General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThanks, Stand Your Ground! No homicide charges for teen who shot, killed man
From Think Progress:
No Homicide Charges For Teen Who Shot And Killed A Man With An Illegal Gun, Thanks To Stand Your Ground
Florida prosecutors said Tuesday they would not file homicide charges against a 17-year-old who fatally shot a community choir director in the face, citing the state’s Stand Your Ground law.
In a memo released Tuesday, prosecutors explained that Tyrone Pierson was justified in using deadly force when he encountered Julius Jerome Jacobs on the street, and Jacobs was wielding a large stick. They concluded that even though Pierson possessed the gun illegally, and even though his friends successfully escaped the confrontation by simply walking away, he was immunized by Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, which eliminates any duty to attempt retreat first.
Two friends who were with Pierson at the time of the incident said they were walking down the street when Jacobs “almost hit” them with his SUV, driving at high speed. Pierson yelled at the driver to slow down. Jacobs slowed down and had a “hostile exchange” with Pierson as he passed them by. Jacobs then pulled into a driveway and interacted with another individual in what the teens suspected was a drug exchange. As the teens walked by, he told them he had something for them. The teens continued walking and shortly after that, Jacobs drove toward them, got out of the car, and swung a heavy stick in their direction while yelling at Pierson. One of the teens said he ran away from Jacobs as he was driving toward them, fearing that he was going to try to run them over.
In a pointed analysis that makes clear Pierson would have been expected to attempt retreat before Stand Your Ground, prosecutors conclude that Pierson is now immune....
Read More: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/08/07/2427201/prosecutors-wont-charge-teen-for-deadly-shot-under-stand-your-ground-even-though-he-illegally-possessed-the-gun/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)
onenote
(42,700 posts)While the efforts of the NRA and others who follow their lead have a lot to do with the expansion of SYG laws, SYG is not a new concept. he Supreme Court, in an opinion written by no less a legal scholar than Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, ruled that stand your ground, not the duty to retreat, applied to federal prosecutions back in 1921. Holmes wrote:
"Many respectable writers agree that, if a man reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm from his assailant, he may stand his ground, and that, if he kills him, he has not succeeded the bounds of lawful self-defense. That has been the decision of this Court. Beard v. United States, 158 U. S. 550, 158 U. S. 559. Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife. Therefore, in this Court at least, it is not a condition of immunity that one in that situation should pause to consider whether a reasonable man might not think it possible to fly with safety or to disable his assailant, rather than to kill him."
The Beard case cited by Justice Holmes was decided in the 1800s.
I should add that, notwithstanding my respect for Justice Holmes, I think the duty to retreat concept, if reasonably applied, strikes a better balance. But the fact is that SYG has a long history in this country.
Cronus Protagonist
(15,574 posts)n/t
telclaven
(235 posts)"Duty to retreat" is for crap.
Someone using deadly force against someone engaged in lawful activity has forfeited their right to life. Swinging a stick at someone constitues deadly force. Walking on a sidewalk is lawful.
Charge him with illegal possession of a handgun and discharging a gun within city limits, but otherwise it's a good shoot.
Skittles
(153,150 posts)oh wait
Bake
(21,977 posts)Saying the guy was a choir director kinda prejudices it, don't you think?
I dont know the facts of this case and neither do you.
Why was he carrying a stick? Did he swing it? I don't know and neither do you. Let the prosecutors do their job! If somebody tries to beat me with a stick and I'm armed, there's gonna be trouble.
Skip the propaganda and wait for the facts. Zippy got off, and SYG wasn't a factor.
Bake
Skittles
(153,150 posts)and wait for the facts? Like they did for Trayvon? BYE BYE.
Bake
(21,977 posts)This is a different case. Your alternative is to string the guy up with no trial just because SYG MAY be involved.
I'm not going to rush to judgment and neither should you.
Bake
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)doesn't mean you're in danger of injury.
telclaven
(235 posts)Swinging at and waving at are two different things. Swinging at someone is an attempt to inflict bodily harm. But you knew that.
Response to telclaven (Reply #15)
Name removed Message auto-removed
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)bad old man with a stick, who wasn't within striking distance of them.
Bake
(21,977 posts)And when he connected, it would propel that ball some 400 feet over the outfield fence.
Wave a stick, swing a bat, it's all the same, isn't it? Hell no it's not the same, and you nailed it on the revisionism. I caught that too.
Bake
TorchTheWitch
(11,065 posts)So, I can come after you wielding a stick and waving it about in a manner giving every single suggestion that I intend to beat you with it, and you aren't going to be afraid that imminent great bodily harm or even death are going to be the result if you don't defend yourself? You ever been smashed with a stick or seen it happen to someone else? You do realize that people have been severely beaten and died from some crazy that came after them "waving" a stick?
If Zimmerman went after Martin in the same manner wielding a stick would you not have believed that Martin who was doing nothing at all wrong and was merely walking home from the store had no right to be afraid of the stick wielding Zimmerman and had no legitimate reason to defend himself from what any normal thinking person would believe was an immanent threat of being beaten with a stick? If Martin had had a gun in this scenario would you really believe he should just have taken a beating from Zimmerman or would you have questioned why he just didn't run away or expected that he SHOULD have just run away even though that would have meant turning his back on Zimmerman wielding a stick and had no right to shoot him?
In the OP's case, some crazy dude violently went after some teenagers wielding a stick with the intent of beating the one kid he was pissed off at for no other reason than because he was pissed off at the kid for some imagined slight. I have not one ounce of sympathy for Mr. Stick Wielding Assault Threatening Choir Director for violently going after a teenager he was pissed off at with every intension of beating him with a stick for no other earthly reason than because he was pissed off at him. Boohoo for the shitbag violent thug that he didn't realize that the kid had a gun and would defend himself with it instead of kissing the hem of his garment and begging forgiveness for whatever slight the nutbag believed had been perpetrated against him. That's what violent nutbags expect when they go after someone with a weapon with every intention of using it, and too fucking bad for them they didn't consider that the object of their violence can and would defend themselves from said nutbag's attack on them.
This insanity of hating on a law that allows people the right to defend themselves from violent crazy people intent on harming them for no good reason is nuts, but even more nuts is the assumption in EVERY case that the person with the gun whether legitimately defending themselves or not must be the one at fault.
In this case, the choir director was the one who violently started a confrontation with a teenager he was pissed off at for an imagined slight. He was not harmed and there is no reason why he could not have just remained angry about their reckless driving, LEFT and called the police. That's what normal people do - not go after the teenagers with a stick intent on beating them with it just because you're pissed off over their reckless driving. He was in no further danger from the teenagers, and took it upon himself to violently confront them for no other reason than because he was angry and for some bizarre reason believed he had some kind of right to violently confront the teenagers with a stick intent on beating the kid with it just because he was angry. Just like Martin would still be alive if Zimmerman had just remained in his car, this nutbag would still be alive if he did not take it into his head to violently confront some teenagers he was pissed off at and was NOT in any way defending himself from them since HE violently went after THEM which he did NOT have any right to do, and from whom he was in no danger from.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)pintobean
(18,101 posts)On top of a history, and being the zombie of Hannah Bell.
samsingh
(17,595 posts)it's a licence to kill.
don't back off, but there is no right to kill
Bake
(21,977 posts)But the zealots here overlook that fact. Of course, for some, there is no use of force that is justified.
Bake
samsingh
(17,595 posts)bullies and idiots are using it to kill people with no witnesses and then arguing self-defense. that's crap.
I feel that Zimmerman murdered an unarmed man.
Bake
(21,977 posts)In some jurisdictions if the killer claims self-defense the burden is on the state to prove it WASN'T self-defense. That is a load of crap, and yes, I agree Zimmy got away with murder.
Bake
hack89
(39,171 posts)involving people "using it to kill people with no witnesses and then arguing self-defense."
Most of the cases that I have read about involved witnesses.
thucythucy
(8,047 posts)and one of them is dead, how can you possibly prove it wasn't "a justifiable use of force?"
I can shoot you on the street, and as long as there are no witnesses, I can say anything I want about how you were about to stab me with the knife I "thought" you had, or beat me with the cane you use to walk, or use some fancy karate moves to shatter my windpipe. You're DEAD, so your side of the story will never be heard.
Again, I ask, under such a scenario, how can the state possibly prove I wasn't in fear of my life, and thus justifed in shooting you dead?
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)What kind of personal history do the dead guy and the shooter have? The Fish trial had no witness, but the history of the dead guy was sufficient, upon retrial, to support Fish's story and he was cleared. If the dead guy has a history of violence you are likely to be believed. If his history was peaceful, you are in trouble.
Bake
(21,977 posts)The same thing could happen if someone tried to retreat, was chased down, and had no choice but to defend himself/herself.
If there are no witnesses, how are you gonna know whether the shooter was justified or not???
Personally, I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
Bake
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)Bake
(21,977 posts)You may as well eliminate ANY AND ALL self-defense justification for use of deadly force. Nothing about SYG makes it a license to kill.
Bake
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)The teen could have retreated, but why would he do that when he had a gun that he was most likely itching to use.
telclaven
(235 posts)If it was the government telling him he couldn't walk down the street without being molested by agents, this place would be up in arms.
But since it's a private individual, you feel the boy should have meekly acceeded and left the area.
No, fuck that. I don't care who it is, someone taking away someone else's freedom gets what they deserve.
Response to telclaven (Reply #148)
thucythucy This message was self-deleted by its author.
ileus
(15,396 posts)The illegal gun thing must not have been a big deal.
Dr. Strange
(25,920 posts)And for evidence tampering.
Robb
(39,665 posts)Apparently illegal possession of a firearm is no longer unlawful activity in Florida. 
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)then good shoot. Come after a person swinging a club, knife or big stick and that is potentially deadly force.
Charge him with the illegal weapon, but the idea that when confronted with an aggressive person that the victim should have to retreat for the sake of the safety of his/her attacker is putting the safety of the aggressor at a higher priority than that of the victim, and that is simply misguided.
And what do you know- he is black. That can't be possible, all the experts here on DU have said repeatedly all SYG laws do is enable whites to hunt down minorities. Better call the prosecutor and let them know they missed his race. 
rdharma
(6,057 posts)... I KNOW that SYG laws enable whites to hunt down minorities.
Bazinga
(331 posts)Remember this?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172129191
rdharma
(6,057 posts)
Bazinga
(331 posts)rdharma
(6,057 posts)Bazinga
(331 posts)when I give hard numbers, a link to the source for the data, and a link to a calculator to check the numbers.
If there is an error in my analysis feel free to enlighten me, but I think what you meant to say was "it would be far too much effort to rebut this argument, and even more effort to accept that not all of the evidence supports my view, so I will dismiss it as b.s. and save myself all the trouble."
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)there were two kids; one ran.
Bazinga
(331 posts)SYG is hardly permission for anyone to kill anyone else. It is a shift in burden of proof away from the shooter in self-defense scenarios.
You are correct, though, that the majority of cases are intra-racial, and the majority of defendants get acquitted. There is also little (read no) evidence that blacks killing whites are acquitted any less frequently than whites killing blacks.
Take a look at this thread if you want to see more about the statistics
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172129191
thucythucy
(8,047 posts)You're walking down a quiet street, no other folks in sight. I spot you, and decide, "wouldn't it be fun to watch this guy die, right before my eyes?" You're using a cane. I walk up to you, shove you, and you raise your cane to ward off the blow. So I shoot you, point blank, in the face, dead.
When the police come I swear to God you were swinging your cane at me, about to strike a deadly blow. So I shot you, purely in self defense. And since you're dead, your side of the story will never be heard.
And so, no arrest, no trial, hell, they won't even take away my gun.
What in the SYG laws is there to prevent this happening?
These laws seem rife for abuse. And my prediction--my fear--is we're going to see a lot more of these sorts of killings, now that the haters and the sociopaths know they will most likely get away with it, at least in Florida.
Isn't that denying all of us some measure of safety, of freedom?
Bazinga
(331 posts)All you would have to do is wait until I pass a dead end street, stand with your back to it, and voila! A fool proof way to murder an innocent person.
Really, what is the difference between your scenario and one in which you decide to murder me, so you pick a time and a place where there will be no witnesses, no evidence?
No self-defense law was ever meant to protect murderers. Nor are they meant to prevent murder from occurring. We have laws against murder for that.
Now let's try the scenario this way. We'll do away with the cane and instead say I'm armed with my 9mm, and we are in a duty to retreat jurisdiction. You decide you are going to kill me while I am on a walk with my wonderful wife. You step out of your hiding place and shove me. My first instinct is to hold you off until Mrs Bazinga can run away, so I draw my weapon. In the ensuing fight I manage to land a shot that stops the fight, but unfortunately, you die in the hospital the next day from the injuries. The DA, who is running for Senate next fall, decides that since my wife was able to retreat, I should have been able to as well. I get charged with murder, vilified for the next 18 months in a trial by media that dissects every mistake I've ever made, convicted of manslaughter, and spend 5 years in jail.
What is there in Duty to retreat to prevent that?
thucythucy
(8,047 posts)One difference is that without STG it becomes that much more difficult for you to pull off a "legal" murder. I happen to think our society should make murder as difficult as possible, and that when murders occur they should be investigated and, where possible, prosecuted.
As for your scenario, you have your wife as a witness. As for the rest of it, the "trial by media" etc., that may or may not happen, depending on the details. I doubt though that under those circumstances you'd be convicted of manslaughter, not if your wife testifies. If Zimmerman can get off on basically the same excuse without witnesses by raising a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors, I doubt very much you'd be convicted under similar circumstances and with a witness corraborating your story.
And I think any "DA running for Senate next fall..." would be unlikely to prosecute a case of a husband defending his wife from a possible rape. Not unless he or she wants to commit political suicide.
As for the "dead end street" scenario, we're now talking premeditated murder, which involves more planning, not to mention way more effort, than the almost random shooting/hate crime I described. As I said, murder should be difficult, and there shouldn't be a get out of jail free loophole written into the law. If someone actually sets out to murder you, wouldn't you prefer the presumption of the law be on your side, and not on the side of the murderer? How often do you walk alone, without a witness in sight, past dead end streets? How long would your potential murderer have to case you out before being presented with such an opportunity?
And I notice you didn't actually answer my question. I'm to assume then, that there is nothing in SYG that prevents my scenario from becoming fact? It seems to me this is, in fact, precisely what happened in the Zimmerman case, and seems bound to happen in others. And from your response, it seems you know this as well.
Bazinga
(331 posts)Your scenario was premeditated murder. Thinking "wouldn't it be fun to watch this guy die" is premeditation.
And I agree that murder should be difficult. I disagree that laws will stop it, and that's why I support laws that allow armed self-defense.
I also agree that my scenario was different in the fact that there would be a corroborating witness. It is, however, much more applicable to the current op than is your Zimmerman-esque concoction. Furthermore, would not my wife have a vested interest in lying to keep me out of jail? Seems a DA bent on convicting for something should be able to come up with a way to discredit her. Therein lies the design of SYG laws, to protect innocent people from over zealous prosecutors. It was never meant to protect murderers.
As for your scenario being precisely what happened in the Zimmerman case, I suggest you revisit the trial. There were witnesses, there was evidence, and the prosecution failed to present enough evidence to show beyond a reasonable doubt that it was anything but self-defense. How is that any different than any other murderer who walked because there was not enough evidence to convict him?
By the way I did respond to your question.
No self-defense law was ever meant to protect murderers. Nor are they meant to prevent murder from occurring. We have laws against murder for that.
You were talking about murder, and you were correct to say that there is nothing in SYG that prevents murder.
So if you are going to ignore my responses, claim to know what I do and do not know, and then award yourself a moral victory, then I am glad to surrender and seek alternate productive conversation.
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)You can shoot first. It legalizes murder when a safe retreat exists. That is the key difference between SYG and prior self defense law.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)could have walked away.
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)pintobean
(18,101 posts)Bazinga
(331 posts)that the reason the friends were able to get away was because Pierson stood up and defended himself?
Is it impossible, or even implausible, that had Pierson not been armed and had tried to run with his friends that they would have been pursued and attacked?
It seems to me that the only reason given for his possibility of retreat was the successful retreat of his friends. But that retreat may only have been successful because Pierson stopped the pursuit.
SYG is not responsible for this shooting, Jerome Jacobs is.
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)which is the purpose of the law.
Bazinga
(331 posts)What you are saying is legislators intentionally passed a law to legalize murder.
You must know that self-defense and murder are two very different things. Conflating the two serves only to inflame and discredit.
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)SYG was promoted by ALEC, the NRA and the Koch Brothers. It's goal was to encourage greater use of guns. The law has done precisely what it was intended to do: it has led to more killings where safe retreat was possible. Self defense has been legal for centuries. SYG does not legalize what was already the law. It enables people to use disproportionate force, to put their guns to what the right sees as a productive purpose, killing. Obviously that was the intent. There is no other purpose for the law. Pretending self defense wasn't legal before SYG is bullshit. The difference now is that one need not retreat even when it is perfectly safe to do so. To legalize killing when a safe retreat exists is to legalize murder. It changes killing from the last resort to the first resort. Those are basic facts.
Bazinga
(331 posts)Your failure to recognize the purpose of SYG does not constitute "basic fact." The purpose of SYG is to protect those who have already been the victim of a life-threatening assault from over-zealous prosecutors who, in the comfort of their cushioned office chairs and with the omniscience of hindsight, can conceive a potential route of escape unknown to the victim in the heat of the moment.
Now I'm no fan of the NRA, ALEC, or the Koch's, and I don't like having legislation forced down people's throats by the rich and powerful any more than you are, but that is the real purpose of SYG. Whether the current iteration of the law successfully accomplished that purpose is up for debate. And like every other law, it is subject to the higher law of unintended consequences. But pretending that legislators intentionally wrote the law to legalize murder is absurd. Surely you recognize that.
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)Where in the law does it specify only those with prior life threatening assaults can invoke SYG? It doesn't.
No, I don't recognize it is absurd. When it was shown that the law increased justifiable homicides in Florida and yet it was extended to other states in spite of that, it shows at the very least a craven indifference to human life.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Justifiable homicide means that a good guy defended themselves against a bad guy in all but a few cases.
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)Self defense was legal everywhere before SYG. SYG goes beyond self defense to make murder legal. It means someone can kill when he has a safe retreat available. That is not someone who kills because he has no choice but because he chooses to kill. The bad guy is not the unarmed teenager walking home from the store but the killer.
Any decent human would only take a life if no other option existed, if killing was only necessary to save his or herself or a loved one. Anyone who kills absent that situation is a murder, morally if not legally. Some support SYG for no other reason than they like the idea of killing someone, especially a black man, which is why Zimmerman is their hero. These are profoundly dangerous and diseased people who represent the greatest threat to public safety that exists. They are far worse than drug dealers or thieves because their goal is murder, first and foremost. SYG legalizes the actions of profoundly evil people. The guy in Texas who killed because he saw two Hispanic men leaving his neighbor's house with stuff is a clear example. He killed because he choose to kill. On a moral scale, there is no comparing a thief with him. His evil is far, far worse. Thanks to the most reactionary elements in society, those homicidal creatures are empowered to kill at will.
There are people who value white lives over black or Hispanic lives and value property over all human life. To them killing is always a good thing. That is what makes those people so dangerous.
Bazinga
(331 posts)If you are claiming SYG (or any other self-defense standard for that matter) it is because you believe you were attacked and acted in self-defense. There is no SYG without assault.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)Exactly how often has this happened? How often has SYG been used to legalize what would otherwise likely result in a murder trial?
SYG legalizes what might otherwise be murder. The lawmakers and interests that pushed this law knew that. Surely, you recognize that.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)BainsBane
(53,031 posts)to say exactly nothing? If you have any evidence to refute my claims, all of which have been published in respected publications, do so. Don't feel bad that someone spoke unfavorably about the sacred NRA, ALEC, and the Koch brothers. They've got billions to influence the little minds of the uneducated folk of the country. They can survive a few people who actually read and get their news somewhere besides FOX.
Bazinga
(331 posts)But since we're here, those publications you referenced have been addressed (in post 129). Only one of them offers statistics regarding SYG (and it's pay to read), and none of them corroborate your 11-1 statistic which has been shown to be irrelevant as it does not pertain to SYG!
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)It delineates the difference between SYG and and regular defense law--a matter of fact.
It says ALEC, the Koch brothers and the NRA have pushed SYG laws around the nation--another matter of fact.
Bazinga
(331 posts)So naturally, I assumed you were talking about the post where you did provide references. And you'll remember that that post resided in the "11-1" subthread where you were shown multiple times, but failed to recognize, that your statistic is not applicable to SYG and that the applicable statistics do not support your conclusion of deferential treatment for whites who kill blacks under SYG.
I also find it interesting that I took the time to read and address your references and then got crickets. For someone who is making a big deal out of unrefuted arguments, you sure are doing a good job of ignoring statistics that don't support your conclusion.
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)The Tampa Bay Times article? If I don't get to all the posts in a gun thread it is because I am overwhelmed with replies. I can't possibly get to all the gunners who object to me.
By the way, you can access any of those sources I referenced through a university library or a public library with a subscription to Proquest.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)rl6214
(8,142 posts)Much less a zombie thread.
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)The difference between SYG and regular self defense law is that in the former the shooter doesn't have the responsibility to retreat EVEN when a safe retreat exists. In self defense law someone who kills has a responsibility to retreat if it is safe to do so but not if it isn't. He or she could only kill when no other option existed. Under SYG they do not need to look for other remedies. The only burden is that they have a reasonable fear of harm. You can consult legal statutes for that.
SYG is part of the agenda of ALEC and the NRA, and efforts to have it established in states across the country have been funded by he Koch Brothers, a major contributer to ALEC.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/06/nra-alec-stand-your-ground
http://veracitystew.com/2012/04/08/the-unholy-trinity-koch-brothers-alec-and-the-nra-video/
Another fact: You still have managed to say nothing or to refute any of my so-called erroneous facts.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)Just like I dredged up a zombie thread.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)Last edited Thu Aug 8, 2013, 10:29 AM - Edit history (1)
that the 17 year old black kid armed himself so that he wouldn't end up like Trayvon Martin?
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)with a white victim, you're not being honest.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)BainsBane
(53,031 posts)that the law is used to disproportionately justify the murder of blacks by whites?
pintobean
(18,101 posts)calling anyone's honesty into question.
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)It's unfortunate you find it so difficult to contribute anything of substance to the discussion.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)about why the kid may have been carrying. Instead, you made a crack about my honesty. Coming from you, I found that amusing.
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)for all to see. I don't need to make any cracks, nor did I. Mine was a point about SYG laws. You resort to personal attacks because that is who you choose to be. Evidently reading up on the racial disparities in the law is too burdensome for you.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)You make your character clear for all to see, as well.
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)Since you have nothing to say, I will forgo further discussion and wish you well.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)and you replied with something completely off-subject from my comment. I didn't allow you to steer the discussion or question my character.
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)Or what I sought to do. Mine was a point about the implications of the law. I did not comment on your character. You, however, have chosen to show yourself for everyone to see.
This is why I put you on ignore in the first place. You never want to discuss issues. You only engage in personal disputes. It's boring and a waste of energy. Life is too short to spend enmeshed in such toxicity.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)as a way of thanking me for looking out for you.
Here's the sub-thread where I asked you if I could send you a friendly PM. After insulting me, you agreed that I could send it:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022428358#post3
Right after I sent you the PM, you fixed the problem and put me on ignore. Since that security problem has been taken care of, I see no reason not to post the text of our mail exchange:
Return to My InboxMark as unreadDelete this messageBlock this sender
Feb 2013
BainsBane
Re: Your image in your OP
Mail Message
Thank you for letting me know.
> I frequently look at people's sources when I see something like that. I right clicked on the image and clicked view image. That opens the image from the host source. In this case, it's a photobucket account and there's a name in the URL. If that's your account and your real name, anyone can see it.
>
> I know you and I don't get along, but we're on the same side. I assume you're aware of sites like the conservative cave and how they stalk DU and mine our site for personal information. I hate to see what they do to DUers. They're really sick.
>
> I just wanted to let you know that this could be a problem. Any image you post has a url to the host site, including your sig line pic. That one is on every post you make.
>
> If I'm wrong, there's no problem and I just wasted a little of your time. If I'm right, you need a new name on your photobucket account.
You continue to attack my character every chance you get. You accuse me of stalking you all the time, yet you replied to me in this thread. Neither of us is stalking the other - we both comment in gun and crime threads.
The bottom line for post #27 is that if I disagree with you, I'm not being honest. I saw that as an attack on my character. It's typical of how you discuss issues. There's always some kind of personal flaw with anyone who disagrees with you.
Kingofalldems
(38,452 posts)From experience.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)
Kingofalldems
(38,452 posts)^^^^^
pintobean
(18,101 posts)Not that it really matters. You nipping at heels doesn't really bother anyone. It's just amusing.
Kingofalldems
(38,452 posts)Also found out last week.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)Response to rl6214 (Reply #167)
Kingofalldems This message was self-deleted by its author.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)Except I wasn't being snarky like you.
Kingofalldems
(38,452 posts)Response to Kingofalldems (Reply #109)
Post removed
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)would it? It wouldn't occur to you that despite your courtesy in informing me of that security problem, I grew tired of months of your relentless needling and finger wagging and put you on ignore. Up until then we had not once discussed any issue. In fact, at that point you swore up and down you were't a pro-gun advocate. What you did was insult me every time I had the audacity to voice an opinion, while offering none yourself. Rather than engaging in a discussion of issues, then as now you engaged in personal swipes. One of the juror's on your earlier post made the point quite appropriately: "you're not being honest" in a political conversation is not an attack, it is a call to look at something from a different perspective. I'm sorry but your attitude here is very nasty. It appears you don't like this member, use the ignore function if that's the case. Hide."
I'm no longer in junior high. I find this sort of exchange tasteless and a waste of energy. This entire exchange is beneath this discussion community.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)and you chose to post one comment, rather than the full results. For all we know, that comment came from the guy who just entered the thread to give me shit. It's what he does. Despite you're continued efforts, I've never had more than 2 hidden posts at one time, and my total since DU3 started is still in the single digits. How many did you peak at? Around the time that you put me on ignore, you were tied for 2nd place for the most on DU. Don't talk to me about insults. You took me off ignore after Skinner busted and PPRed your alert sock. Frivolous alerts are tasteless and a waste of energy.
You're lucky tou didn't get PPRed for that stunt. From the TOS:
Do not attempt to intentionally interfere with or exploit the operation of the Democratic Underground website or discussion forums (eg. by "post bombing" or using any other flooding techniques, by attempting to circumvent any restrictions placed on your account by the forum software, etc.) Do not post messages that contain software viruses, Trojan horses, worms, or any malware or computer code designed to disrupt, damage, or limit the functioning of any software or hardware.
I never said I wasn't pro gun. That's just a false statement. You have claimed that before and I corrected you by saying you must have me confused with someone else. There's no way anyone would believe that if I tried to claim it. Why would you repeat such a ridiculous thing?
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Never saw that one
snooper2
(30,151 posts)GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)I expanded that to include all shooting, including those that were only wounded:
Black on White - 4 convicted, 12 justified, 4 pending
White on Black - 3 convicted, 14 justified, 5 pending
Notice that the numbers are very close to the same. So Blacks are shooting Whites and getting off on SYG.
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)11 to 1 is the figure. You continue to cherry pick numbers to promote a law that kills
hack89
(39,171 posts)Florida has hard numbers that show you are wrong in the state of Florida.
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)even in this very subthread. I pointed to the sources. Here they are AGAIN.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/06/nra-alec-stand-your-ground
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/11/stand-your-ground-task-force-rick-scott-trayvon
http://msmagazine.com/blog/2013/07/14/stand-your-ground-increases-racial-bias/
Feminazi--Because wanting my gender to be treated like human beings is just like invading Poland. "Cold
hack89
(39,171 posts)This is where the 11-1 figure comes from:
http://blog.metrotrends.org/2012/08/stand-ground-laws-worsen-racial-disparities/
Notice how he does not provide actual numbers? Don't you think hard numbers like number of inter-racial versus intra-racial SYG cases would be useful?
You have been shown in Florida that the difference is not there and that black shooters are acquitted at a higher rate than white shooters in SYG cases.
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)and then you point me to a blog.
Even if there were no racial disparity, which is demonstrably false, the law is still a justification of murder. True self defense was already legal. The difference is SYG gives someone a right to kill when a safe retreat exists. It legalizes murder, not self defense.
No one is going to convince me that murder is somehow okay. Just because Alec, the NRA, and the Koch brothers help people get away with murder by pushing SYG laws doesn't change what it is. Killing is evil, and anyone who takes a life when he doesn't need to in order to save his own is an evil piece of shit who deserves to rot in hell. Those who enable murders by advancing SYG laws aren't much better.
hack89
(39,171 posts)do you even read your links?
but I actually work for a living, and I have work to do now. That isn't the only source that article uses. You obviously didn't read it. Plus I cited THREE articles. One referenced the actual Florida report. So obviously you didn't bother reading.
hack89
(39,171 posts)there is no comparison using absolute figures. If I am wrong than surely you can show me.
Stop evading the issue
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)BainsBane
(53,031 posts)You obviously aren't interested.
hack89
(39,171 posts)so I have a good idea how it will end. You will never admit that you can possibly be wrong. You will then shift the conversation to emphasize your moral superiority because I support murder.
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)Trayvon Martin and the Dystopian Turn in US Self-defense Doctrine. Detail Only Available
By: Kurtz, Hilda E. Antipode. Mar2013, Vol. 45 Issue 2, p248-251. 4p. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8330.2012.01057.x.
Subjects: SHOOTINGS (Crime); INNER cities; SELF-defense (Law); ETHNIC neighborhoods -- United States; STEREOTYPES (Social psychology); AFRICAN American neighborhoods; FLORIDA; UNITED States; MARTIN, Trayvon, 1995-2012
Database: Academic Search Premier
Remove from folder
Linked Full TextCheck SFX for availability. A new window will open*Check SFX for more information
2.
Academic Journal
A FRESH CUT IN AN OLD WOUND--A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE TRAYVON MARTIN KILLING: THE PUBLIC OUTCRY, THE PROSECUTORS' DISCRETION, AND THE STAND YOUR GROUND LAW. Detail Only Available
By: Lawson, Tamara F. University of Florida Journal of Law & Public Policy. Dec2012, Vol. 23 Issue 3, p271-310. 40p.
Subjects: RACE; SELF-defense; PROSECUTION; DISCRETION; MARTIN, Trayvon, 1995-2012
Database: Academic Search Premier
Remove from folder
Check SFX for availability. A new window will open*Check SFX for more information
3.
Academic Journal
For Trayvon Martin. Detail Only Available
By: Weems, Mary E. Cultural Studies/Critical Methodologies. Oct2012, Vol. 12 Issue 5, p422-423. 2p. DOI: 10.1177/1532708612453008.
Subjects: POETICS; RACISM; CREATIVE writing; THEORY of knowledge; CRITICAL theory; FLORIDA; RICHARDSON, Laurel
Database: Academic Search Premier
Remove from folder
Check SFX for availability. A new window will open*Check SFX for more information
4.
Academic Journal
Project MUSE - Theory & Event - Deadly Force and Public Reason. Detail Only Available
Theory & Event. 2012, Vol. 15 Issue 3, p1-1. 1p.
Subjects: SHOOTINGS (Crime); STATUTES; POLICE dispatchers; FLORIDA; MARTIN, Trayvon, 1995-2012; ZIMMERMAN, George, 1983-
Database: Academic Search Premier
Remove from folder
Check SFX for availability. A new window will open*Check SFX for more information
5.
Academic Journal
Project MUSE - Theory & Event - The Dialectics of Standing One's Ground. Detail Only Available
Theory & Event. 2012, Vol. 15 Issue 3, p1-1. 1p.
Subjects: AFRICAN American teenagers; PISTOL shooting; SELF-defense (Law); FLORIDA; MARTIN, Trayvon, 1995-2012; ZIMMERMAN, George, 1983-
Database: Academic Search Premier
Remove from folder
Check SFX for availability. A new window will open*Check SFX for more information
6.
Academic Journal
"THE ANSWER TO CRIMINAL AGGRESSION IS RETALIATION": STAND-YOUR-GROUND LAWS AND THE LIBERALIZATION OF SELF-DEFENSE. Detail Only Available
By: Holliday, Wyatt. University of Toledo Law Review. Winter2012, Vol. 43 Issue 2, p407-436. 30p.
Subjects: SELF-defense (Law); LEX talionis; COMMON law; CIVIL law; CIVIL liability; FLORIDA; UNITED States; Courts
Database: Academic Search Premier
Remove from folder
hack89
(39,171 posts)that's all I want to see - that actual numbers they used to derive that 11-1 figure from. Thanks in advance.
BainsBane
(53,031 posts), but I'm not playing. I provided you the available evidence. You have everything you need for that. Mother Jones was my source. I didn't write the article. I cited it. I pointed out that the Commission on Civil Rights has opened an investigation and is doing research into the use of those laws. I pointed to reports on the laws lack of effectiveness in deterring crime, and academic articles showing how the laws empower existing perceptions of race-based fear of criminality. I made several other points about SYG which you have ignored. I don't like your games. You obviously aren't interested in any kind of honest discussion, and I'm not interested in being your foil in your performance of self justification. You don't care what I think or what Attorney General Holder thinks about SYG laws. You don't care about the investigations by the Commission on Civil Rights. You don't care what scholars think or what the available evidence shows. All you care about is guns and justifying deadly use of them. If you can't see that the unnecessary taking of a human life is wrong, no amount of data or argument will do you any good.
hack89
(39,171 posts)You accepted a biased and unsubstantiated "study" that reflects your point of view.
What a shock.
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)You don't deal with the substance of the figures or the arguments in the sources I provided. You ignore the fact that the laws are under investigation by the Office for Civil Rights. Why are you so desperate to insist people have more ways to kill each other without legal consequence?
I did back it up. You did not. As usual, you back up nothing. I provided many sources to support my point. You provided nothing. Just because something doesn't justify murder doesn't make it "biased." All you want is confirmation of you own views. That is far from evidence.
hack89
(39,171 posts)don't you understand? Without hard numbers your "11-1" "fact" is meaningless?
I gave you hard numbers for Florida - numbers which prove that there is no racial bias in SYG. You refuse to address Florida - why?
I linked to the articles with the numbers. Those numbers are national. They include Florida. Why do you not care that the law allows people to legally kill when a safe retreat exists? Why do you not care that it's not decreased crime but rather increased justifiable homicide?
I suggest you look again. Show me exactly what was used to determine the 11-1 figure. That's all I want - a link to that specific study.
Bazinga
(331 posts)And they are right to do so as there is a disparity in the outcomes of cases where the victim is black vs cases where the victim is white. But the fact that they are conducting an investigation does not in itself prove racism.
If I promise to look at the sources you provided, will you at least recognize that the Florida SYG numbers as referenced in this subthread indicate that there is no difference in the acquittal rates of black on white crimes vs white on black crimes? (In fact there is no race that is acquitted significantly more often than another, but we'll start small.
Here's what I found when I looked at the articles you posted:
1- I couldn't access the whole article (paid subscription required), but from the abstract it appeared to deal with the Martin/Zimmerman case specifically and the racial tensions surrounding and affecting that case.
2- Also dealt with the racial outcry and outrage surrounding the Trayvon Martin shooting, but also focused on prosecutorial discretion and its role in the case. Conspicuously absent were any statistics that would have supported your "11-1" statistic, or even any treatment of racial disparities in the application or outcomes of SYG laws.
3- Again unable to find free access, but the abstract purports itself as "poetic inquiry," a technique to which I will admit ignorance. The subject matter again appears to be race issues surrounding the TM/GZ case.
4- Not being a lawyer, this article was well outside my scope of competence as it deals with legal analysis off SYG, again pertaining to TM/GZ. I did note, however, that there was no analysis of the global effects of SYG outside of that specific case, nothing to substantiate the "11-1" statistic, and no evidence shown that there is a racially unequal application of the law.
5- Again very technical, but I got quite a bit more out of this than the last. It deals with broader implications of SYG, and flaws in the legislation and the idea. However, it provides no treatment of racial disparities.
6- This looked to be the most promising of all. The abstract indicated that it would have some statistical analysis of states with and without SYG, and potentially look at racial disparities too, but alas, I was not going to pay $15 to find out.
Overall it was confirmed that racial tension is high surrounding the TM/GZ case and this law due to historical and present circumstances. However there were no statistics or numbers presented that would indicate anything other than what I have claimed. That the SYG data do not indicate any difference whatsoever in the treatment of white on black vs black on white cases.
I'm not asking you to change your position, or even to admit that your position is any weaker than it was before. All I ask is an admission that the SYG data compiled in as close to entirety as possible by the Tampa Bay Times do not support your position. ( And while you're at it, it would be nice to recognize that the "11-1" statistic you have been citing does not, in fact, relate to SYG, but rather to all justifiable homicides regardless of self-defense law.)
Bazinga
(331 posts)However, when that statistic was demonstrated to be completely irrelevant to the topic of discussion you refused to acknowledge the relevant statistics that were presented unequivocally to you.
So who is ignoring points regarding SYG? Who doesn't care about what the evidence shows? And who is playing games?
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)between committing murder and not committing murder? I'm supposed to not think there is something wrong with taking a life when one doesn't have to because it makes you feel bad? If you don't want to be judged morally, don't support murder. SYG isn't a self defense law. Self defense has been allowed for a very long time. SYG enables someone to kill EVEN THOUGH a safe retreat exists. It's a right wing law advanced the the NRA, ALEC, and the Koch brothers to justify more use of guns. Just because someone CAN use a gun doesn't mean they should.
There really isn't a moral debate here. I'm not going to pretend killing someone is okay because you don't like to hear the truth. If talking to you requires abandoning all sense of human decency, I really prefer not to have further conversations with you, but I will NEVER pretend murder is okay. That you feel compelled to do so is entirely on your conscience. If you don't want to be confronted with the truth, don't communicate with me. I will not lie to make you feel better. You shouldn't feel better. You should feel worse about your views. They are morally wrong. Killing when one does not have to in order to save one own's life is very, very wrong. That is why SYG is an inherently evil law.
hack89
(39,171 posts)lets start with that - do you agree?
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)Self defense has been allowable for centuries. SYG allows people to shoot EVEN when a safe exit exists. Rather than killing as a last resort, people may now legally kill as a first resort. Why is that not problematic to you?
hack89
(39,171 posts)If you truly have a reasonable fear of harm due to some committing a felony then it is still self defense.
The difference between you and me is that you value the life of.the criminal more. I value the life of the victim more.
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)SYG rewrites self defense law. It changes the basis of it. The key difference is that one does not need to try to avoid killing. If he has what a prosecutor, judge or jury sees as a reasonable fear for his life, he can kill EVEN when it's not necessary, EVEN when a safe retreat exists.
You are talking about killing people not convicted of any crime, someone like Trayvon Martin. The person killed is the victim. You are siding with the killer. You would not insist such a person lose his rights to carry a weapon, yet you think it's okay to kill him. Do you not see the problem with that?
SYG creates a death penalty for assault, for theft, loitering, and simply being black. The reason race is so crucial is because in this culture we are taught from a young age to fear black men. Police, prosecutors and juries believe someone can have a reasonable fear of a black men because they have it ingrained in them from a young age that black men are dangerous. SYG makes deadly existing race-based perceptions of criminality. That is what one of those journal articles I pointed to you demonstrates systematically with a great deal of detail and data.
hack89
(39,171 posts)BainsBane
(53,031 posts)That's your position? You run away? Your position is clearly untenable in every regard, and rather than reflecting on those contradictions you flee from the argument. We never have agreed, and that has never stopped you before. Yet you now show yourself unequipped to deal seriously with the key issues at the heart of SYG and the gun lobby that promotes it.
Be aware that I am perfectly aware of what you are doing on this site. Given your refusal to engage in honest dialog, I expect you will NEVER again respond to another one of my posts or threads about guns, SYG laws, or any related subject.
hack89
(39,171 posts)I just want to make sure that people can have the other side of the argument.
These threads have a set pattern. Instead of saying the same thing 10 times, I will from now on just say it once and then move on.
You will see plenty more of me.
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)This: http://www.nber.org/papers/w18187.pdf?new_window=1
http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2012/jul/13/study-stand-your-ground-laws-dont-deter-crime-to/
The Civil Rights Commission obviously thinks there is cause to investigate the laws:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/31/stand-your-ground-racial-bias_n_3365893.html
hack89
(39,171 posts)this sub-thread is about your contention that SYG is biased.
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)all of which you have ignored.
hack89
(39,171 posts)all I want to see is the hard numbers behind your 11-1 "fact". Why are you having such a hard time finding them? I thought you were going to research them after work.
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)a tried and true tactic.
hack89
(39,171 posts)
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)that people who were being attacked were then incarcerated. You're celebrating locking-up people who defended themselves over some absurd requirement that they cede ground to an obvious aggressor.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)It isn't cherry picking if you use ALL the events.
Bazinga
(331 posts)There is no statistically significant difference in the acquittal rates of black on white cases vs white on black cases.
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)is the ratio to which whites who have killed blacks have successfully invoked SYG over blacks who have killed whites. You are uninformed. There is a reason the Office for Civil Rights is investigating this law. It is entirely racist. Pretending it's not is like pretending the death penalty isn't racist.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/06/nra-alec-stand-your-ground
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/11/stand-your-ground-task-force-rick-scott-trayvon
http://msmagazine.com/blog/2013/07/14/stand-your-ground-increases-racial-bias/
hack89
(39,171 posts)the vast majority of SYG cases are intra-racial with whites killing whites and blacks killing blacks. As you were shown in Florida, the difference in convictions in inter-racial SYG is miniscule - one additional conviction.
There is a reason that study only talks about "likelihood" without presenting actual numbers - they are trying to hide how weak their case is.
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)is miraculously not racist when it comes to SYG, is that your story? Or are you waiting for more deaths to get a large enough statistical sample for you to consider valid? How many black men need to die in the meantime?
So why do you support the law anyway? Clearly it's not needed for self defense since people have been able to defend themselves for centuries. Is it any use of a gun must be a good use of gun? The more the merrier?
hack89
(39,171 posts)why is Florida forgoing this excellent opportunity to put more Blacks in prison?
I am ambivalent towards the law - I think it needs refinement to better address the responsibilities of the aggressor to avoid more Zimmerman laws.
Bazinga
(331 posts)a policing and judicial system with a demonstrable racial disparity is, in regards to this specific law, no longer demonstrably unequal, so we are waiting for more data of all types to determine a conclusion that currently does not have enough support.
To turn the question around, is it that any use of a gun is a bad use of a gun?
Bazinga
(331 posts)The original source is here, and it says:
Overall, shootings are ruled justifiable in only 1.5 percent of cases. However, the rate goes up substantially in those cases for which Stand Your Ground laws purport to protect innocent shooters. Specifically, in cases where the victim and the shooter are strangers and a handgun is used, a homicide is ruled justifiable in about 10 percent of cases.
Across the country, when the shooter is white and the victim is white, the percentage of shootings ruled justifiable is a little more than 11 percent. When the shooter is black and the victim is black, about 8 percent of homicides are ruled justifiable.
Now, when the shooter is white and the victim is black, the justifiable homicide rate is 34 percent. When the situation is reversed and the shooter is black and the victim is white, shootings are ruled to be justifiable in only slightly more than 3 percent of cases.
Notice in the first paragraph they are talking about SYG, saying the number of homicides ruled justifiable is increased. However, in the second and third paragraphs they are talking about the proportion of all shootings saying that more white on black shootings are found to be justifiable than the reverse.
The second and third paragraphs are considering all shootings, not those invoking SYG (or even in states with SYG vs those without). It is, therefore, the same reflection of racial disparity in the justice system as the death penalty. Your statistic has nothing to do with SYG.
The numbers I used in the thread I linked to above, on the other hand, come from Tampa Bay Times' database of only SYG cases. In those cases there is no evidence of racial bias in white on black cases vs black on white cases.
First, it is important to note that justifiable homicides are exceedingly rare. Between January 2005 and December 2009 there were more than 73,000 homicides in the United States but less than 2 percent (1,148) were found to be justifiable.
We combed the data to identify homicides which resemble the known facts from the Trayvon Martin case—cases in which there was a single victim and a single shooter (both of whom were civilians and strangers) and in which the victim was killed by a handgun. We identified 4,650 of these cases in the SHR. Of these, just 10.9 percent (506) were ruled to be justifiable homicides.
We then looked for a scenario where homicides are justified more than half the time. It turns out that the scenario with the highest probability of being a justified homicide is much like the Martin case—a single, White civilian handgun shooter who is a stranger to (and older than) the Black victim. But even then, the shooting is found to be justified less than half the time.
Finally, we searched the SHR data for cases that matched all the facts of the Martin case (including ages and races). Out of 70,000 cases, we find that the homicides similar to the Martin case occurred just 23 times in five years. Of those 23 cases, only 9 (39 percent) were ruled to be justifiable homicides.
Since the overwhelming majority of shootings are not justified, it seems clear that SYG laws reduce the chance for justice by moving the burden of proof from the shooter to law enforcement.
While your 11 to 1 factoid sounds like a horrible miscarriage of justice caused by SYG laws, when we look at the data it seems to disappear into statistical insignificance. Since laws are human constructs, and humans are imperfect, the laws we craft will be imperfect as well. There will be miscarriages of justice, of which the Zimmerman case is a fine example.
If SYG laws were universally repealed today, I expect the result will be little more than a statistically insignificant blip in the conviction rate for racially motivated homicide and conviction for same. And that blip would be easily swallowed by extenuating factors that are much more deserving of our attention because of their efficacy in the improvement of people's lives outside the narrow confines of self defense.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)Is it hard?
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)those are the national statistics for successfully invoking SYG of cases of whites killing blacks over blacks killing whites. I know the NRA sends you all to a newspaper article that cherry pics a few stats to promote their pro-murder agenda. The rest of us look at real numbers. This has been covered in Mother Jones. Read it yourself.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)The question is what is the success of it.
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)obviously.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)The closest study I have seen is John Roman's. Problem is that he using a high level analysis to try and draw a conclusion. Why not just specifically look at all SYG cases (information appears to be available because lots of media have accessed it in different markets) to see the breakout? I am guessing because his study gave him the results he wanted so why mess with it now?
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)Read them. Why do you all love this NRA, ALEC, KOCH brothers law so much? There is clearly n no need for the law other than a desire to kill. Silly question, I guess.
hack89
(39,171 posts)why is Florida forgoing this excellent opportunity to put more blacks in prison?
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)It doesn't matter what happened to Trayvon or how the shooter felt about it, it's illegal to posses a handgun at 17. Period. He is not claiming or rebuking that law. His defense is SYG.
Beside, illegal concealment can easily escalate into a real jail time felony. A life derailing sentence.
That's not the way to live in a post Trayvon America.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)for breaking the law. It's better than dead, though. I'm not a 17 y.o. black teen in post-Trayvon Florida, so I won't judge his motives for carrying illegally.
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)but i think we have enough young black men in prison with derailed lives, wouldn't you agree?
Township75
(3,535 posts)Love it! The sword is double edged!!
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Sorry, I won't let politics rob me of logic.
If someone is swinging a weapon at me, I'll blow his head off without a second thought.
My state is progressive and has SYG. It's a good law.
Iggo
(47,552 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Iggo
(47,552 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Yes, CLUB. That is what a large stick is - a club. Clubs have been used for millions of years to kill with.
G_j
(40,367 posts)running people over and then coming at them with a large stick/club is acceptable behavior!
sarisataka
(18,625 posts)believe it is acceptable 
G_j
(40,367 posts)I think the driver's terrible actions are being used dishonestly to imply that those who think the use of a gun was unacceptable, are somehow are in favor of the the driver's actions.
sarisataka
(18,625 posts)But I think I get you.
Agreed there is plenty of fault and blame to go around here; neither side is in the right.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)They left out this tidbit --
Ocala police detectives on Tuesday were in the process of obtaining a pickup order for Pierson, who is being charged as an adult.
http://www.ocala.com/article/20130806/ARTICLES/130809792?p=2&tc=pg
It seems TP (how apt) tries suggesting that those who are entitled to a SYG defense are also exempt from other laws. This is obviously false and misleading.
They also leave out this inconvenient fact --
Another eyewitness said Jacobs had been arguing with the three down the street. She said the teens had been "talking junk" to him.
Shortly afterward, the trio was walking west on Third Street when Jacobs drove up to them. The witness said he got out with a large stick and said, "I'll beat your ass," as he approached with the stick raised. One of the teens then shot Jacobs.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)I do not feel safe going anyway here. You have to be on defensive (Polite Society????) all the time because you never know who is carrying and might find something you do as a threat to them.
It's a horrible way to live, people. SYG HAS TO GO. It is a license to kill.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)The dead guy used deadly force to assault the teen.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)Flip somebody the bird, and you can be shot here. They think anything you do that is offensive to them is an excuse to use their guns and shoot you.
Did I add don't play loud music in a gas station?
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)Your post, in the context of the OP, makes it really seem like you are afraid because you're going to do something like that.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)I have had people on my tail for that for doing the speed limit. You don't like the speed limit pass me in the left hand lane. I have thought about pulling over, stopping, letting them pass me, but I am afraid to STOP because they might think I want a confrontation. I am a little old lady. I don't want any BS from these jerks who think they are MACHO MEN and just itching for any excuse.
Welcome to Floriduh.
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)And there is insufficient evidence to declare that concealed carry laws increase your risk of being in a situation similar to the one you described.
It seems like you're against SYG/carry laws based on situations where neither of them apply.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)Too many nuts with guns who are just itching to use SYG as an excuse. It just feeds the frenzy.
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)and there is very little reason to think that it is true.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)Jacobs came back after the teens in his car, got out swinging the stick at them while yelling at Pierson. The friends ran away, wherewas Pierson "stood his ground."
We are assuming that if Pierson had run away, Jacobs would not have gotten back into his car and followed them further.
IOW, Jacobs almost hit them and they yelled at him for that, and he yelled back.
Jacobs pulled into a driveway and got out of his car.
They continued on their way.
As they passed the driveway, Jacobs yelled at them that he "had something for them."
Jacobs got into his car and pursued them. Got out of his car swinging a stick.
2 teens ran; Pierson shot Jacobs.
Jacobs had already made a point of getting back into his car and pursuing them. Had Pierson run instead of shooting, what would have stopped Jacobs from getting back into his car and continuing to pursue them?
Were they obligated to continue running until they couldn't run any more?
The teens didn't know he was a choir director (with a violent history). What they did know was that he was coming after them with little provocation and apparently with the intent to harm using a weapon.
This is nothing like the Zimmerman case, in which Zimmerman was actively pursuing and threatening Martin from the start, with no provocation.
In fact, this is nearly the exact opposite, in which the person shot and killed was doing the pursuing and threatening, in daylight with witnesses who saw him swinging a large stick at them and clearly heard him yelling obsccenities at them and specificatlly threatening to beat Pierson with the stick.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #73)
GreenStormCloud This message was self-deleted by its author.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Just the thought of killing someone and getting away with it, is their favorite fantasy come to the real world.
Congrats gunhumpers, keep it up and the place will be as nice as Somalia.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)"Gun freak" or a "gun humper"
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... gun freak and a gun humper.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)A gun freak. A gun nut. Of the young variety. A punk. A coward. Like all gun humpers.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)Last edited Wed Aug 14, 2013, 02:58 PM - Edit history (1)
Anti gun zealots need to get their terminology straight. All the other anti gun zealots say in order to be a gun humper/gun nut you must be a white, GOP, NRA lover with an arsenal bigger than most swat teams. This guy doesn't fit the bill.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... Keeper of Definitions? Gun humpers love guns, gun humpers like to use guns to kill people. Frankly, I don't give a flying fuck what you think.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)now you tell me it encompasses young criminals as well. It is so confusing.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)99Forever (5,973 posts)
194. Who appointed you...
... Keeper of Definitions? Gun humpers love guns, gun humpers like to use guns to kill people. Frankly, I don't give a flying fuck what you think.
IT'S THE GUNS, STUPID.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)on an internet message board just doesn't seem to have a whole lot of punch to it.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... thanks for that chunk of wizzdumb Mr Pintobean.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)SYG is bad law, but this isn't the best example of someone cruelly gunned down for no reason.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)The dead man, Jacobs, was driving an SUV in a manner reported as reckless, and was yelled at by 3 pedestrians that came close to hitting.
Jacobs, who could have simply driven on, instead yelled back. Then he parked his car in a driveway and bought an illegal drugs, crack cocaine. More yells are exchanged as the teens walked past the parked SUV.
Jacobs backs his SUV out of the driveway, then, instead of simply driving away, he drives towards the three pedestrians. One flees, fearing being run over.
Jacobs, again NOT simply driving away, then parks his SUV and emerges from its safety, wielding some sort of club. At this point, one of the pedestrians, illegally carrying a concealed handgun, shoots and kills him.
The pedestrian is being charged with illegal possession of a handgun, and illegally carrying a concealed handgun, but not for murder.
That about right?
B Calm
(28,762 posts)Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)The guy attempted to run the kids down with his car, then he got out and attacked them with a stick. Clearly he was a lethal threat.
benld74
(9,904 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)"It is useless to go into the developments of the law from the time when a man who had killed another no matter how innocently had to get his pardon, whether of grace or of course. Concrete cases or illustrations stated in the early law in conditions very different from the present, like the reference to retreat in Coke, Third Inst. 55, and elsewhere, have had a tendency to ossify into specific rules without much regard for reason. Other examples may be found in the law as to trespass ab initio, Commonwealth v. Rubin, 165 Mass. 453, 43 N. E. 200, and as to fresh complaint after rape. Commonwealth v. Cleary, 172 Mass. 175, 51 N. E. 746. Rationally the failure to retreat is a circumstance to be considered with all the others in order to determine whether the defendant went farther than he was justified in doing; not a categorical proof of guilt. The law has grown, and even if historical mistakes have contributed to its growth it has tended in the direction of rules consistent with human nature. Many respectable writers agree that if a man reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm from his assailant he may stand his ground and that if he kills him he has not succeeded the bounds of lawful self defence. That has been the decision of this Court. Beard v. United States, 158 U.S. 550, 559 , 15 S. Sup. Ct. 962. Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife. Therefore in this Court, at least, it is not a condition of immunity that one in that situation should pause to consider whether a reasonable man might not think it possible to fly with safety or to disable his assailant rather than to kill him Rowe v. United States, 164 U.S. 546, 558 , 17 S. Sup. Ct. 172. The law of Texas very strongly adopts these views as is shown by many cases, of which it is enough to cite two. Cooper v. State, 49 Tex. Cr. R. 28, 38, 89 S. W. 1068. Baltrip v. State, 30 Tex. App. 545, 549, 17 S. W. 1106. [256 U.S. 335, 344] It is true that in the case of Beard he was upon his own land (not in his house,) and in that of Rowe he was in the room of a hotel, but those facts, although mentioned by the Court, would not have bettered the defence by the old common law and were not appreciably more favorable than that the defendant here was at a place where he was called to be, in the discharge of his duty. There was evidence that the last shot was fired after Hermis was down. The jury might not believe the defendant's testimony that it was an accidental discharge, but the suggestion of the Government that this Court may disregard the considerable body of evidence that the shooting was in self defence is based upon a misunderstanding of what was meant by some language in Battle v. United States, 209 U.S. 36, 38 , 28 S. Sup. Ct. 422. Moreover if the last shot was intentional and may seem to have been unnecessary when considered in cold blood, the defendant would not necessarily lose his immunity if it followed close upon the others while the heat of the conflict was on, and if the defendant believed that he was fighting for his life."
Brown's conviction was reversed.
To say that Pierson would have been expected to attempt retreat in the absence of a stand-your-ground statute disregards the holding in the 1921 Brown case.
valerief
(53,235 posts)Kid shoots illegal gun unnecessarily. Kid should be imprisoned second of all.
Florida, America's hellhole.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)And, the authorities don't agree with your "unnecessarily" characterization of the event.
olddots
(10,237 posts)they can all dream of getting concealed carry licenses so they can be SUPERIOR MACHO GODS ( that are of course god fearing )
We are becoming one country under ignorance like many societies before us this false sense of liberty leads to the dark past .
Stand your ground is just what small minded superstitious spoiled babies want till they realize the planet is everyone's ground that can be shared or destroyed by illogical greed.
Freddie Stubbs
(29,853 posts)gopiscrap
(23,757 posts)
Turbineguy
(37,322 posts)that the NRA figured out. Something like "For every person zotsed, 1000 go out and buy a gun". Innocent bystanders who get shot are probably the most lucerative.