George Zimmerman to fight rapper DMX in celebrity boxing bout (2 Viewers)

[Jackstraw]

Either way I'm tuning in.

 

[Clifford]

No one is acting like the unhinged whitey menace is statistically significant compared to other crimes. Its just that it's a national menace that was created by softening self-defense in many states to include anyone who thinks they have been threatened. Surely you don't think the guy who shot the texter really thought his life was in danger, or the guy who shot the kid over his radio being too loud. Both are trying to construct self-defense cases and both knew to say to the cops when giving their statements that they felt their life was in danger. Basically as long as the shooter is willing to lie they can force the courts into hearing a self-defense plea.

What should constitute a self-defense plea is actual real verifiable danger. In Zimm's case it would have been on the table, but in the case of the get off my lawn shooter, the text shooter, and the radio shooter, these pieces of #### would get tried as the murderers they are since their lives were never in any real, verifiable danger.

Now THAT would have a chilling effect on all these shoot-first-ask-later vigilantes that go out and start #### with people knowing they can just kill the person if they wet their little panties.

Hopefully all those people get convicted. But that would show the law is OK.

No it wouldn't. If we still had the old, sensible, law-and-legal endorsed laws their self-defense pleas would be laughed out of court for lack of evidence. The new laws remove evidence form the equation entirely. So just because these murderers (God willing) get convicted and sentenced to life, despite the law, does not mean it's a good law. It would simply prove it possible to overcome the massive favor given to the shooter in the most extreme cases. Which of course just makes the next unhinged whitey a little more careful the next time they start #### with someone knowing their gun can finish what they can't.

 

[Clifford]

I don't really think that the changes to Florida's self-defense laws had much effect.

The biggest change to the law was the ability to bring a pre-trial motion for immunity due to self-defense. This is what the media meant by the so-called "stand your ground hearing." But that evidentiary hearing was not just to apply stand your ground. It was to determine all aspects of the self-defense claim. If the defendant could prove self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence, immunity applied and the case would be thrown out.

Zimmerman's lawyers chose not to have that hearing, for whatever reason. So the self-defense issue was tried as it would have been before the amendment to the law. The elements of a self-defense claim never changed.

Well perhaps I am wrong on this. I know ALEC had a big part in the SYG laws getting on the books in most states. The crux of the Florida law, SYB or just self-defense, is that is sets the mindset of the shooter, subject to the judgment of the jury as regards whether it was a reasonable mindset, as the only evidence needed. I have read this law several times and I keep coming back to the prosecution needing to prove to the jury the mindset itself, not the external realities of the situation, was unreasonable. Do I have that wrong?

 

[Maik Jeaunz]

if Zim happens to beat up DMX, his next move should be an immediate flight out of the country.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I don't really think that the changes to Florida's self-defense laws had much effect.

The biggest change to the law was the ability to bring a pre-trial motion for immunity due to self-defense. This is what the media meant by the so-called "stand your ground hearing." But that evidentiary hearing was not just to apply stand your ground. It was to determine all aspects of the self-defense claim. If the defendant could prove self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence, immunity applied and the case would be thrown out.

Zimmerman's lawyers chose not to have that hearing, for whatever reason. So the self-defense issue was tried as it would have been before the amendment to the law. The elements of a self-defense claim never changed.

Well perhaps I am wrong on this. I know ALEC had a big part in the SYG laws getting on the books in most states. The crux of the Florida law, SYB or just self-defense, is that is sets the mindset of the shooter, subject to the judgment of the jury as regards whether it was a reasonable mindset, as the only evidence needed. I have read this law several times and I keep coming back to the prosecution needing to prove to the jury the mindset itself, not the external realities of the situation, was unreasonable. Do I have that wrong?

Here is the relevant text of the statute.

[A] person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:[h]e or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony

The debate over whether these types of statutes demand a subjective test or an objective test is something that has been around for years.

I read the statute as demanding an objective test because the belief must be reasonable.

I felt that the jury in the Zimmerman case got inadequate jury instructions which really didn't explain the statute very well. But I don't think that's a problem with the statute. I felt that a jury could have easily come to the conclusion that George Zimmerman's belief was unreasonable based upon the facts presented. About all that was presented was that he was losing a fist fight.

 

[Loan Sharks]

The really tragic part is statistically the country is as safe as its been in four or five decades. But to here the gunnies talk you'd swear the bad guys were runnning amock in historical fashion. Even in the middle of a staggering recession and historic unemployment levels crime is continuing to stay relatively low.

The cognitive dissonance between that fact and the sense of embattlement certain portions of the population feel is staggering.

Interesting that you think the crime is the driving force behind gun rights people. I always thought their primary argument is that the right to bear arms was a check to government. But then again they are not mutually exclusive since a lot of criminals are in the government.

The real check on government is the all volunteer force. If you think you can stop a tank with a 9 mm boy are you going to get a surprise.

Good point I am sure no resistance group ever thought of that before.

 

[dickey moe]

Probably a very bad idea for so many reasons.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

I see jon's running through another topic making fart noises.

I am not the one who making #### up about Zimmerman. Zimmerman's character sucks, but instead of attacking the truth, people have to make up #### which has no basis in reality to spin the case into something it is not to make some idiotic political point,.

im not debating the case again lol...this is more about zimmerman and HIS post shooting actions than it is about WHY he felt he had to put into action the events that lead to the shooting of a kid who was minding his own business that night....Zimmerman is doing anything he can to cash in on his 15 minutes of fame ...and its disgusting that hes riding the back of a dead kid

 

[Rayderr]

No one is acting like the unhinged whitey menace is statistically significant compared to other crimes. Its just that it's a national menace that was created by softening self-defense in many states to include anyone who thinks they have been threatened. Surely you don't think the guy who shot the texter really thought his life was in danger, or the guy who shot the kid over his radio being too loud. Both are trying to construct self-defense cases and both knew to say to the cops when giving their statements that they felt their life was in danger. Basically as long as the shooter is willing to lie they can force the courts into hearing a self-defense plea.

What should constitute a self-defense plea is actual real verifiable danger. In Zimm's case it would have been on the table, but in the case of the get off my lawn shooter, the text shooter, and the radio shooter, these pieces of #### would get tried as the murderers they are since their lives were never in any real, verifiable danger.

Now THAT would have a chilling effect on all these shoot-first-ask-later vigilantes that go out and start #### with people knowing they can just kill the person if they wet their little panties.

Really? You sure do seem to bring them up an awful lot. And why is it always "whitey" with you? Been plenty of unhinged people of other races. (i.e. WashNavyYd shooter, VT Shooter)

 

[NCCommish]

The really tragic part is statistically the country is as safe as its been in four or five decades. But to here the gunnies talk you'd swear the bad guys were runnning amock in historical fashion. Even in the middle of a staggering recession and historic unemployment levels crime is continuing to stay relatively low.

The cognitive dissonance between that fact and the sense of embattlement certain portions of the population feel is staggering.

Interesting that you think the crime is the driving force behind gun rights people. I always thought their primary argument is that the right to bear arms was a check to government. But then again they are not mutually exclusive since a lot of criminals are in the government.

The real check on government is the all volunteer force. If you think you can stop a tank with a 9 mm boy are you going to get a surprise.

Good point I am sure no resistance group ever thought of that before.

I don't care who you are and what you think you have you aren't up to a fight with the US military. Nations aren't up for it.Some group of guys fondling their guns certainly aren't.

 

[The Commish]

The really tragic part is statistically the country is as safe as its been in four or five decades. But to here the gunnies talk you'd swear the bad guys were runnning amock in historical fashion. Even in the middle of a staggering recession and historic unemployment levels crime is continuing to stay relatively low.

The cognitive dissonance between that fact and the sense of embattlement certain portions of the population feel is staggering.

Interesting that you think the crime is the driving force behind gun rights people. I always thought their primary argument is that the right to bear arms was a check to government. But then again they are not mutually exclusive since a lot of criminals are in the government.

The real check on government is the all volunteer force. If you think you can stop a tank with a 9 mm boy are you going to get a surprise.

Good point I am sure no resistance group ever thought of that before.

I don't care who you are and what you think you have you aren't up to a fight with the US military. Nations aren't up for it.Some group of guys fondling their guns certainly aren't.

It always gets me how one of the "pros" to having some of these high powered weapons is to protect one's self from the US military should it be necessary.

 

[Loan Sharks]

The really tragic part is statistically the country is as safe as its been in four or five decades. But to here the gunnies talk you'd swear the bad guys were runnning amock in historical fashion. Even in the middle of a staggering recession and historic unemployment levels crime is continuing to stay relatively low.

The cognitive dissonance between that fact and the sense of embattlement certain portions of the population feel is staggering.

Interesting that you think the crime is the driving force behind gun rights people. I always thought their primary argument is that the right to bear arms was a check to government. But then again they are not mutually exclusive since a lot of criminals are in the government.

The real check on government is the all volunteer force. If you think you can stop a tank with a 9 mm boy are you going to get a surprise.

Good point I am sure no resistance group ever thought of that before.

I don't care who you are and what you think you have you aren't up to a fight with the US military. Nations aren't up for it.Some group of guys fondling their guns certainly aren't.

What if I am half or some other fraction of the US Military? Then am I up for fighting the other half. It is tough to understand I know.

 

[Clifford]

I don't really think that the changes to Florida's self-defense laws had much effect.

The biggest change to the law was the ability to bring a pre-trial motion for immunity due to self-defense. This is what the media meant by the so-called "stand your ground hearing." But that evidentiary hearing was not just to apply stand your ground. It was to determine all aspects of the self-defense claim. If the defendant could prove self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence, immunity applied and the case would be thrown out.

Zimmerman's lawyers chose not to have that hearing, for whatever reason. So the self-defense issue was tried as it would have been before the amendment to the law. The elements of a self-defense claim never changed.

Well perhaps I am wrong on this. I know ALEC had a big part in the SYG laws getting on the books in most states. The crux of the Florida law, SYB or just self-defense, is that is sets the mindset of the shooter, subject to the judgment of the jury as regards whether it was a reasonable mindset, as the only evidence needed. I have read this law several times and I keep coming back to the prosecution needing to prove to the jury the mindset itself, not the external realities of the situation, was unreasonable. Do I have that wrong?

Here is the relevant text of the statute.

[A] person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:[h]e or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony

The debate over whether these types of statutes demand a subjective test or an objective test is something that has been around for years.

I read the statute as demanding an objective test because the belief must be reasonable.

I felt that the jury in the Zimmerman case got inadequate jury instructions which really didn't explain the statute very well. But I don't think that's a problem with the statute. I felt that a jury could have easily come to the conclusion that George Zimmerman's belief was unreasonable based upon the facts presented. About all that was presented was that he was losing a fist fight.

How do you get objective from the bolded? Not baiting, wondering if there is something I am missing. It specifically says "if he or she believes". Wouldn't that make the burden disproving that it was reasonable for the person applying a self-defense claim to have that thought?

 

[Clifford]

No one is acting like the unhinged whitey menace is statistically significant compared to other crimes. Its just that it's a national menace that was created by softening self-defense in many states to include anyone who thinks they have been threatened. Surely you don't think the guy who shot the texter really thought his life was in danger, or the guy who shot the kid over his radio being too loud. Both are trying to construct self-defense cases and both knew to say to the cops when giving their statements that they felt their life was in danger. Basically as long as the shooter is willing to lie they can force the courts into hearing a self-defense plea.

What should constitute a self-defense plea is actual real verifiable danger. In Zimm's case it would have been on the table, but in the case of the get off my lawn shooter, the text shooter, and the radio shooter, these pieces of #### would get tried as the murderers they are since their lives were never in any real, verifiable danger.

Now THAT would have a chilling effect on all these shoot-first-ask-later vigilantes that go out and start #### with people knowing they can just kill the person if they wet their little panties.

Really? You sure do seem to bring them up an awful lot. And why is it always "whitey" with you? Been plenty of unhinged people of other races. (i.e. WashNavyYd shooter, VT Shooter)

White:

Columbine

Text-shooter

Radio-shooter

Aurora shooter

Oregon mall shooter

Sandy Hook

Girl-scout threatener

CPS/DHS lawyer shooter

Zimmerman

Loughner

Road-rage shooter (Alabama, local)

Neighbor shooter

Non-White:

Navy Yard

Va Tech

Yeah, most of the time it's an unhinged whitey. I don't bring it up because it's statistically significant. I bring it up because it's completely unnecessary and totally unpredictable in terms of avoidance.

Also, I just don't hear many black folks talk about how they need AR-15s to defend themselves against the coming liberal NWO. Weird, huh?

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

[A] person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:[h]e or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony

The debate over whether these types of statutes demand a subjective test or an objective test is something that has been around for years.

I read the statute as demanding an objective test because the belief must be reasonable.

I felt that the jury in the Zimmerman case got inadequate jury instructions which really didn't explain the statute very well. But I don't think that's a problem with the statute. I felt that a jury could have easily come to the conclusion that George Zimmerman's belief was unreasonable based upon the facts presented. About all that was presented was that he was losing a fist fight.

How do you get objective from the bolded? Not baiting, wondering if there is something I am missing. It specifically says "if he or she believes". Wouldn't that make the burden disproving that it was reasonable for the person applying a self-defense claim to have that thought?

The reasonableness of any belief is an objective test.

The statute doesn't require a sincere belief. It requires a reasonable belief.

Two weeks ago, a four year old punched me in the thigh as I went to get breakfast at a hotel. I might have sincerely feared great bodily harm, but I would not have been justified, even under Florida law, in pulling out a gun and blowing the little tow-headed ******* away. Because that belief would not have been reasonable.

 

[Ilov80s]

I don't like to use this, but I honestly can't come up with anything more appropriate than SMH.

 

[Clifford]

OK semantic difference then. I'm sure yours is the correct legal, but to me objective means not subject to any one person's view point. The objective judgment on the reason of a subjective view point to me is only one degree away from subjectivism.

What I would like to see in way of reforming these laws, which certain suspects are clearly trying to abuse, is to add a true objective test that would counter-balance the subjective belief of imminent harm. IOW, medical expert testimony on the condition of the shooter and whether their victim could have actually done significant physical harm. Or the presence of a weapon, whether seen or unseen, that could have killed the shooter had he/she not fired at that exact instant.

Like it or not, some people clearly interpret self-defense laws as they stand today to mean they can murder people, so long as they can prove they were scared.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

I see jon's running through another topic making fart noises.

I am not the one who making #### up about Zimmerman. Zimmerman's character sucks, but instead of attacking the truth, people have to make up #### which has no basis in reality to spin the case into something it is not to make some idiotic political point,.

Zimmerman is a deranged lunatic. That is my opinion. It is also my opinion that his mental problems were perfectly obvious to anyone before the trial who bothered to look at him with open eyes. It's not just his character that sucks. It's the Florida legal system which under heavy lobbying from Alec made self-defense dependent on the subjective mindset of the shooter, created a highly confusing law, and then asks average citizens to decide whether or not someone's subjective mind state is reasonable. That sucks even more than Zimmerman and the poor confused souls who continue to defend this murdering, attention-whore piece of ####. Excuse me, man-slaughtering in some ####ed up form of self-defense attention-whore piece of ####.

I agree he is a nut and probably a danger to society. But I like laws which allow one to defend oneself despite not being perfect. The law is not that bad.

So hes a nut in every other area of his life except on that fateful night he shot Trey...on that night he was sane because of the way the law is written...got it

 

[NCCommish]

The really tragic part is statistically the country is as safe as its been in four or five decades. But to here the gunnies talk you'd swear the bad guys were runnning amock in historical fashion. Even in the middle of a staggering recession and historic unemployment levels crime is continuing to stay relatively low.

The cognitive dissonance between that fact and the sense of embattlement certain portions of the population feel is staggering.

Interesting that you think the crime is the driving force behind gun rights people. I always thought their primary argument is that the right to bear arms was a check to government. But then again they are not mutually exclusive since a lot of criminals are in the government.

The real check on government is the all volunteer force. If you think you can stop a tank with a 9 mm boy are you going to get a surprise.

Good point I am sure no resistance group ever thought of that before.

I don't care who you are and what you think you have you aren't up to a fight with the US military. Nations aren't up for it.Some group of guys fondling their guns certainly aren't.

What if I am half or some other fraction of the US Military? Then am I up for fighting the other half. It is tough to understand I know.

Well first one guy isn't half of any of the services. People like you aren't half of any of the services if that is what you think. And if that is really your stance and you are truly serving then you sir are a traitor and are sullying the uniform you wear. You should be drummed out of the service. I say that as a vet.

 

[msommer]

When DMX pounds his ### to the ground, does he get to pull a gun again? Or are the boxing rules more restrictive?

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I don't see how you take all subjective elements out of a case. Bright line rules don't work well because people are different. What if Vitali Klitschko were advancing on Nastia Lukin in a threatening manner, filled with rage? Her fear isn't reasonable because he doesn't have a gun? Or she has to let the 250 lb trained boxer hit the 90lb gymnast?

All of this stuff is context-sensitive. That's why we just require the belief to be reasonable and let the jury make the determination, as we do on all manner of other defenses.

 

[NCCommish]

I don't see how you take all subjective elements out of a case. Bright line rules don't work well because people are different. What if Vitali Klitschko were advancing on Nastia Lukin in a threatening manner, filled with rage? Her fear isn't reasonable because he doesn't have a gun? Or she has to let the 250 lb trained boxer hit the 90lb gymnast?

All of this stuff is context-sensitive. That's why we just require the belief to be reasonable and let the jury make the determination, as we do on all manner of other defenses.

Pretty sure tub of goo outweighed his opponent.

 

[Ilov80s]

When DMX pounds his ### to the ground, does he get to pull a gun again? Or are the boxing rules more restrictive?

Using a gun with boxing gloves would be quite a feat.

 

[jon_mx]

I see jon's running through another topic making fart noises.

I am not the one who making #### up about Zimmerman. Zimmerman's character sucks, but instead of attacking the truth, people have to make up #### which has no basis in reality to spin the case into something it is not to make some idiotic political point,.

Zimmerman is a deranged lunatic. That is my opinion. It is also my opinion that his mental problems were perfectly obvious to anyone before the trial who bothered to look at him with open eyes. It's not just his character that sucks. It's the Florida legal system which under heavy lobbying from Alec made self-defense dependent on the subjective mindset of the shooter, created a highly confusing law, and then asks average citizens to decide whether or not someone's subjective mind state is reasonable. That sucks even more than Zimmerman and the poor confused souls who continue to defend this murdering, attention-whore piece of ####. Excuse me, man-slaughtering in some ####ed up form of self-defense attention-whore piece of ####.

I agree he is a nut and probably a danger to society. But I like laws which allow one to defend oneself despite not being perfect. The law is not that bad.

So hes a nut in every other area of his life except on that fateful night he shot Trey...on that night he was sane because of the way the law is written...got it

Nuts still have the right to protect themselves. hth

 

[Loan Sharks]

The really tragic part is statistically the country is as safe as its been in four or five decades. But to here the gunnies talk you'd swear the bad guys were runnning amock in historical fashion. Even in the middle of a staggering recession and historic unemployment levels crime is continuing to stay relatively low.

The cognitive dissonance between that fact and the sense of embattlement certain portions of the population feel is staggering.

Interesting that you think the crime is the driving force behind gun rights people. I always thought their primary argument is that the right to bear arms was a check to government. But then again they are not mutually exclusive since a lot of criminals are in the government.

The real check on government is the all volunteer force. If you think you can stop a tank with a 9 mm boy are you going to get a surprise.

Good point I am sure no resistance group ever thought of that before.

I don't care who you are and what you think you have you aren't up to a fight with the US military. Nations aren't up for it.Some group of guys fondling their guns certainly aren't.

What if I am half or some other fraction of the US Military? Then am I up for fighting the other half. It is tough to understand I know.

Well first one guy isn't half of any of the services. People like you aren't half of any of the services if that is what you think. And if that is really your stance and you are truly serving then you sir are a traitor and are sullying the uniform you wear. You should be drummed out of the service. I say that as a vet.

First of all congrats on your pro killing Americans stance as a former soldier. Second by "people like me" I assume you mean your preferably unarmed civilians that you would fire on rather than violate your oath.

Third stop trying to derail this awesome thread about the Z man whipping the ### of a animal beating car jacking crack head criminal!

 

[NCCommish]

The really tragic part is statistically the country is as safe as its been in four or five decades. But to here the gunnies talk you'd swear the bad guys were runnning amock in historical fashion. Even in the middle of a staggering recession and historic unemployment levels crime is continuing to stay relatively low.

The cognitive dissonance between that fact and the sense of embattlement certain portions of the population feel is staggering.

Interesting that you think the crime is the driving force behind gun rights people. I always thought their primary argument is that the right to bear arms was a check to government. But then again they are not mutually exclusive since a lot of criminals are in the government.

The real check on government is the all volunteer force. If you think you can stop a tank with a 9 mm boy are you going to get a surprise.

Good point I am sure no resistance group ever thought of that before.

I don't care who you are and what you think you have you aren't up to a fight with the US military. Nations aren't up for it.Some group of guys fondling their guns certainly aren't.

What if I am half or some other fraction of the US Military? Then am I up for fighting the other half. It is tough to understand I know.

Well first one guy isn't half of any of the services. People like you aren't half of any of the services if that is what you think. And if that is really your stance and you are truly serving then you sir are a traitor and are sullying the uniform you wear. You should be drummed out of the service. I say that as a vet.

First of all congrats on your pro killing Americans stance as a former soldier. Second by "people like me" I assume you mean your preferably unarmed civilians that you would fire on rather than violate your oath.

Third stop trying to derail this awesome thread about the Z man whipping the ### of a animal beating car jacking crack head criminal!

I'm not pro killing Americans. By people like you I mean people pushing sedition. Lastly your gun fondling fantasies are what led us here not me.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I don't see how you take all subjective elements out of a case. Bright line rules don't work well because people are different. What if Vitali Klitschko were advancing on Nastia Lukin in a threatening manner, filled with rage? Her fear isn't reasonable because he doesn't have a gun? Or she has to let the 250 lb trained boxer hit the 90lb gymnast?

All of this stuff is context-sensitive. That's why we just require the belief to be reasonable and let the jury make the determination, as we do on all manner of other defenses.

Pretty sure tub of goo outweighed his opponent.

No ####, Sherlock.

 

[NCCommish]

I don't see how you take all subjective elements out of a case. Bright line rules don't work well because people are different. What if Vitali Klitschko were advancing on Nastia Lukin in a threatening manner, filled with rage? Her fear isn't reasonable because he doesn't have a gun? Or she has to let the 250 lb trained boxer hit the 90lb gymnast?

All of this stuff is context-sensitive. That's why we just require the belief to be reasonable and let the jury make the determination, as we do on all manner of other defenses.

Pretty sure tub of goo outweighed his opponent.

No ####, Sherlock.

Well might want to find another example then.

 

[Rayderr]

No one is acting like the unhinged whitey menace is statistically significant compared to other crimes. Its just that it's a national menace that was created by softening self-defense in many states to include anyone who thinks they have been threatened. Surely you don't think the guy who shot the texter really thought his life was in danger, or the guy who shot the kid over his radio being too loud. Both are trying to construct self-defense cases and both knew to say to the cops when giving their statements that they felt their life was in danger. Basically as long as the shooter is willing to lie they can force the courts into hearing a self-defense plea.

What should constitute a self-defense plea is actual real verifiable danger. In Zimm's case it would have been on the table, but in the case of the get off my lawn shooter, the text shooter, and the radio shooter, these pieces of #### would get tried as the murderers they are since their lives were never in any real, verifiable danger.

Now THAT would have a chilling effect on all these shoot-first-ask-later vigilantes that go out and start #### with people knowing they can just kill the person if they wet their little panties.

Really? You sure do seem to bring them up an awful lot. And why is it always "whitey" with you? Been plenty of unhinged people of other races. (i.e. WashNavyYd shooter, VT Shooter)

White:

Columbine

Text-shooter

Radio-shooter

Aurora shooter

Oregon mall shooter

Sandy Hook

Girl-scout threatener

CPS/DHS lawyer shooter

Zimmerman

Loughner

Road-rage shooter (Alabama, local)

Neighbor shooter

Non-White:

Navy Yard

Va Tech

Yeah, most of the time it's an unhinged whitey. I don't bring it up because it's statistically significant. I bring it up because it's completely unnecessary and totally unpredictable in terms of avoidance.

Also, I just don't hear many black folks talk about how they need AR-15s to defend themselves against the coming liberal NWO. Weird, huh?

Let me add to your non-white list:

Omar S. Thornton (Hartford Distributor Shooter)

Maurice Clemmons (Forza Coffee Copshooter)

Charles Lee Thornton (Kirkwood CIty Council Shooter)

William D. Baker (Navistar International Shooter)

Arthur Wise (Phelon Factory Shooter)

Clifton McCree (Ft. Lauderdale Park Shooter)

Nathan Dunlap (Chuck E. Cheese Shooter)

Colin Ferguson (Long Island Railroad Shooter)

John Allen Muhammad (DC Sniper)

Lee Boyd Malvo (DC Sniper)

Christopher Dorner (LAPD Shooter)

And those are just mass murderers.

Race really isn't a factor when it comes to who dies from a gunshot and who doesn't. A bullet doesn't become deadlier just because a white/black/asian/hispanic/etc. person fired it. People of all races have killed and and people of all races have been killed. If you want to debate gun violence, fine, but don't bring race into it. Race isn't a determining cause. And let's also discuss it in one of the 83 gun threads instead of a "celebrity" boxing thread.

 

[matttyl]

No one is acting like the unhinged whitey menace is statistically significant compared to other crimes. Its just that it's a national menace that was created by softening self-defense in many states to include anyone who thinks they have been threatened. Surely you don't think the guy who shot the texter really thought his life was in danger, or the guy who shot the kid over his radio being too loud. Both are trying to construct self-defense cases and both knew to say to the cops when giving their statements that they felt their life was in danger. Basically as long as the shooter is willing to lie they can force the courts into hearing a self-defense plea.

What should constitute a self-defense plea is actual real verifiable danger. In Zimm's case it would have been on the table, but in the case of the get off my lawn shooter, the text shooter, and the radio shooter, these pieces of #### would get tried as the murderers they are since their lives were never in any real, verifiable danger.

Now THAT would have a chilling effect on all these shoot-first-ask-later vigilantes that go out and start #### with people knowing they can just kill the person if they wet their little panties.

Really? You sure do seem to bring them up an awful lot. And why is it always "whitey" with you? Been plenty of unhinged people of other races. (i.e. WashNavyYd shooter, VT Shooter)

White:

Columbine

Text-shooter

Radio-shooter

Aurora shooter

Oregon mall shooter

Sandy Hook

Girl-scout threatener

CPS/DHS lawyer shooter

Zimmerman

Loughner

Road-rage shooter (Alabama, local)

Neighbor shooter

Non-White:

Navy Yard

Va Tech

Yeah, most of the time it's an unhinged whitey. I don't bring it up because it's statistically significant. I bring it up because it's completely unnecessary and totally unpredictable in terms of avoidance.

Also, I just don't hear many black folks talk about how they need AR-15s to defend themselves against the coming liberal NWO. Weird, huh?

DC sniper, Binghamton NY shootings, James Edward Pough, Fort Hood. I think it's pretty well spread over all races, equal to the amount that each of those races make up the entire population.

 

[Rayderr]

I don't see how you take all subjective elements out of a case. Bright line rules don't work well because people are different. What if Vitali Klitschko were advancing on Nastia Lukin in a threatening manner, filled with rage? Her fear isn't reasonable because he doesn't have a gun? Or she has to let the 250 lb trained boxer hit the 90lb gymnast?

All of this stuff is context-sensitive. That's why we just require the belief to be reasonable and let the jury make the determination, as we do on all manner of other defenses.

Pretty sure tub of goo outweighed his opponent.

No ####, Sherlock.

Well might want to find another example then.

weight <> strength.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

I see jon's running through another topic making fart noises.

I am not the one who making #### up about Zimmerman. Zimmerman's character sucks, but instead of attacking the truth, people have to make up #### which has no basis in reality to spin the case into something it is not to make some idiotic political point,.

Zimmerman is a deranged lunatic. That is my opinion. It is also my opinion that his mental problems were perfectly obvious to anyone before the trial who bothered to look at him with open eyes. It's not just his character that sucks. It's the Florida legal system which under heavy lobbying from Alec made self-defense dependent on the subjective mindset of the shooter, created a highly confusing law, and then asks average citizens to decide whether or not someone's subjective mind state is reasonable. That sucks even more than Zimmerman and the poor confused souls who continue to defend this murdering, attention-whore piece of ####. Excuse me, man-slaughtering in some ####ed up form of self-defense attention-whore piece of ####.

I agree he is a nut and probably a danger to society. But I like laws which allow one to defend oneself despite not being perfect. The law is not that bad.

So hes a nut in every other area of his life except on that fateful night he shot Trey...on that night he was sane because of the way the law is written...got it

Nuts still have the right to protect themselves. hth

as did trayvon...who WASNT a nut...at least from what ive read...just at the wrong apt complex at the wrong time

 

[Loan Sharks]

The really tragic part is statistically the country is as safe as its been in four or five decades. But to here the gunnies talk you'd swear the bad guys were runnning amock in historical fashion. Even in the middle of a staggering recession and historic unemployment levels crime is continuing to stay relatively low.

The cognitive dissonance between that fact and the sense of embattlement certain portions of the population feel is staggering.

Interesting that you think the crime is the driving force behind gun rights people. I always thought their primary argument is that the right to bear arms was a check to government. But then again they are not mutually exclusive since a lot of criminals are in the government.

The real check on government is the all volunteer force. If you think you can stop a tank with a 9 mm boy are you going to get a surprise.

Good point I am sure no resistance group ever thought of that before.

I don't care who you are and what you think you have you aren't up to a fight with the US military. Nations aren't up for it.Some group of guys fondling their guns certainly aren't.

What if I am half or some other fraction of the US Military? Then am I up for fighting the other half. It is tough to understand I know.

Well first one guy isn't half of any of the services. People like you aren't half of any of the services if that is what you think. And if that is really your stance and you are truly serving then you sir are a traitor and are sullying the uniform you wear. You should be drummed out of the service. I say that as a vet.

First of all congrats on your pro killing Americans stance as a former soldier. Second by "people like me" I assume you mean your preferably unarmed civilians that you would fire on rather than violate your oath.

Third stop trying to derail this awesome thread about the Z man whipping the ### of a animal beating car jacking crack head criminal!

I'm not pro killing Americans. By people like you I mean people pushing sedition. Lastly your gun fondling fantasies are what led us here not me.

I fondle lots of things. All I said was the argument for owning guns because of criminals was less persuasive than owning guns because of government tyranny. I guess anyone who mentions the constitution is a traitor.

You can rest easy though, in your fantasy %100 of the army will back one side in a US civil war, just like last time!

Again please try to stay on topic. Since DMX shot his unsuspecting uncle and Zimmerman pulled off the shot in the heat of battle, I have to think that Zimmerman might be a little cooler under pressure and will have the edge when it comes to blows in the ring.

Plus DMX appears to lose his cool a lot like when he did the car jacking. If he gets rattled I can see DMX losing his posture and taking a haymaker from Z man.

 

[The Commish]

I don't see how you take all subjective elements out of a case. Bright line rules don't work well because people are different. What if Vitali Klitschko were advancing on Nastia Lukin in a threatening manner, filled with rage? Her fear isn't reasonable because he doesn't have a gun? Or she has to let the 250 lb trained boxer hit the 90lb gymnast?

All of this stuff is context-sensitive. That's why we just require the belief to be reasonable and let the jury make the determination, as we do on all manner of other defenses.

And here's the problem with Florida law. The context that matters most is an instant in the defendant's mind and the jury has to determine if that instant happened. Doesn't matter what led to the situation.

 

[jon_mx]

I see jon's running through another topic making fart noises.

I am not the one who making #### up about Zimmerman. Zimmerman's character sucks, but instead of attacking the truth, people have to make up #### which has no basis in reality to spin the case into something it is not to make some idiotic political point,.

Zimmerman is a deranged lunatic. That is my opinion. It is also my opinion that his mental problems were perfectly obvious to anyone before the trial who bothered to look at him with open eyes. It's not just his character that sucks. It's the Florida legal system which under heavy lobbying from Alec made self-defense dependent on the subjective mindset of the shooter, created a highly confusing law, and then asks average citizens to decide whether or not someone's subjective mind state is reasonable. That sucks even more than Zimmerman and the poor confused souls who continue to defend this murdering, attention-whore piece of ####. Excuse me, man-slaughtering in some ####ed up form of self-defense attention-whore piece of ####.

I agree he is a nut and probably a danger to society. But I like laws which allow one to defend oneself despite not being perfect. The law is not that bad.

So hes a nut in every other area of his life except on that fateful night he shot Trey...on that night he was sane because of the way the law is written...got it

Nuts still have the right to protect themselves. hth

as did trayvon...who WASNT a nut...at least from what ive read...just at the wrong apt complex at the wrong time

Martin was beating someone up, quite possibly engaging in a felony assault. Spinning that as being in the wrong place at the wrong time is beyond stupid.

 

[RBM]

How bout that writer for Chelsea show saying all black dudes look the same.

 

[jon_mx]

I don't see how you take all subjective elements out of a case. Bright line rules don't work well because people are different. What if Vitali Klitschko were advancing on Nastia Lukin in a threatening manner, filled with rage? Her fear isn't reasonable because he doesn't have a gun? Or she has to let the 250 lb trained boxer hit the 90lb gymnast?

All of this stuff is context-sensitive. That's why we just require the belief to be reasonable and let the jury make the determination, as we do on all manner of other defenses.

And here's the problem with Florida law. The context that matters most is an instant in the defendant's mind and the jury has to determine if that instant happened. Doesn't matter what led to the situation.

That is not entirely true.

 

[RBM]

No one is acting like the unhinged whitey menace is statistically significant compared to other crimes. Its just that it's a national menace that was created by softening self-defense in many states to include anyone who thinks they have been threatened. Surely you don't think the guy who shot the texter really thought his life was in danger, or the guy who shot the kid over his radio being too loud. Both are trying to construct self-defense cases and both knew to say to the cops when giving their statements that they felt their life was in danger. Basically as long as the shooter is willing to lie they can force the courts into hearing a self-defense plea.

What should constitute a self-defense plea is actual real verifiable danger. In Zimm's case it would have been on the table, but in the case of the get off my lawn shooter, the text shooter, and the radio shooter, these pieces of #### would get tried as the murderers they are since their lives were never in any real, verifiable danger.

Now THAT would have a chilling effect on all these shoot-first-ask-later vigilantes that go out and start #### with people knowing they can just kill the person if they wet their little panties.

Really? You sure do seem to bring them up an awful lot. And why is it always "whitey" with you? Been plenty of unhinged people of other races. (i.e. WashNavyYd shooter, VT Shooter)

White:Columbine

Text-shooter

Radio-shooter

Aurora shooter

Oregon mall shooter

Sandy Hook

Girl-scout threatener

CPS/DHS lawyer shooter

Zimmerman

Loughner

Road-rage shooter (Alabama, local)

Neighbor shooter

Non-White:

Navy Yard

Va Tech

Yeah, most of the time it's an unhinged whitey. I don't bring it up because it's statistically significant. I bring it up because it's completely unnecessary and totally unpredictable in terms of avoidance.

Also, I just don't hear many black folks talk about how they need AR-15s to defend themselves against the coming liberal NWO. Weird, huh?

Let me add to your non-white list:Omar S. Thornton (Hartford Distributor Shooter)

Maurice Clemmons (Forza Coffee Copshooter)

Charles Lee Thornton (Kirkwood CIty Council Shooter)

William D. Baker (Navistar International Shooter)

Arthur Wise (Phelon Factory Shooter)

Clifton McCree (Ft. Lauderdale Park Shooter)

Nathan Dunlap (Chuck E. Cheese Shooter)

Colin Ferguson (Long Island Railroad Shooter)

John Allen Muhammad (DC Sniper)

Lee Boyd Malvo (DC Sniper)

Christopher Dorner (LAPD Shooter)

And those are just mass murderers.

Race really isn't a factor when it comes to who dies from a gunshot and who doesn't. A bullet doesn't become deadlier just because a white/black/asian/hispanic/etc. person fired it. People of all races have killed and and people of all races have been killed. If you want to debate gun violence, fine, but don't bring race into it. Race isn't a determining cause. And let's also discuss it in one of the 83 gun threads instead of a "celebrity" boxing thread.

Probably best to just back out of this thread Clifford. What an idiotic premise.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I don't see how you take all subjective elements out of a case. Bright line rules don't work well because people are different. What if Vitali Klitschko were advancing on Nastia Lukin in a threatening manner, filled with rage? Her fear isn't reasonable because he doesn't have a gun? Or she has to let the 250 lb trained boxer hit the 90lb gymnast?

All of this stuff is context-sensitive. That's why we just require the belief to be reasonable and let the jury make the determination, as we do on all manner of other defenses.

And here's the problem with Florida law. The context that matters most is an instant in the defendant's mind and the jury has to determine if that instant happened. Doesn't matter what led to the situation.

Again, I don't see how that's different than self-defense in any state in the country or different than how it's always been determined under the common law. But more importantly, the context that matters most is not the defendant's mind. Otherwise the word reasonable would not be in the statutory definition. If your fear of bodily harm is idiosyncratic, then you should not prevail on a self-defense claim under the statute.

And, BTW, it does matter what happened before in Florida. The aggressor cannot claim self-defense. That's right in the statute.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I don't see how you take all subjective elements out of a case. Bright line rules don't work well because people are different. What if Vitali Klitschko were advancing on Nastia Lukin in a threatening manner, filled with rage? Her fear isn't reasonable because he doesn't have a gun? Or she has to let the 250 lb trained boxer hit the 90lb gymnast?

All of this stuff is context-sensitive. That's why we just require the belief to be reasonable and let the jury make the determination, as we do on all manner of other defenses.

Pretty sure tub of goo outweighed his opponent.

No ####, Sherlock.

Well might want to find another example then.

Or you might try to actually read what the exchange was about and respond to what is actually being said and not to the invented conversation that is going on in your head.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

I see jon's running through another topic making fart noises.

I am not the one who making #### up about Zimmerman. Zimmerman's character sucks, but instead of attacking the truth, people have to make up #### which has no basis in reality to spin the case into something it is not to make some idiotic political point,.

Zimmerman is a deranged lunatic. That is my opinion. It is also my opinion that his mental problems were perfectly obvious to anyone before the trial who bothered to look at him with open eyes. It's not just his character that sucks. It's the Florida legal system which under heavy lobbying from Alec made self-defense dependent on the subjective mindset of the shooter, created a highly confusing law, and then asks average citizens to decide whether or not someone's subjective mind state is reasonable. That sucks even more than Zimmerman and the poor confused souls who continue to defend this murdering, attention-whore piece of ####. Excuse me, man-slaughtering in some ####ed up form of self-defense attention-whore piece of ####.

I agree he is a nut and probably a danger to society. But I like laws which allow one to defend oneself despite not being perfect. The law is not that bad.

So hes a nut in every other area of his life except on that fateful night he shot Trey...on that night he was sane because of the way the law is written...got it

Nuts still have the right to protect themselves. hth

as did trayvon...who WASNT a nut...at least from what ive read...just at the wrong apt complex at the wrong time

Martin was beating someone up, quite possibly engaging in a felony assault. Spinning that as being in the wrong place at the wrong time is beyond stupid.

i think YOU`RE nuts if this is all you see regarding this event...wow

 

[LinusMarr]

No one is acting like the unhinged whitey menace is statistically significant compared to other crimes. Its just that it's a national menace that was created by softening self-defense in many states to include anyone who thinks they have been threatened. Surely you don't think the guy who shot the texter really thought his life was in danger, or the guy who shot the kid over his radio being too loud. Both are trying to construct self-defense cases and both knew to say to the cops when giving their statements that they felt their life was in danger. Basically as long as the shooter is willing to lie they can force the courts into hearing a self-defense plea.

What should constitute a self-defense plea is actual real verifiable danger. In Zimm's case it would have been on the table, but in the case of the get off my lawn shooter, the text shooter, and the radio shooter, these pieces of #### would get tried as the murderers they are since their lives were never in any real, verifiable danger.

Now THAT would have a chilling effect on all these shoot-first-ask-later vigilantes that go out and start #### with people knowing they can just kill the person if they wet their little panties.

Really? You sure do seem to bring them up an awful lot. And why is it always "whitey" with you? Been plenty of unhinged people of other races. (i.e. WashNavyYd shooter, VT Shooter)

White:Columbine

Text-shooter

Radio-shooter

Aurora shooter

Oregon mall shooter

Sandy Hook

Girl-scout threatener

CPS/DHS lawyer shooter

Zimmerman

Loughner

Road-rage shooter (Alabama, local)

Neighbor shooter

Non-White:

Navy Yard

Va Tech

Yeah, most of the time it's an unhinged whitey. I don't bring it up because it's statistically significant. I bring it up because it's completely unnecessary and totally unpredictable in terms of avoidance.

Also, I just don't hear many black folks talk about how they need AR-15s to defend themselves against the coming liberal NWO. Weird, huh?

Let me add to your non-white list:Omar S. Thornton (Hartford Distributor Shooter)

Maurice Clemmons (Forza Coffee Copshooter)

Charles Lee Thornton (Kirkwood CIty Council Shooter)

William D. Baker (Navistar International Shooter)

Arthur Wise (Phelon Factory Shooter)

Clifton McCree (Ft. Lauderdale Park Shooter)

Nathan Dunlap (Chuck E. Cheese Shooter)

Colin Ferguson (Long Island Railroad Shooter)

John Allen Muhammad (DC Sniper)

Lee Boyd Malvo (DC Sniper)

Christopher Dorner (LAPD Shooter)

And those are just mass murderers.

Race really isn't a factor when it comes to who dies from a gunshot and who doesn't. A bullet doesn't become deadlier just because a white/black/asian/hispanic/etc. person fired it. People of all races have killed and and people of all races have been killed. If you want to debate gun violence, fine, but don't bring race into it. Race isn't a determining cause. And let's also discuss it in one of the 83 gun threads instead of a "celebrity" boxing thread.

Probably best to just back out of this thread Clifford. What an idiotic premise.

I think Clifford is racist towards whites...

 

[jon_mx]

I see jon's running through another topic making fart noises.

I am not the one who making #### up about Zimmerman. Zimmerman's character sucks, but instead of attacking the truth, people have to make up #### which has no basis in reality to spin the case into something it is not to make some idiotic political point,.

Zimmerman is a deranged lunatic. That is my opinion. It is also my opinion that his mental problems were perfectly obvious to anyone before the trial who bothered to look at him with open eyes. It's not just his character that sucks. It's the Florida legal system which under heavy lobbying from Alec made self-defense dependent on the subjective mindset of the shooter, created a highly confusing law, and then asks average citizens to decide whether or not someone's subjective mind state is reasonable. That sucks even more than Zimmerman and the poor confused souls who continue to defend this murdering, attention-whore piece of ####. Excuse me, man-slaughtering in some ####ed up form of self-defense attention-whore piece of ####.

I agree he is a nut and probably a danger to society. But I like laws which allow one to defend oneself despite not being perfect. The law is not that bad.

So hes a nut in every other area of his life except on that fateful night he shot Trey...on that night he was sane because of the way the law is written...got it

Nuts still have the right to protect themselves. hth

as did trayvon...who WASNT a nut...at least from what ive read...just at the wrong apt complex at the wrong time

Martin was beating someone up, quite possibly engaging in a felony assault. Spinning that as being in the wrong place at the wrong time is beyond stupid.

i think YOU`RE nuts if this is all you see regarding this event...wow

I never said it was all I see. I weigh all facts and present them. You ultra-spin the #### out of the story and view it completely one-sided, Viewing this as being in the wrong place at the wrong time and not placing one ounce of blame on Martin is just ####### stupid. I know Zimmerman has lots of issues and made several bad choices which lead to the events. You on the otherhand refuse to admit Martin who was on top of a guy kicking his ### played any role at all in this.

 

[avoiding injuries]

No one is acting like the unhinged whitey menace is statistically significant compared to other crimes. Its just that it's a national menace that was created by softening self-defense in many states to include anyone who thinks they have been threatened. Surely you don't think the guy who shot the texter really thought his life was in danger, or the guy who shot the kid over his radio being too loud. Both are trying to construct self-defense cases and both knew to say to the cops when giving their statements that they felt their life was in danger. Basically as long as the shooter is willing to lie they can force the courts into hearing a self-defense plea.

What should constitute a self-defense plea is actual real verifiable danger. In Zimm's case it would have been on the table, but in the case of the get off my lawn shooter, the text shooter, and the radio shooter, these pieces of #### would get tried as the murderers they are since their lives were never in any real, verifiable danger.

Now THAT would have a chilling effect on all these shoot-first-ask-later vigilantes that go out and start #### with people knowing they can just kill the person if they wet their little panties.

Really? You sure do seem to bring them up an awful lot. And why is it always "whitey" with you? Been plenty of unhinged people of other races. (i.e. WashNavyYd shooter, VT Shooter)

White:Columbine

Text-shooter

Radio-shooter

Aurora shooter

Oregon mall shooter

Sandy Hook

Girl-scout threatener

CPS/DHS lawyer shooter

Zimmerman

Loughner

Road-rage shooter (Alabama, local)

Neighbor shooter

Non-White:

Navy Yard

Va Tech

Yeah, most of the time it's an unhinged whitey. I don't bring it up because it's statistically significant. I bring it up because it's completely unnecessary and totally unpredictable in terms of avoidance.

Also, I just don't hear many black folks talk about how they need AR-15s to defend themselves against the coming liberal NWO. Weird, huh?

Let me add to your non-white list:Omar S. Thornton (Hartford Distributor Shooter)

Maurice Clemmons (Forza Coffee Copshooter)

Charles Lee Thornton (Kirkwood CIty Council Shooter)

William D. Baker (Navistar International Shooter)

Arthur Wise (Phelon Factory Shooter)

Clifton McCree (Ft. Lauderdale Park Shooter)

Nathan Dunlap (Chuck E. Cheese Shooter)

Colin Ferguson (Long Island Railroad Shooter)

John Allen Muhammad (DC Sniper)

Lee Boyd Malvo (DC Sniper)

Christopher Dorner (LAPD Shooter)

And those are just mass murderers.

Race really isn't a factor when it comes to who dies from a gunshot and who doesn't. A bullet doesn't become deadlier just because a white/black/asian/hispanic/etc. person fired it. People of all races have killed and and people of all races have been killed. If you want to debate gun violence, fine, but don't bring race into it. Race isn't a determining cause. And let's also discuss it in one of the 83 gun threads instead of a "celebrity" boxing thread.

Probably best to just back out of this thread Clifford. What an idiotic premise.

I think Clifford is racist towards whites...

I'm getting the same vibe and it seems to be acceptable.

 

[RBM]

No one is acting like the unhinged whitey menace is statistically significant compared to other crimes. Its just that it's a national menace that was created by softening self-defense in many states to include anyone who thinks they have been threatened. Surely you don't think the guy who shot the texter really thought his life was in danger, or the guy who shot the kid over his radio being too loud. Both are trying to construct self-defense cases and both knew to say to the cops when giving their statements that they felt their life was in danger. Basically as long as the shooter is willing to lie they can force the courts into hearing a self-defense plea.

What should constitute a self-defense plea is actual real verifiable danger. In Zimm's case it would have been on the table, but in the case of the get off my lawn shooter, the text shooter, and the radio shooter, these pieces of #### would get tried as the murderers they are since their lives were never in any real, verifiable danger.

Now THAT would have a chilling effect on all these shoot-first-ask-later vigilantes that go out and start #### with people knowing they can just kill the person if they wet their little panties.

Really? You sure do seem to bring them up an awful lot. And why is it always "whitey" with you? Been plenty of unhinged people of other races. (i.e. WashNavyYd shooter, VT Shooter)

White:Columbine

Text-shooter

Radio-shooter

Aurora shooter

Oregon mall shooter

Sandy Hook

Girl-scout threatener

CPS/DHS lawyer shooter

Zimmerman

Loughner

Road-rage shooter (Alabama, local)

Neighbor shooter

Non-White:

Navy Yard

Va Tech

Yeah, most of the time it's an unhinged whitey. I don't bring it up because it's statistically significant. I bring it up because it's completely unnecessary and totally unpredictable in terms of avoidance.

Also, I just don't hear many black folks talk about how they need AR-15s to defend themselves against the coming liberal NWO. Weird, huh?

Let me add to your non-white list:Omar S. Thornton (Hartford Distributor Shooter)

Maurice Clemmons (Forza Coffee Copshooter)

Charles Lee Thornton (Kirkwood CIty Council Shooter)

William D. Baker (Navistar International Shooter)

Arthur Wise (Phelon Factory Shooter)

Clifton McCree (Ft. Lauderdale Park Shooter)

Nathan Dunlap (Chuck E. Cheese Shooter)

Colin Ferguson (Long Island Railroad Shooter)

John Allen Muhammad (DC Sniper)

Lee Boyd Malvo (DC Sniper)

Christopher Dorner (LAPD Shooter)

And those are just mass murderers.

Race really isn't a factor when it comes to who dies from a gunshot and who doesn't. A bullet doesn't become deadlier just because a white/black/asian/hispanic/etc. person fired it. People of all races have killed and and people of all races have been killed. If you want to debate gun violence, fine, but don't bring race into it. Race isn't a determining cause. And let's also discuss it in one of the 83 gun threads instead of a "celebrity" boxing thread.

Probably best to just back out of this thread Clifford. What an idiotic premise.

I think Clifford is racist towards whites...

That's very "in" right now.

 

[Clifford]

I don't see how you take all subjective elements out of a case. Bright line rules don't work well because people are different. What if Vitali Klitschko were advancing on Nastia Lukin in a threatening manner, filled with rage? Her fear isn't reasonable because he doesn't have a gun? Or she has to let the 250 lb trained boxer hit the 90lb gymnast?

All of this stuff is context-sensitive. That's why we just require the belief to be reasonable and let the jury make the determination, as we do on all manner of other defenses.

No because the fact that Klitschko could quite easily kill Lukin with his bare hands is an easily observable objective fact that could be verified by medical testimony at the trial. Lukin would have the benefit of medical testimony to support her life being in danger in addition to her own subjective belief that her life was in imminent danger. And it wouldn't require taking anything out of the jury's consideration, it would simply force them to consider objective facts in addition to the subjective mindset. In this case both would square. In Zimmerman's trial they probably would have squared since the only thing anyone really knows is that Tray was on top of Zimm beating him, and Zimm had his injuries, which were of course observable objective facts.

What would not work under this circumstance is Klitschko, seeing Lukin reach into her purse after a heated argument, assumed she was pulling a gun and shooting her. When no gun was found, that would outweigh the reasonable belief that she could have had a gun. Klitschko is convicted of involuntary manslaughter, and other agitated whiteys think they may want to think twice about blowing someone away.

 

[Clifford]

No one is acting like the unhinged whitey menace is statistically significant compared to other crimes. Its just that it's a national menace that was created by softening self-defense in many states to include anyone who thinks they have been threatened. Surely you don't think the guy who shot the texter really thought his life was in danger, or the guy who shot the kid over his radio being too loud. Both are trying to construct self-defense cases and both knew to say to the cops when giving their statements that they felt their life was in danger. Basically as long as the shooter is willing to lie they can force the courts into hearing a self-defense plea.

What should constitute a self-defense plea is actual real verifiable danger. In Zimm's case it would have been on the table, but in the case of the get off my lawn shooter, the text shooter, and the radio shooter, these pieces of #### would get tried as the murderers they are since their lives were never in any real, verifiable danger.

Now THAT would have a chilling effect on all these shoot-first-ask-later vigilantes that go out and start #### with people knowing they can just kill the person if they wet their little panties.

Really? You sure do seem to bring them up an awful lot. And why is it always "whitey" with you? Been plenty of unhinged people of other races. (i.e. WashNavyYd shooter, VT Shooter)

White:Columbine

Text-shooter

Radio-shooter

Aurora shooter

Oregon mall shooter

Sandy Hook

Girl-scout threatener

CPS/DHS lawyer shooter

Zimmerman

Loughner

Road-rage shooter (Alabama, local)

Neighbor shooter

Non-White:

Navy Yard

Va Tech

Yeah, most of the time it's an unhinged whitey. I don't bring it up because it's statistically significant. I bring it up because it's completely unnecessary and totally unpredictable in terms of avoidance.

Also, I just don't hear many black folks talk about how they need AR-15s to defend themselves against the coming liberal NWO. Weird, huh?

Let me add to your non-white list:Omar S. Thornton (Hartford Distributor Shooter)

Maurice Clemmons (Forza Coffee Copshooter)

Charles Lee Thornton (Kirkwood CIty Council Shooter)

William D. Baker (Navistar International Shooter)

Arthur Wise (Phelon Factory Shooter)

Clifton McCree (Ft. Lauderdale Park Shooter)

Nathan Dunlap (Chuck E. Cheese Shooter)

Colin Ferguson (Long Island Railroad Shooter)

John Allen Muhammad (DC Sniper)

Lee Boyd Malvo (DC Sniper)

Christopher Dorner (LAPD Shooter)

And those are just mass murderers.

Race really isn't a factor when it comes to who dies from a gunshot and who doesn't. A bullet doesn't become deadlier just because a white/black/asian/hispanic/etc. person fired it. People of all races have killed and and people of all races have been killed. If you want to debate gun violence, fine, but don't bring race into it. Race isn't a determining cause. And let's also discuss it in one of the 83 gun threads instead of a "celebrity" boxing thread.

Probably best to just back out of this thread Clifford. What an idiotic premise.

I think Clifford is racist towards whites...

I see the braintrust is circling their wagons. I don't hate all whites, just angry agitated whiteys that think their gun makes them John ####### Wayne. And wow I am so shocked that racial differences don't affect injuries and mortality. Wow. Thanks for opening my eyes on that one. Really, I've learned a lot today.

I responded to a really stupid question in a dumb way: by responding to it. Sorry for that, carry on.

 

[The Commish]

I don't see how you take all subjective elements out of a case. Bright line rules don't work well because people are different. What if Vitali Klitschko were advancing on Nastia Lukin in a threatening manner, filled with rage? Her fear isn't reasonable because he doesn't have a gun? Or she has to let the 250 lb trained boxer hit the 90lb gymnast?

All of this stuff is context-sensitive. That's why we just require the belief to be reasonable and let the jury make the determination, as we do on all manner of other defenses.

And here's the problem with Florida law. The context that matters most is an instant in the defendant's mind and the jury has to determine if that instant happened. Doesn't matter what led to the situation.

Again, I don't see how that's different than self-defense in any state in the country or different than how it's always been determined under the common law. But more importantly, the context that matters most is not the defendant's mind. Otherwise the word reasonable would not be in the statutory definition. If your fear of bodily harm is idiosyncratic, then you should not prevail on a self-defense claim under the statute.

And, BTW, it does matter what happened before in Florida. The aggressor cannot claim self-defense. That's right in the statute.

It's very different than here in SC. Trial coming up where guy killed some folks. He claimed "self defense". In pre-trial it was determined that since he started the altercation, he couldn't claim self defense. His actions were deemed a significant part of why the altercation began in the first place.

 

[Clifford]

The really tragic part is statistically the country is as safe as its been in four or five decades. But to here the gunnies talk you'd swear the bad guys were runnning amock in historical fashion. Even in the middle of a staggering recession and historic unemployment levels crime is continuing to stay relatively low.

The cognitive dissonance between that fact and the sense of embattlement certain portions of the population feel is staggering.

Interesting that you think the crime is the driving force behind gun rights people. I always thought their primary argument is that the right to bear arms was a check to government. But then again they are not mutually exclusive since a lot of criminals are in the government.

The real check on government is the all volunteer force. If you think you can stop a tank with a 9 mm boy are you going to get a surprise.

Good point I am sure no resistance group ever thought of that before.

I don't care who you are and what you think you have you aren't up to a fight with the US military. Nations aren't up for it.Some group of guys fondling their guns certainly aren't.

What if I am half or some other fraction of the US Military? Then am I up for fighting the other half. It is tough to understand I know.

Well first one guy isn't half of any of the services. People like you aren't half of any of the services if that is what you think. And if that is really your stance and you are truly serving then you sir are a traitor and are sullying the uniform you wear. You should be drummed out of the service. I say that as a vet.

First of all congrats on your pro killing Americans stance as a former soldier. Second by "people like me" I assume you mean your preferably unarmed civilians that you would fire on rather than violate your oath.

Third stop trying to derail this awesome thread about the Z man whipping the ### of a animal beating car jacking crack head criminal!

I'm not pro killing Americans. By people like you I mean people pushing sedition. Lastly your gun fondling fantasies are what led us here not me.

I fondle lots of things. All I said was the argument for owning guns because of criminals was less persuasive than owning guns because of government tyranny. I guess anyone who mentions the constitution is a traitor.

You can rest easy though, in your fantasy %100 of the army will back one side in a US civil war, just like last time!

Again please try to stay on topic. Since DMX shot his unsuspecting uncle and Zimmerman pulled off the shot in the heat of battle, I have to think that Zimmerman might be a little cooler under pressure and will have the edge when it comes to blows in the ring.

Plus DMX appears to lose his cool a lot like when he did the car jacking. If he gets rattled I can see DMX losing his posture and taking a haymaker from Z man.

Holy ####### hell you really admire Zimmerman don't you? Or ?

 

[Zow]

OK semantic difference then. I'm sure yours is the correct legal, but to me objective means not subject to any one person's view point. The objective judgment on the reason of a subjective view point to me is only one degree away from subjectivism.

What I would like to see in way of reforming these laws, which certain suspects are clearly trying to abuse, is to add a true objective test that would counter-balance the subjective belief of imminent harm. IOW, medical expert testimony on the condition of the shooter and whether their victim could have actually done significant physical harm. Or the presence of a weapon, whether seen or unseen, that could have killed the shooter had he/she not fired at that exact instant.

Like it or not, some people clearly interpret self-defense laws as they stand today to mean they can murder people, so long as they can prove they were scared.

This is a terrible idea and totally akin to playing MMQB. One of the general philosophies of punishing people in a criminal court is that their evil intent needs retribution. Accordingly, the focus should be on the reasonableness of the actor in the scope of the facts known to him or her at the time. Somehow omnisciently examining all facts, even those not likely known to the shooter, flies completely in the face of that.