Popcorn killer tries using stand your ground argument

[Mr. Coffee]

Ah nice. Did your mother teach you to speak to others like that? On the side, did she teach you to not think about things as well? I bet she is proud on all counts.

Did your mother ever stop drinking when she got pregnant with you?

But since you won't draw pictures I will. Or rather I will spell things out for you as I don't feel like drawing.

Yes, you're going to waste my time by being a long winded dipshit that cannot understand simple fucking concepts when someone explains them to you using small words and repeats the information several times. Let's get this over with, you dense motherfucker...

Each law is designed for the explicit purpose of achieving one or more effects upon the society it is inflicted upon. As such the one and only measure of its success or failure is how well or badly it performs at achieving the same. I think we can both agree on that.

THink about what you're saying here, shit for brains. You're saying that laws are all integrated and don't exist in a vacuum, yet you're trying to assign the failure point in the Zimmerman case and the OP's popcorn shooter to a law that did not fail. Ok, we get it, you have a thing for vacuums, probably from years of stroking yourself at how cleaver you think you are, but the point still remains that you're blaming the wrong law here, Captain Fuzzpalms.

Seriously, if your car breaks down and the mechanic tells you your alternator is fried do you ask the man to fix your transmission instead, you dumbfuck?

Now this is where the two of us diverge. You seem to hold the belief that if a law is well thought out in vacuum it should work when applied to a society.

No, dumbshit. Where we're diverging is where you blame the Stand Your Ground law for failures by completely different laws and actors. Not going to bother with the rest of your overly verbose for the sake of reading your own typing bullshit as it has not a goddamned thing to do with anything I'm saying to you.

Now go disappear up your own ass, bitchtits.

[Purple]

And here we go again. If you are just going to repeat your self and run in circles without any reading comprehension I can't bloody do anything about it. Maybe one day you'll grow a brain and start reading what people write and we can talk.

[LaCroix]

You are aware of what the term rate means, right? The percent of cases where it was found justifiable favors whites. I never once said it was just because of racial bias in the justice system. I have said that race affects decision making. There's a difference.

The graph is worthless without data on the actual cases - one could just as well use it to make a point that blacks are more likely to try using SYG in cases it does not apply...

[Mr. Coffee]

And here we go again. If you are just going to repeat your self and run in circles without any reading comprehension I can't bloody do anything about it. Maybe one day you'll grow a brain and start reading what people write and we can talk.

Shut the fuck up, bitch. All you've done is repeat yourself with your "Laws don't exist in vaccums" horseshit. Just accept that you're wrong and move the fuck on.

[TheHammer]

I'd agree on the necessity of fire arms training. However, in the case of the ex copy, and Zimmerman the cop wanna be, one would presume they'd both had training that should have been more than adequate.

Assumption is the mother of all fuck ups for a reason, guy. In this case your assuming people are trained. Florida CCW law only requires you show a certificate of training, but it makes no mention of any specific metrics for that training. Hell, if you have a military ID they consider that close enough. No requirement for class room study on specific laws relevant to concealed carry, no shooting quals, just bring a copy of your training cert you got from "?" and off ya go.

Well the point I'm making is that as a retired police officer, he undoubtedly had plenty of training and experience not only with how to use firearms, but also when and when not to use them. Training that would go above and beyond what we would expect from your average Joe seeking a CC license. Personally, I would like to see a training and certification program very similar to what Police offers take in order to obtain a CC, but I don't think all the training in the world would have changed this case. The shooter may not be legally insane, but he is clearly nuts.

[Borgholio]

Cops are people too. Just because he was trained as a police officer doesn't mean that he's not a hyper-aggressive asshole with an itchy trigger finger. I think this is more of a discussion on mental health than it is firearms training.

[Mr. Coffee]

Well the point I'm making is that as a retired police officer, he undoubtedly had plenty of training and experience not only with how to use firearms, but also when and when not to use them. Training that would go above and beyond what we would expect from your average Joe seeking a CC license. Personally, I would like to see a training and certification program very similar to what Police offers take in order to obtain a CC, but I don't think all the training in the world would have changed this case. The shooter may not be legally insane, but he is clearly nuts.

Shooting, and the knowledge base associated with it, is a frangible skill set. If you don't constantly and consistantly practice that shit you will get rusty, you will get unsafe. Mr. Reeves retired in 1993. It's been a hair over two decades since he's been required to have formal training and annual/biannual shooting qualifications. It is not at all unreasonable to think after twenty years of not being a cop that he's forgotten some things.

Or as you said, he could just be an asshole.

[Thanas]

And now you see why trial by jury is part of the fucking problem. Choosing a dosen random assholes, none of which are likely to know anything about the law or how it works, and then asking them to decide on those laws if fucking stupid. It's no longer about deciding if someone broke a law, it's all about which lawyer can win over a handful of dumbasses.

True in this case. The question then becomes is it easier for lawmakers to get rid of laws which make it easier for dumb juries to give these ridiculous sentences in "self defense" cases, or for lawmakers to change the jury system. I personally lean towards the former being easier.

Based on my experience with the Florida legal system, the latter is the easier thing. The way jury selection works you end up with people who have no experience with the law, no experience with technological details being argued and who generally do not read or watch news. So no.

[TheFeniX]

As a general rule, drawing a weapon does not de-escalate a situation. If anything, it's the opposite.

Yet, police use them effectively to force compliance (as do criminals) and the majority of self-defense cases end with a firearm drawn but not fired. Muggers in particular prefer larger caliber handguns because they look more menacing and help accomplish their goal easier: robbing you without violence because all they want is valuables.

Well the point I'm making is that as a retired police officer, he undoubtedly had plenty of training and experience not only with how to use firearms, but also when and when not to use them. Training that would go above and beyond what we would expect from your average Joe seeking a CC license. Personally, I would like to see a training and certification program very similar to what Police offers take in order to obtain a CC, but I don't think all the training in the world would have changed this case. The shooter may not be legally insane, but he is clearly nuts.

Cops in general use their guns for very different purposes than private citizens do. While both can use it to control a situation, the fact that cops as part of their job put themselves into high risk situations gives them much more leeway on when they can draw a firearm and even when they can fire it.

I'm not saying more training is a bad thing, but no amount of training either legally or with firearms is going to convince an asshole that shooting someone over popcorn isn't ok.

[mr friendly guy]

And now you see why trial by jury is part of the fucking problem. Choosing a dosen random assholes, none of which are likely to know anything about the law or how it works, and then asking them to decide on those laws if fucking stupid. It's no longer about deciding if someone broke a law, it's all about which lawyer can win over a handful of dumbasses.

True in this case. The question then becomes is it easier for lawmakers to get rid of laws which make it easier for dumb juries to give these ridiculous sentences in "self defense" cases, or for lawmakers to change the jury system. I personally lean towards the former being easier.

Based on my experience with the Florida legal system, the latter is the easier thing. The way jury selection works you end up with people who have no experience with the law, no experience with technological details being argued and who generally do not read or watch news. So no.

Do you mean you have a method of selecting juries who are somewhat more verse in these fields, or that its easier to simply change the law so that judges instead of juries decide guilt.

[Mr. Coffee]

Based on my experience with the Florida legal system, the latter is the easier thing. The way jury selection works you end up with people who have no experience with the law, no experience with technological details being argued and who generally do not read or watch news. So no.

Do you mean you have a method of selecting juries who are somewhat more verse in these fields, or that its easier to simply change the law so that judges instead of juries decide guilt.

I'd honestly prefer the judge or maybe a panel of judges/qualified persons decide than 6-12 random assholes that weren't smart enough to dodge jury duty. At least that way I can reasonably expect the person making the decision to be fully informed of the law.

[Gaidin]

This brings up a strangely technical question I have that came up as I was occasionally watching the Zimmerman trial. Whenever there were legal questions that were being decided by the judge the jury was out of the room, not counting ones that were a little too fast such as objections. Whenever evidence was being presented the jury was in the room. Are we more having a problem with juries deciding what evidence or argument they give weight to, which is something we really couldn't do anything about anyway as that conceptually seems the point of a jury, however much they couldn't dodge jury duty?

[Thanas]

Do you mean you have a method of selecting juries who are somewhat more verse in these fields, or that its easier to simply change the law so that judges instead of juries decide guilt.

I don't know about easier or even something that is even able to be changed. All I know is that the finest laws do not matter if you got 12 idiots on the bench who know nothing and probably care more about how the lawyers talk or come across than what is being said.

[Beowulf]

You are aware of what the term rate means, right? The percent of cases where it was found justifiable favors whites. I never once said it was just because of racial bias in the justice system. I have said that race affects decision making. There's a difference.

The graph is worthless without data on the actual cases - one could just as well use it to make a point that blacks are more likely to try using SYG in cases it does not apply...

The graph shows the SYG improves the odds of successfully using a justifiable homicide defense, regardless of the race of the victim or shooter. Black on white shows the lowest improvement in odds, but it's still an improvement.

[LaCroix]

You are aware of what the term rate means, right? The percent of cases where it was found justifiable favors whites. I never once said it was just because of racial bias in the justice system. I have said that race affects decision making. There's a difference.

The graph is worthless without data on the actual cases - one could just as well use it to make a point that blacks are more likely to try using SYG in cases it does not apply...

The graph shows the SYG improves the odds of successfully using a justifiable homicide defense, regardless of the race of the victim or shooter. Black on white shows the lowest improvement in odds, but it's still an improvement.

Yes - that part is indisputed - you could derive that in a black on black shooting, SYG makes it 5 times as likely for the killing to be found justified.

My problem with it is that it is often used to proove a racist element, while it doesn't give any info on the cases. They analyzed 43500 homicides (about 3 years of homicides, taking the homicide rate) - looking at the "Black on Black" figure, I can certainly see (given the statistics on criminal offences and race of the offender) that there would be a substancial number of criminal (gang-related) homicides included, of which - of course - none would be found justifiable, SYG or not, and would therefore ruin the statistic.

If they only went looking for "home invasion" cases where the intruder was killed (the main target of SYG legislation), I'm quite sure the numbers would be quite different.

I do not admit nor deny that there is a racial bias in the justice system - I'm just pointing out that this particular statistic is as useful in order to make a point as if you were looking at worldwide traffic accident data and used it to claim the Carabayo people are the safest drivers...