why backpedal now? A strict reading of the sentence supports my position, because responders on this thread are not "shooters" whereas Zimmerman et. al. were -- all displaying cowardly behavior in their actions and judgment. The sentence would have been more clear had I said "murderers" instead of "shooters." You are right, however, that I do not hold gun owners in high regard --- but that's a different point. The facts are that gun ownership makes a household less safe -- increasing the risk of a household member or innocent person being shot over the chances of it being an aid in self defense. SYG laws are just expanding the zone of hazard that firearms create. Yes, a particular gun owner can reverse the odds with care and good judgment, but the standing odds remain in place. Too many unstable people own guns, and this why SYG laws are particularly hazardous. Anyone connecting gun ownership to safety is really peddling false information. NOTE: At one point (in another post) I did call gun owners cowards, mostly b/c needing a gun to confront another person shows a lack of courage and faith in self (and others) to resolve a conflict person to person without a weapon.

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimersquiquit (3/5/2014 3:44:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess The graph I posted is about HOMICIDES. You think smoking pot is the same as killing someone? What planet are you on? Try reading people's posts properly before just providing a knee jerk stupid response. My point, because obviously you didn't understand it, is that the shooter was at a very low risk of being killed by a 71 year old - they were as much at risk of being killed by the 71 year old as they would be of being killed by a 5 year old (and I am speaking from facts not just assertions as all the pro-gun people are). Fatal self-defense is only justified if you think your LIFE is in danger. Yet your quote that Yachtie posted was "A person 71 years old is about as likely to commit a crime as a child under the age of 14". You didn't specifically state 'homicides'. And FYI: "Many people are surprised by our finding that approximately 940 children were convicted of personally taking the life of another human being in the entire nation in one full year" Source: http://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1856&context=vulr Several cases described here: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/03/18/When-children-commit-murder/UPI-12851332055800/ Plus a few more (2,225 cases) here: http://www.hrw.org/news/2005/10/11/united-states-thousands-children-sentenced-life-without-parole Those were just a selection of "About 905,000 results" from a Google search of 'homicides perpetrated by children in the USA' Your statement doesn't exactly make it a rarity does it! [:D] My sentence was in reference to my entire post - read correctly it references the graph. So by your statement, you are actually saying that if a 5 year old child is playing cops and robbers with what you think is a gun outside your house that you have the absolute right to shoot the child down because as you quote - there are "homicides perpetrated by children in the USA". So you are actually saying you are under NO OBLIGATION WHATSOEVER to actually try to ascertain if your life is ACTUALLY in danger. Do you realize how stupid your assertion sounds? Not to mention you are comparing apples to oranges. My stats are about children under the age of 14 - NOT under the age of 18. So your stats are NOT comparing the same thing. Again, do you feel justified in shooting down a 5 year old if they appear to be holding a gun even when that gun is a toy? No need to answer because it is obvious your answer is YES. Please point me to how many murders of complete strangers are committed by 5 year old children in the U.S……...

Kirata -> RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimersquiquit (3/5/2014 3:53:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen= quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Actually if you knew anything about tactical work in the dark you'd know that movement in the dark is movement and discerning in what direction it is going is very difficult. Actually, you're just tossing out something that's irrelevant to the case in point, which you may already know, of course, and certainly would if you really knew what you were talking about. Our visual processing system relies on a mix of inputs from rods and cones. Rods are much smaller than cones (cones are about three times the size of rods) and rod-vision is much more sensitive to movement. But speed of motion is under-estimated when only rods are involved, and over-estimated when only cones alone are involved, because the cortex is wired to calculate a weighted value of both (see here). So while you may misjudge the speed, direction is a separate matter. And while lower luminance requires longer integration times for movement detection (ibid), we're talking about fractions of a second. It increases only about 75% with a three log unit decrease in photopic target luminance. It can be difficult to determine the exact direction of a movement with a vector that lies across the line of vision, because determining the degree of obliqueness depends on the change in size of the object, which will be minimal for any vector close to 90 degrees. But change in size reaches maximum detectability when the object is directly approaching or receding, and that determination can be made quickly. K. So like I said it is very difficult to tell if someone is retreating or advancing in the dark. Or do you have trouble reading? LOL... Thank you, Ken. Much appreciated. K.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimersquiquit (3/5/2014 3:53:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess So by your statement, you are actually saying that if a 5 year old child is playing cops and robbers with what you think is a gun outside your house that you have the absolute right to shoot the child down because as you quote - there are "homicides perpetrated by children in the USA". So you are actually saying you are under NO OBLIGATION WHATSOEVER to actually try to ascertain if your life is ACTUALLY in danger. Do you realize how stupid your assertion sounds? Not to mention you are comparing apples to oranges. My stats are about children under the age of 14 - NOT under the age of 18. So your stats are NOT comparing the same thing. Again, do you feel justified in shooting down a 5 year old if they appear to be holding a gun even when that gun is a toy? No need to answer because it is obvious your answer is YES. Please point me to how many murders of complete strangers are committed by 5 year old children in the U.S……... Read my post - I made no assertion whatsoever; none at all. And from my previous posts you would know that I'm completely Anti-gun. So your statement about me is completely false. Try engaging brain before opening mouth.

GotSteel -> RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimersquiquit (3/5/2014 3:57:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Too many unstable people own guns.... Enough said. quote: ORIGINAL: http://www.basspro.com/Hornady-Zombie-Max-Certified-Zombie-Centerfire-Ammunition/product/120111/ Be ready for the impending zombie apocalypse with Hornady Zombie Max Certified Zombie Centerfire Ammunition. This revolutionary new rifle ammo is the only ammunition specifically designed to re-kill the shuffling legions of flesh-eating undead that could arise on any given day.

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimers (3/5/2014 4:07:55 PM)
Not to mention why did Hendrix, who has military training, go outside to begin with. And why could he not have shot to incapacitate rather than kill. Pro-gun folks always talk about how they know how to handle their weapons, know how to keep innocent people safe, blah, blah, blah. But what we have in this case is one dead extremely innocent old guy. And this supports SYG and gun ownership how exactly? Don't give me the hypothetical case of "what if the innocent old guy had been dangerous". Let's stick to the facts of we have one dead innocent old guy. How does this show how stand your ground is effective at preventing crime? This is MANSLAUGHTER pure and simple. Some states in this country have literally given their citizens license to kill - any time, any where, any facts. All you have to claim is fear - and even if the facts don't support it, you will not be charged with a crime. In this case, SYG has resulted in MANSLAUGHTER. A death that would not have occurred if people were more rational about both laws and their own behavior. Jesus might forgive, but guess what - people don't have to. And there is nothing in these set of facts that make me feel like this 35 year old should not be doing time for this CRIME. You shoot down someone in cold blood when you had other alternatives????

DomKen -> RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimersquiquit (3/5/2014 4:10:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen= quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Actually if you knew anything about tactical work in the dark you'd know that movement in the dark is movement and discerning in what direction it is going is very difficult. Actually, you're just tossing out something that's irrelevant to the case in point, which you may already know, of course, and certainly would if you really knew what you were talking about. Our visual processing system relies on a mix of inputs from rods and cones. Rods are much smaller than cones (cones are about three times the size of rods) and rod-vision is much more sensitive to movement. But speed of motion is under-estimated when only rods are involved, and over-estimated when only cones alone are involved, because the cortex is wired to calculate a weighted value of both (see here). So while you may misjudge the speed, direction is a separate matter. And while lower luminance requires longer integration times for movement detection (ibid), we're talking about fractions of a second. It increases only about 75% with a three log unit decrease in photopic target luminance. It can be difficult to determine the exact direction of a movement with a vector that lies across the line of vision, because determining the degree of obliqueness depends on the change in size of the object, which will be minimal for any vector close to 90 degrees. But change in size reaches maximum detectability when the object is directly approaching or receding, and that determination can be made quickly. K. So like I said it is very difficult to tell if someone is retreating or advancing in the dark. Or do you have trouble reading? LOL... Thank you, Ken. Much appreciated. K. So as always you were full of it. Good to know. Why do you interject yourself in conversations in which you know nothing?

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimersquiquit (3/5/2014 4:17:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess So by your statement, you are actually saying that if a 5 year old child is playing cops and robbers with what you think is a gun outside your house that you have the absolute right to shoot the child down because as you quote - there are "homicides perpetrated by children in the USA". So you are actually saying you are under NO OBLIGATION WHATSOEVER to actually try to ascertain if your life is ACTUALLY in danger. Do you realize how stupid your assertion sounds? Not to mention you are comparing apples to oranges. My stats are about children under the age of 14 - NOT under the age of 18. So your stats are NOT comparing the same thing. Again, do you feel justified in shooting down a 5 year old if they appear to be holding a gun even when that gun is a toy? No need to answer because it is obvious your answer is YES. Please point me to how many murders of complete strangers are committed by 5 year old children in the U.S……... Read my post - I made no assertion whatsoever; none at all. And from my previous posts you would know that I'm completely Anti-gun. So your statement about me is completely false. Try engaging brain before opening mouth. You responded to MY post. And my post is about ascertaining risk. You provide a bunch of facts that people under the age of 18 commit homicides - i.e., that it is NOT rare. And given my argument (which is the argument you are addressing in your post), that means that someone confronted by a 5 year old is actually at risk of being shot because people under the age of 18 commit more homicides than one thinks. And I am responding by saying that is a ludicrous statement. My original argument said that homicides by the very old and the very young are rare. And therefore, a prudent person would actually take this into account before shooting someone. Fear should be based on the relevant facts at hand. And I was simply trying to point out an important consideration of age. I never read your earlier posts. I responded to you because you responded to my post and felt the need to say that homicides by 18 year olds and younger is not rare, and therefore young age justifies fear. If that is not what your post is intended to mean, then there was no reason to respond to my argument with your facts. Then I apologize for thinking that you were addressing my post given that you had quoted my actual post.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimers (3/5/2014 4:17:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess My original argument said that homicides by the very old and the very young are rare. And therefore, a prudent person would actually take this into account before shooting someone. Fear should be based on the relevant facts at hand. And I was simply trying to point out an important consideration of age. Everything is relative. Your opening sentence would read like a horror story to us over here where guns are not so prolific. What you call "rare" for one year is probably more than the last 8 decades for us here. That aside... quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess Not to mention why did Hendrix, who has military training, go outside to begin with. And why could he not have shot to incapacitate rather than kill. Pro-gun folks always talk about how they know how to handle their weapons, know how to keep innocent people safe, blah, blah, blah. But what we have in this case is one dead extremely innocent old guy. And this supports SYG and gun ownership how exactly? Don't give me the hypothetical case of "what if the innocent old guy had been dangerous". Let's stick to the facts of we have one dead innocent old guy. How does this show how stand your ground is effective at preventing crime? This is MANSLAUGHTER pure and simple. Some states in this country have literally given their citizens license to kill - any time, any where, any facts. All you have to claim is fear - and even if the facts don't support it, you will not be charged with a crime. In this case, SYG has resulted in MANSLAUGHTER. A death that would not have occurred if people were more rational about both laws and their own behavior. Jesus might forgive, but guess what - people don't have to. And there is nothing in these set of facts that make me feel like this 35 year old should not be doing time for this CRIME. You shoot down someone in cold blood when you had other alternatives???? As much as we cross swords.... I agree with this completely. Seems to me like shoot first and ask questions later. Then if you think you seriously fucked up, plead SYG and get away with it with some lame excuse.

Kirata -> RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimersquiquit (3/5/2014 4:21:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Too many unstable people own guns.... Enough said. quote: ORIGINAL: http://www.basspro.com/Hornady-Zombie-Max-Certified-Zombie-Centerfire-Ammunition/product/120111/ Be ready for the impending zombie apocalypse with Hornady Zombie Max Certified Zombie Centerfire Ammunition. This revolutionary new rifle ammo is the only ammunition specifically designed to re-kill the shuffling legions of flesh-eating undead that could arise on any given day. That you believe this funny advertisement supports your conclusion raises a few questions about your own stability. K.

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimers (3/5/2014 4:33:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess Not to mention why did Hendrix, who has military training, go outside to begin with. And why could he not have shot to incapacitate rather than kill. Pro-gun folks always talk about how they know how to handle their weapons, know how to keep innocent people safe, blah, blah, blah. But what we have in this case is one dead extremely innocent old guy. And this supports SYG and gun ownership how exactly? Don't give me the hypothetical case of "what if the innocent old guy had been dangerous". Let's stick to the facts of we have one dead innocent old guy. How does this show how stand your ground is effective at preventing crime? This is MANSLAUGHTER pure and simple. Some states in this country have literally given their citizens license to kill - any time, any where, any facts. All you have to claim is fear - and even if the facts don't support it, you will not be charged with a crime. In this case, SYG has resulted in MANSLAUGHTER. A death that would not have occurred if people were more rational about both laws and their own behavior. Jesus might forgive, but guess what - people don't have to. And there is nothing in these set of facts that make me feel like this 35 year old should not be doing time for this CRIME. You shoot down someone in cold blood when you had other alternatives???? As much as we cross swords.... I agree with this completely. Seems to me like shoot first and ask questions later. Then if you think you seriously fucked up, plead SYG and get away with it with some lame excuse. Yes but what is troubling to me is that kids under 14 and old people are both at low risk to commit homicides. So allowing Hendrix to get away with this means someone in a SYG state is equally justified in shooting down a 5 year old claiming fear of being killed. And when framed that way, it just seems to make the pro-gun SYG types look ridiculous. Shouldn't fear be based on something at least remotely real??? Because otherwise, we can claim fear for anything - including the 5 year old. If this had been a mute 5 year old and had managed to wander out of his house I am sure Hendrix would have been charged, even though factually the situation is no different (a stranger at low risk of committing a homicide knocks on my door at 4 a.m. and does not respond to me when I ask him to stop). But the old guy really was no more of a risk than the child. Look, regardless, we are both troubled by this. And it is alarming to me that more pro-gun people are not troubled by it. One can be pro-gun and still see the senselessness of this incident. But I guess, obviously they do not (!?) [sm=2cents.gif]

Page: << < prev 11 12 [13] 14 15 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625