Shooting of Trayvon Martin

[Lebanese Dragon]

It's a 17 year old kid, you really need a gun to handle this situation. Honestly, I'd rather be beat up than take someone's life.

[CitizenCain]

I'm not quite sure how you can actually twist logic into such a knot, Cain, that at one point you can condemn the actions of Zimmerman while at the same time demanding absolute freedom to act in (perceived) self-defense.

At some point you'll have to limit what exactly constitutes self-defense and what doesn't.

Escalating the situation further is not a smart thing to do and, while understandable, should also not be granted exemption from the law.

Because otherwise, using that very same logic, we'd also have to allow other kinds of vigilantes.

You can try to justify it with whatever twisted logic you like. At the end of the day, you're the morally bankrupt petty tyrant who would visit violence on someone who disagrees with you, and I'm the guy pointing out that you obviously don't have any idea of what a situation like that really entails (yet, being a petty tyrany, you're not about to let ignorance prevent you from forcing your will on everyone else).

So enjoy, or whatever.

[Khendraja'aro]

Says the guy who makes groundless accusations and refuses to back them up when asked

And I'm not quite sure why exactly I would "visit violence on someone" when right here, in this very thread, I'm arguing against using violence unless it's absolutely necessary. Another logical disconnect right there, I dare say.

[Ominous Gamer]

No the house was visibly live in. We'd just move in so no curtains were up yet. The issue of it being new was that we had no neighbours.

so a show house in a field of copper?

I just have IMO a strong sense of justice.

you've spent a nice amount of time trying to justify your actions with the excuse that there is no time to think in such an event, but of all things, you're claiming that you went to justice first and foremost?

If your property is under attack YOU are under attack.

thank you Lewk for being a perfect example of the type of person i was referring to

[Aimless]

Says the guy who makes groundless accusations and refuses to back them up when asked

And I'm not quite sure why exactly I would "visit violence on someone" when right here, in this very thread, I'm arguing against using violence unless it's absolutely necessary. Another logical disconnect right there, I dare say.

it's the whole civilization-is-rape thing

[CitizenCain]

Says the guy who makes groundless accusations and refuses to back them up when asked

And I'm not quite sure why exactly I would "visit violence on someone" when right here, in this very thread, I'm arguing against using violence unless it's absolutely necessary. Another logical disconnect right there, I dare say.

Right, the law is enforced by rainbows and fairy dust, rather than physical force. Good job.

Having to have someone else do your violence for you is, in fact, worse, not better.

[Being]

...Having to have someone else do your violence for you is, in fact, worse, not better.

You are in the minority on this thought for sure. Ask yourself, why have civilized people been willing to pay taxes for military and law enforcement for more than 20 centuries? Because having regulated organizations perform the task is better than every man for himself. Sure it's not pefect, as this case clearly shows, but it does have an overall moderating effect on violence. I mean, just think what it would be like if society were to let you and Lewk legally apply your own justice.

[GGT]

Fry em. The kid didn't even steal anything... if he had the guy would be justified, but he didn't so it should be an open and shut case.

Because a society that depends on the government for all of its protection is a society that has given up its freedom. The police are 5 minutes too late to save you from a murderer. The threat of violent defense is a deterrent. Why would you want to make it easier for criminals by forbidding people from defending themselves?

If your property is under attack YOU are under attack.

Since when did generic "stealing" mean the death penalty, without use of judge or jury, but some guy with a gun? That's vigilantism.

Yeah, the threat of violence is a deterrent....but it's a threat to a functional society. If dependable and accountable police aren't part of civilian protections, to the point so many feel the need to carry a gun for their own protection, and take matters into their own hands, that's a pretty good way to roll up the sidewalks and shut down a town or city.

But you bring up a good point about protecting property. That kind of self-defense was already protected by Castle (domain) Laws, where breaking-and-entering can justify the use of lethal force. That is NOT what happened in the Martin/Zimmerman case. Not only was the kid not "stealing" anything, he wasn't breaking into anyone's home, or doing anything illegal. He was simply walking home from the store, using sidewalks and shortcuts that are apparently "open" to pedestrians.

It's been called a Gated Community, but afaik that only means there's a fence running around the property, with access for cars and walkers, ie--the public. I have yet to read a full description, but it doesn't sound like they have a Gate Guard checking incoming cars, or electronic-only entrance for cars with remote control, locked pedestrian gates, or even No Trespassing / Homeowners Only signs.

To Rand and others: this is more about the controversial Stand Your Ground laws, not Castle laws. That "ground" can be interpreted as any public space, like walking down a pedestrian sidewalk. The SYG laws don't require anyone to de-escalate, walk away, or "retreat" from a "threat". They don't even do a very good job at defining threat, either. They've been dubbed Shoot First laws by critics.

Trouble is, when the person accused of being threatening is killed....by the person who feels threatened.....there's only one live person left to tell the story.

Seems to me the cops had SOP reminiscent of "the old days" when killing a black kid barely raised an eyebrow, or those cases were shut-and-closed. Now the Sanford police are forced to deal with modern technology: Trayvon talking on a cellphone headset, Zimmerman using his cellphone to call 911, and the whole incident going 'viral' on the internet. The police actions are under the microscope, and for good reason. If it's not corruption or favoritism, then it's incompetence.

[RandBlade]

You know, there's a difference between what is good advice in violent or potentially violent situations (running away or deescalate if at all possible) and what should be legally required of the victim.

Best post.

[Khendraja'aro]

Right, the law is enforced by rainbows and fairy dust, rather than physical force. Good job.

Having to have someone else do your violence for you is, in fact, worse, not better.

Wait, what? I'm a "petty tyrant" now for arguing that upholding the law is not a bad thing to do?

Oh, I forgot. You're one of those nutjobs who thinks that anarchy is teh bestest thing evar! Evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

[Ominous Gamer]

[Lewkowski]

Wait, what? I'm a "petty tyrant" now for arguing that upholding the law is not a bad thing to do?

Oh, I forgot. You're one of those nutjobs who thinks that anarchy is teh bestest thing evar! Evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

You're being deliberately obtuse. If you require punishment of the person who defends his property when he could have fled then you are advocating violence on the person defending his property by the state. Forcefully placing someone in prison IS violence. Its done by armed folks (police). Unless you think forcibly taking someone and putting them in a place they don't' want to be is somehow non-violent... in that case your just retarded.

[Nessus]

"You're"

[CitizenCain]

You are in the minority on this thought for sure. Ask yourself, why have civilized people been willing to pay taxes for military and law enforcement for more than 20 centuries?

Because if they don't, the government will kill or jail them. Same reason the weaker animals generally allow themselves to be dominated by the stronger ones since the beginning of time - do it or die.

Since you opened up the door, let's actually talk about governments over the past 20 centuries. Why do you think the [mainland] Europeans paid taxes to and performed slave labor on behalf of the Nazis? Because they're all evil bigots who wanted the Jews and mud people exterminated? Of course. But also because if you didn't, you got lined up against a wall and shot. Or what about the Spanish Inquisition... the people being tortured to death for heresy and crypto-Judaism paid taxes to their government because they wanted to be tortured to death, right?

For that matter, you pay taxes when the Republicans are in power because you support the Republican platform, not because you simply don't have another choice. You racist hillbilly.

Or are you really going to try to argue that every government-sanctioned atrocity of the last two millenia was publicly supported? (Honest question: if anyone's going to argue something that idiotic, it would be you.)

Wait, what? I'm a "petty tyrant" now for arguing that upholding the law is not a bad thing to do?

Maybe you should learn to read, then give this whole online discussion thing another try. It's really not working out too great right now, with you being functionally illiterate.

[Aimless]

Because if they don't, the government will kill or jail them.

It's for their own good.

[Being]

You are in the minority on this thought for sure. Ask yourself, why have civilized people been willing to pay taxes for military and law enforcement for more than 20 centuries?

Because if they don't, the government will kill or jail them. Same reason the weaker animals generally allow themselves to be dominated by the stronger ones since the beginning of time - do it or die.

Since you opened up the door, let's actually talk about governments over the past 20 centuries. Why do you think the [mainland] Europeans paid taxes to and performed slave labor on behalf of the Nazis? Because they're all evil bigots who wanted the Jews and mud people exterminated? Of course. But also because if you didn't, you got lined up against a wall and shot. Or what about the Spanish Inquisition... the people being tortured to death for heresy and crypto-Judaism paid taxes to their government because they wanted to be tortured to death, right?

For that matter, you pay taxes when the Republicans are in power because you support the Republican platform, not because you simply don't have another choice. You racist hillbilly.

Or are you really going to try to argue that every government-sanctioned atrocity of the last two millenia was publicly supported? (Honest question: if anyone's going to argue something that idiotic, it would be you.)

And the sane answer is...

Because having regulated organizations perform the task is better than every man for himself. Sure it's not pefect, as this case clearly shows, but it does have an overall moderating effect on violence. I mean, just think what it would be like if society were to let you and Lewk legally apply your own justice.

Why would you believe the best system is for each individual to be in charge of their own justice? Do you expect each individual to evenly impose the same justice regardless of circumstance? What if they need to impose it upon themself? What's the likelyhood of you shooting yourself because you stepped outside the bounds that you yourself established? And why is it Canadians are afraid of the dark?

[Aimless]

What are you talking about, there is no way in hell humans throughout history would have valued things like leadership, organisation, division of labor, laws and justice, security, working roads, effective drugs, taking care of the elderly, educating kids and adults, etc. They just go along with the gummint's evil selfish meaningless schemes out of fear. If they only could they'd all support the libertarian anarchist party or something but they can't because there is no such party because if anyone were to start one he'd be shot.

[CitizenCain]

You're so right. People pay taxes because they want to. Clearly, then, punishments for not paying taxes are completely unnecessary, which is why they don't exist.

[Aimless]

You're so right. People pay taxes because they want to. Clearly, then, punishments for not paying taxes are completely unnecessary, which is why they don't exist.

You're right, people don't want there to be any such thing as law enforcement, national defense, leadership, etc. They've never wanted it. That's why the whole government thing never took off and we're solitary monkeys roaming around in the jungle of anarchy looking for fruit. Or maybe people have in fact throughout history valued some of these things and have been capable of realising, on some level, that, no matter how distasteful taxes may be, they provide a reasonable way to sustain that mostly-appreciated concept known as "government" and the mostly-valued basic functions of that govt. Or, even more basic: that people have throughout history valued leadership and governance. You can quibble about the exact functions and their scope and the nitty gritty details of budgeting but that's the gist of it.

[CitizenCain]

It's for their own good.

I too, support killing people for their own good.

Why would you believe the best system is for each individual to be in charge of their own justice? Do you expect each individual to evenly impose the same justice regardless of circumstance? What if they need to impose it upon themself? What's the likelyhood of you shooting yourself because you stepped outside the bounds that you yourself established? And why is it Canadians are afraid of the dark?

Right, the government intrusion into life-and-death situations is a much better approach.

How's that working out for the dead nigger in Florida, by the way? Good thing the government was there to enable his murderer with its intrusions, or he might be alive today, or at least have his murderer face justice... and that's just a completely unacceptable outcome for our nation's many niggers.

[Dreadnaught]

Right, the government intrusion into life-and-death situations is a much better approach.

How's that working out for the dead nigger in Florida, by the way? Good thing the government was there to enable his murderer with its intrusions, or he might be alive today, or at least have his murderer face justice... and that's just a completely unacceptable outcome for our nation's many niggers.

<Mod Hat> FFS Cain, repeated and gratuitous use of a racial slur is over the line. The point you're trying to make doesn't need that, and it brings the tone of this thread into a really ugly place.</Mod Hat>

[Being]

Right, the government intrusion into life-and-death situations is a much better approach.

I believe that in the USA our government is of the people, by the people, for the people (which btw means scotus is wrong about corporations deserving personhood).

[Lewkowski]

I believe that in the USA our government is of the people, by the people, for the people (which btw means scotus is wrong about corporations deserving personhood).

So a collection of people working together should have fewer rights then an individual? I really have a hard time grasping why people are opposed to free speech by a group but are OK with free speech by a person. Either your for free speech or you aren't.

[Being]

So a collection of people working together should have fewer rights then an individual? I really have a hard time grasping why people are opposed to free speech by a group but are OK with free speech by a person. Either your for free speech or you aren't.

I wonder how you reconcile that thought with your feelings about unions (public or private)?

[Enoch the Red]

I wonder how you reconcile that thought with your feelings about unions (public or private)?

I don't think Lewk is against unions in principle, but I'm betting he's against making union membership a requirement of employment.

[Aimless]

I don't think Lewk is against unions in principle, but I'm betting he's against making union membership a requirement of employment.

This company has only one employee, namely the person known as the Union

[Khendraja'aro]

And off to ignore Cain once again goes. I think this time I'll install a browser script that purges him from my view completely.

[GGT]

...If you require punishment of the person who defends his property when he could have fled then you are advocating violence on the person defending his property by the state...

Why are you continuing to argue for castle laws (justification for protecting one's property) when that's not what happened here? These stand-your-ground laws are what's in question, and how responding police interpret them.

Instead of making an arrest when there's a dead boy on the ground, and using the legal process to sort it out....SYG had Sanford cops taking the shooter's "word" it was justifiable self-defense, and letting him go without any charges.

So a collection of people working together should have fewer rights then an individual? I really have a hard time grasping why people are opposed to free speech by a group but are OK with free speech by a person. Either your for free speech or you aren't.

But you're okay with a collection of people (whose work is to protect and serve the public, ie the police) should have more "rights" than the individuals/groups who hired them? Groups of cops (or individuals) acting as judge and jury to bypass a legal process, and legislators writing laws that allow for that, is tipping the scales of power out of whack.

That's one way to act above the law without breaking it, I suppose. Have the legislative branch lower the standards for lethal gun-use---according to individuals' gut reactions---and give cops the power of the judicial branch, too. Why aren't you bothered by that?

[RandBlade]

Why are you continuing to argue for castle laws (justification for protecting one's property) when that's not what happened here? These stand-your-ground laws are what's in question, and how responding police interpret them.

I don't see why we're discussing Stand Your Ground laws either. Seems pretty clear that there were gross breaches of due process and malpractice by the Police under existing laws​ anyway.

Had the Police taken proper evidence from the scene, done a thorough investigation, proper witness statements etc, etc then we'd be in a totally different ballpark.

[CitizenCain]

<Mod Hat> FFS Cain, repeated and gratuitous use of a racial slur is over the line. The point you're trying to make doesn't need that, and it brings the tone of this thread into a really ugly place.</Mod Hat>

I rather disagree, but I guess it's my bad for not figuring out that you were having a "pretty" discussion about racially motivated murder and systemic injustice. That our system which we apperantly all want and voluntarily pay into (learn something new every day) not only failed to protect this kid, but aggravated the injustice against him is even uglier than the fact that he was murdered for being a black kid in the wrong place at the wrong time, because it's for the exact same reason - the system doesn't care about another dead Southern nigger either, no matter what the lefties would tell us about the government.

Shit, I did it again, my bad. Guess I'll just have to step out so you can have your pretty discussion about racially-based murder and injustice... and good luck with that, eh?