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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
rarely is there criminal trespass, you have to do it while breaking the law, otherwise it is a civil matter.

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.

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?

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

A person 71 years old is about as likely to commit a crime as a child under the age of 14.

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...

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.

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.

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?

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!

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……...

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
Too many unstable people own guns....

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.

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.

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.

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.

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????

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.