popsjumper 2 #2226 June 18, 2012 QuoteQuote...it is the Prosecutor and Judge misapplying a SYG law... In which direction are they misapplying it? If you ask the demographic, ask the State Senate, ask the judges and ask the prosecutors, I expect you will get a split on how they think it should be applied. In the reference you cited, I would say the misapplication was this: "Although it does not apply if the defendant is committing a crime...." It appears to me in your cite that SYG shoudn't apply in the 2010 incident because he was indeed in the process of committing a crime - felon in possession of a gun. Also, another area that would have been a misapplication, IIMO, was this: ""Although Smith was shot at initially, he did take possession of a firearm and 'chase' Breon (Mitchell) so that he could shoot him," the police report said. "Chasing a subject in order to shoot and kill them goes beyond defending one's self."My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #2227 June 18, 2012 Quote Surely they will just pass more laws. Clearly, all laws work. What we need is a law that allows criminals to legally kill each other. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pchapman 262 #2228 June 18, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteAs a result, innocent people are dead This law has caused people to die? The gun o phobes are getting desperate..... Without arguing for any particular position, I think the poster's intent was that if the repercussions for opening fire are particularly lax and ill-defined (which can be subjective), then people are likely to open fire with little thought or restraint, thus leading to more deaths. The law has thus probably caused people to die. (The increase in numbers due to knowledge of the existence of the law can be debated, as can how many deaths are justified or not.) (And don't get pedantic and claim that the law didn't cause people to die, rather that it was organ damage and circulatory failure from bullet wounds.) It would also be interesting to go through all the SYG cases and determine how "innocent" the victims are. Less so for drug dealers where everyone is gunning for everyone else, maybe more so if there are mistakes about how angry someone is. I wonder if the law has cut down on plain old drunken fights, due to the possibly greater repercussions of trying to beat someone up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #2229 June 18, 2012 QuoteA drug dealer in the commission of a drug deal, if I understand the laws intent, is not protected by SYG. Matt To be fair, the article doesn't say that the incident was in the commission of a drug deal. It says, "...drug-related incident .." Apparently, there was no actual drug deal going down at the time....only a dispute over territory or some such.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #2230 June 18, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAs a result, innocent people are dead This law has caused people to die? The gun o phobes are getting desperate..... Without arguing for any particular position, I think the poster's intent was that if the repercussions for opening fire are particularly lax and ill-defined (which can be subjective), then people are likely to open fire with little thought or restraint, thus leading to more deaths. The law has thus probably caused people to die. (The increase in numbers due to knowledge of the existence of the law can be debated, as can how many deaths are justified or not.) (And don't get pedantic and claim that the law didn't cause people to die, rather that it was organ damage and circulatory failure from bullet wounds.) It would also be interesting to go through all the SYG cases and determine how "innocent" the victims are. Less so for drug dealers where everyone is gunning for everyone else, maybe more so if there are mistakes about how angry someone is. I wonder if the law has cut down on plain old drunken fights, due to the possibly greater repercussions of trying to beat someone up. Even if that was his intent he is still wrong. There are instances where people responded to threats with force, sometimes deadly force. There have been many times when a DA seems intent on making a name for themselves, and have charged and tried people for defending themselves in this way. The SYG laws are a response to that type of political bs. These laws were not just created to stoke gun rights egos. In the end, if someone is attacking me anywhere, in my house or on the street, these types of laws PROTECT the victims from the likes of the prosecutors I posted about above, who would drag into court a person who is protecting themselves The types of self-protections, enumerated in these laws are, for the most part, null and void if you involved in an illegal act. STG is not a part of the TM case as it appears GZ was physically attacked by TM. This is simple self-defense."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #2231 June 18, 2012 QuoteQuoteA drug dealer in the commission of a drug deal, if I understand the laws intent, is not protected by SYG. Matt To be fair, the article doesn't say that the incident was in the commission of a drug deal. It says, "...drug-related incident .." Apparently, there was no actual drug deal going down at the time....only a dispute over territory or some such. Well, it is a mandarin orange, blood orange thing. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,130 #2232 June 18, 2012 QuoteA drug dealer in the commission of a drug deal, if I understand the laws intent, is not protected by SYG. Great. So when is the drug deal over? We have done our business, product and money has exchanged hands. Dealer walks to his car, is about to get in and buyer comes running out of the alley yelling you son of a bitch, I am going to kill you, while brandishing a steak knife. See, the buyer thinks he has been shortchanged and thinks he got less than they had agreed to. Drug deal still taking place, or can the dealer shoot the guy and claim SYG? What about the next day? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #2233 June 18, 2012 Possession of drugs, drug revenue or an illegal firearm is engaging in criminal activity. I couldn't care less when they shoot each other as long as they don't miss. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #2234 June 18, 2012 QuoteMy posts and comments had nothing to do with Clinton, yet I managed to let myself get dragged down the path My posts had nothing to do with Clinton either. QuoteMy comments (which you apparently have not bothered reading, but I would expect no less) had to do with both of them being douchebags for lying to the court. You made the comment, "Now lying about why you killed someone? That MIGHT be a little different." referencing Zimmerman's WIFE. Zimmerman's wife didn't kill anyone so your comparison is not valid, and that is all I said. QuoteMy comments (which you apparently have not bothered reading, but I would expect no less) had to do with both of them being douchebags for lying to the court. I have read them.... It seems you are confusing me with someone else since I didn't mention Clinton. QuoteOnce again, very slowly so you do not miss it. I actually believe that Z and his wife had a walk-away case of self defense. They have to say nothing and the state has to prove the crime. It light of their blatant attempts to be as stupid as any defendant could possibly be in destroying their own credibility - they are IMO- douchebags. And I will try to type this as slowly as I can so you can actually READ it: Fact is that if the race baiters didn't create the outrage that this case might have already been settled. There would have been no website to get donations to fight a court battle that would not have happened. Yet YOU and others wanted this case to go further than the law required. You wanted him to get arrested and have to hire a lawyer and face a jury. Yet you claim he had a good SD case? That makes zero sense. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 134 #2235 June 18, 2012 QuoteFact is that if the race baiters didn't create the outrage that this case might have already been settled. There would have been no website to get donations to fight a court battle that would not have happened. the race-baiting did not actually happen to any extent that affected the end result in his being arrested. It is a right-wing para-sympathetic attempt at changing the subject. You are talking about a semi-latino and a black kid. The TBO.com article about SYG already showed dozens of similar shootings, and a lot of them were mixed color shootings - the race card did not get played there either, and the outcomes were mixed. Maybe the reason that people are upset is because a wannabe cop, marching around a neighborhood with a gun shooting kids armed with Skittles IS actually a menace to society and they would like something done about it. Sounds pretty fucking clear cut to me. He can still beat this if he decides for himself to play by the rules. If it is so race-related, then why do we not actually see all the race players involved with this anymore? They all went away. i expect that most people just wanted to see Z arrested, like I did, and they want him to be tried in front of a jury and let it take its course - but to walk away scott free for being a douchebag - no way. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #2236 June 18, 2012 the race-baiting did not actually happen to any extent that affected the end result in his being arrested. . this post proves it YOU are not from this planet OR oh never mind"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #2237 June 18, 2012 Quotethe race-baiting did not actually happen to any extent that affected the end result in his being arrested. Wow, the fact that you could even think that. Fact is he was not arrested till Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton rolled into town and started holding rallies. QuoteYou are talking about a semi-latino and a black kid. *I* am, but Jessie and Al were talking about a white guy and a black kid. QuoteMaybe the reason that people are upset is because a wannabe cop, marching around a neighborhood with a gun shooting kids armed with Skittles IS actually a menace to society and they would like something done about it. And yet they didn't get upset till Jessie and Al started holding meetings. Your argument just fell flat. QuoteIf it is so race-related, then why do we not actually see all the race players involved with this anymore? They all went away. 1. Because the truth has come out that Treyvon was not the innocent kid that was claimed. 2. Because Zimmerman having been a big brother to more than one black kid and having a 'black' grandfather is not as racist as was originally claimed. 3. Because he has been arrested. Add them all up and there is not much left to stir up race issues. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #2238 June 18, 2012 QuoteQuoteit's your own hand picked example I did not pick it. The Tampa Tribune did. I just copied it. Along with the other Tampa article a few weeks ago about the couple hundred incidents that have fallen under SYG. the law is faulty, it is misapplied, it is misinterpreted. As a result, innocent people are dead, guilty people are walking free, and many many cases have different results for given the same circumstances. Again, YOUR example of 'innocent' people were two guys that were trying to commit murder. There's no question on this. If those are the best examples you and the Tribune can find, then SYG isn't doing a bad job for the state of Florida. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 134 #2239 June 18, 2012 QuoteAgain, YOUR example of 'innocent' people were two guys that were trying to commit murder Not just one example, an article that pointed out 157 examples. And if it was so clear cut, one of them would be in jail. but they are not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #2240 June 18, 2012 QuoteQuoteAgain, YOUR example of 'innocent' people were two guys that were trying to commit murder Not just one example, an article that pointed out 157 examples. That unrelated article summarized its analysis of 157 cases, but left it to you to accept at faith. Since the results match your preconceived opinion, that was fine. But now that you're actually listing some detail of specific circumstances, the facts are working against you. I have little ssue with these two applications of SYG. He was not actively dealing drugs during the time of the first incident and he was stalked and attacked in the second by someone who wanted revenge (ie, premeditated murder) for the first. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 134 #2241 June 18, 2012 QuoteSince the results match your preconceived opinion I never made an opinion on the article other than 'a lot of people are dead' because of SYG The article shows justified cases, I pointed that out. The article shows unjustified cases. i pointed that out too. The article shows racial bias, but in fact, I did not point that out. The article shows murders getting off scott-free and people in similar cases getting jailed. The article shows inconsistencies in the application of the law. And I pointed all that out as a basis for a poorly written law. not my 'preconceived opinion' - it actually points out many sides of the argument, but most of all, it points out a poorly written piece of legislation. But if you are Ok with innocent people getting killed, and murderers getting away with it, then i guess that law will just have to do..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #2242 June 18, 2012 post 2218 is the only article that actually described events. They did not describe innocent people, yet you asserted otherwise. Now you're just be evasive about it, saying something about other instances. But the other citation doesn't talk about incidents, but rather some reporter's summary analysis of incidents. how about pointing to a tangible example, rather than hide in the land of vagueness? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 134 #2243 June 18, 2012 Quotehow about pointing to a tangible example, rather than hide in the land of vagueness? I posted a link to an article in the Tampa Bay Times, relating many stories and instances of the use of SYG, demographics, mixed results and such. If you do nto have the time to read it, then too bad. I took the time to read it. If you want to claim that it is something other than what it is, then that is an issue between you and the author, not you and me. The article is far from 'vague' and it looks like the author did some pretty good investigative reporting. The conclusion? It's a poorly written law. http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/article1233133.ece Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #2244 June 18, 2012 QuoteSYG takes another hit in the press. Yep....it's a FANTASTIC law.... I'm glad you agree that it's a FANTASTIC law. Sometimes criminals may try to abuse it to their advantage like the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of guilt applied in US criminal cases, although that's the price we pay for living in a free country. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 134 #2245 June 18, 2012 funny how people are seemingly Ok with a few innocent people getting killed in the name of the right to carry guns, OR murderers getting away with murder, but no one is tolerate of a few illegal votes that make no difference in an election and would willingly restrict the rights of MANY citizens to stop a handful of those votes. Let's apply the Voter ID logic to the gun debate. I will take away all your guns to stop a handful of illegals from using them. How does that sound? What's wrong with this picture? Oh yes - some Americans are fucked in the head....that's what's wrong with this picture..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #2246 June 19, 2012 Quotefunny how people are seemingly Ok with a few innocent people getting killed in the name of the right to carry guns, OR murderers getting away with murder, but no one is tolerate of a few illegal votes that make no difference in an election and would willingly restrict the rights of MANY citizens to stop a handful of those votes. my posting record is pretty clear on the subject of voter ID laws, disproves your statement. Your latest citation is better than the unfortunate one from the last day. But it borders on being advocacy by the authors who did their own review of ~200 cases. Their idea of "questionable cases" is rather questionable, and that didn't change when I got past their one liner descriptions and looked at the detail. Are there cases of "poor" implementation of this law? I'm sure. Every time the DA makes a decision about how to prosecute a capital case there is a lot of dissent. In CA the SF DA refused to seek the death penalty in all cases, included those involving LEO deaths. But to conclude this means the law is bad is a reach. Weigh the good and the bad...and that every defense attorney tries to use it is not part of the bad. (that's their job). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #2247 June 19, 2012 Quotefunny how people are seemingly Ok with a few innocent people getting killed in the name of the right to carry guns, OR murderers getting away with murder, but no one is tolerate of a few illegal votes that make no difference in an election and would willingly restrict the rights of MANY citizens to stop a handful of those votes. I'm against prior restraint whether it's about guns or voting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #2248 June 19, 2012 What's wrong with this picture? Oh yes - some Americans are fucked in the head....that's what's wrong with this picture..... Ya Some are"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #2249 June 19, 2012 QuoteLet's apply the Voter ID logic to the gun debate. Great lets do that.... We will start by making ID being required to vote like it is to buy a gun. Next, we will make it so to vote you have to go fill out a form and have a background check done on you each and every time you vote. Next, any violent crime or even misdemeanor for violence will automatically remove your right to vote like it does for owing a gun. Any history of alcohol or drug abuse will remove your right to vote. Just using pot will remove your right to vote. That REALLY what you want? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 134 #2250 June 20, 2012 QuoteThat REALLY what you want? glad that we agree that voter ID requirements as written are a bad idea. thanks Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Great lets do that.... We will start by making ID being required to vote like it is to buy a gun.
Next, we will make it so to vote you have to go fill out a form and have a background check done on you each and every time you vote.
Next, any violent crime or even misdemeanor for violence will automatically remove your right to vote like it does for owing a gun.
Any history of alcohol or drug abuse will remove your right to vote.
Just using pot will remove your right to vote.
That REALLY what you want?
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites