HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Bon Vivant said:
LaserWolf said:
Harvey needs guns in case he sees a bear or a rattlesnake.
An AR-15, to be precise.
A shotgun was once used on a monster rattlesnake back in the late '70's. That came amongst handling dozens upon dozens of other snakes (including many rattlesnakes) without the need of a gun, for only that one rattlesnake that was as thick as a man's well-developed arm and firmly planted on our back patio for like an hour called for a shotgun.
And nobody I know has ever used an AR-15 on a bear. As mentioned earlier, the last one that posed a problem was caged and released peacefully.
But y'all keep making up your fantasy arguments against strawmen out here in internet land.
And nobody I know has ever used an AR-15 on a bear. As mentioned earlier, the last one that posed a problem was caged and released peacefully.
But y'all keep making up your fantasy arguments against strawmen out here in internet land.
HarveyCanal said:
cove said:
That's freeeeeedom, man!
Right, it is. For if anyone including cops and military can wield guns, I don't want anyone prohibiting me from doing the same. Call it the freedom to live on an even playing field, if you will. Plus, as I've experienced first hand this week camping up in Idaho, we still have an actual frontier to live in, with real live grizzly bears and packs of wolves and such. My dad brought an AR-15 and a couple of handguns along for our protection and guess what...nobody got "assaulted".
And fuck yes, our guns are indeed preemptively holding our shitbird government off from imposing further tyranny upon us. That's why they are so hell-bent on taking the guns to begin with (do you really think that the US government cares about the safety of the general public?), to the point that at least some of these mass shooting/bombing/terrorist events are staged by their own Manchurian Candidates. Point blank.
And no, we don't want to be Canada or Holland. Sorry.
This right here is the perfect illustration of the sick, stupid, useless cancer that resides in the American body politic and can't be eradicated without killing the host.
Or at least sawing off the Bible Belt and letting it sink into the ocean.
Cyprus. Amazing what you can accomplish with an unarmed populace. Do you think the government would suggest confiscating bank accounts if 45% of the poplation owned guns.
Unarmed "poplation" my ass. There's a better chance of cutting the wings off of all American flies than there is of the US "poplation" ever being "unarmed." Take your hysterical NRA bullshit to Tea Potty rallies where it belongs.
*********666th post special*********
Dear idiot.
It's the citizens of Cyprus that are uarmend. Thus the goverment in Cyprus could easily confiscate their bank accounts.
It's the citizens of Cyprus that are uarmend. Thus the goverment in Cyprus could easily confiscate their bank accounts.
Hey, scatmunch. Asked and answered. Private ownership of guns in Cyprus ranks SIXTH in the world. Thus you're the idiot.
"Uarmend" is a good one, though.
You lose ... again.
Cyprus. Private citizens are completely forbidden from owning handguns and rifles in any calber, even .22 rimfire. Only shotguns are allowed, and these require a license. Shotguns are limited to two rounds. The only shotguns typically sold in stores are double-barreled side-by-sides or over-unders. Pump actions and semiautomatics are prohibited. A private citizen can own a total of ten different shotguns. A citizen is not required to specify a reason for ownership to obtain a license, but most own their guns for hunting. Licenses are issued by provincial police. A gun license is required to buy ammunition, and ammunition sales are recorded. A shotgun owner may purchase up to 250 shells at one time. Cyprus also controls airguns, and airgun owners require a license.
Or you could have actually looked deeper in the regulations and the footnotes to the figures from your stupid anti-gun website.
I am always confused about stand your ground/self defense laws because it seems they are based entirely on emotion. Someone has to be in fear of their life in order to justify killing someone. How can a jury, or anyone for that matter, objectively assess someone's emotion? You can assess the expression of that emotion, but it is impossible to prove someone's emotion. Juries are always told that they cannot use their own emotion to make their decision, but must only consider the facts. Emotions are not provable facts. They can only be assessed by the person feeling them. So how can a law be written that justifies killing or harming another person because of an emotion?
I am reminded of the South Park episode where the hunter dudes skirt hunting laws by saying "It's coming right at us" to justify killing bunnies and baby deers. The law states you could kill any animal if you fear that it will attack you.
I realize this comparison is open for ridicule ("so are you comparing humans to cartoon animals? huh, are ya?), but I just saw a rerun of that episode and the thought behind it seemed similar to this question I have been pondering for awhile.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Cornel West on Obama's response to Trayvon Martin...
I am always confused about stand your ground/self defense laws because it seems they are based entirely on emotion. Someone has to be in fear of their life in order to justify killing someone. How can a jury, or anyone for that matter, objectively assess someone's emotion? You can assess the expression of that emotion, but it is impossible to prove someone's emotion. Juries are always told that they cannot use their own emotion to make their decision, but must only consider the facts. Emotions are not provable facts. They can only be assessed by the person feeling them. So how can a law be written that justifies killing or harming another person because of an emotion?
my thumbnail, very general take is this:
all common law countries (as far as i am aware) recognize self-defense as a legitimate defense in cases where one cannot retreat or there is no way to call to the police, in other words: emergent situations to prevent an imminent unlawful physical assault upon that person or a third party. generally, the form of self defense must be proportionate to the threat. so if someone shoves you, you are not entitled to break their eye socket. Typically, self-defense will be determined (by judge or jury) on the basis of "reasonableness". So the judge or jury (who determine the facts and are reasonable people) must answer this question: in the fact scenario, where a person could not retreat, would a reasonable person have reacted similarly? in the case of deadly force, the question becomes "would a reasonable person believe that his or her life was in immediate danger or that he or she would sustain serious (grievous) bodily harm." in the absence of a truthful confession, the jury must asses credibility, make inferences and apply a "societal standard" by determining if, in all the circumstances, the action taken was "reasonable".
The stand your ground laws are different in that the victim need not retreat in order to invoke self-defense, as i understand them.
In any event, i think the "stand your ground" self-defense was dropped in this case in favour of the more traditional variety. zimmerman would have argued that at the point trayvon was sitting on his chest that zimmerman did not have the ability to retreat.
i think the "stand your ground" defense is perverse concept that will only increase violent and deadly confrontations.
my question is very simple: why did he get out the car if he felt threatened? he could have retreated.
my question is very simple: why did he get out the car if he felt threatened? he could have retreated.
The defense wasn't that he felt threatened before he got out of the car. It was that he was in fear for his life after (as he claimed) Trayvon was on top of him "smashing his head" into the sidewalk.
Juries are always told that they cannot use their own emotion to make their decision
Yes
The_Hook_Up said:
must only consider the facts.
Not exactly. They must only consider the evidence, not all of which would pass muster as facts. Circumstantial evidence is a kind of evidence, for example. In addition, the state of mind of the accused is integral to determining the charges brought and deciding guilt or innocence in a variety of crimes. Of course, we can never know another person's state of mind, but it still figures in nonetheless.
They must only consider the evidence, not all of which would pass muster as facts. Circumstantial evidence is a kind of evidence, for example. In addition, the state of mind of the accused is integral to determining the charges brought and deciding guilt or innocence in a variety of crimes. Of course, we can never know another person's state of mind, but it still figures in nonetheless.
WARNING: I am not a lawyer.
Quite true, which is why you seem to have a layman's confusion about what circumstantial evidence is.
Forensic evidence is circumstantial evidence, though most laymen would not think so.
In any event, i think the "stand your ground" self-defense was dropped in this case in favour of the more traditional variety.
I'm sure you know this, but, to be clear, the judge's instructions to the jury was that GZ had a right to Stand His Ground and the jury discussed the SYG law and used it in their determining their verdict.
They must only consider the evidence, not all of which would pass muster as facts. Circumstantial evidence is a kind of evidence, for example. In addition, the state of mind of the accused is integral to determining the charges brought and deciding guilt or innocence in a variety of crimes. Of course, we can never know another person's state of mind, but it still figures in nonetheless.
WARNING: I am not a lawyer.
Quite true, which is why you seem to have a layman's confusion about what circumstantial evidence is.
Forensic evidence is circumstantial evidence, though most laymen would not think so.
And you have a layman's understanding of scientific evidence.
Forensic evidence may consist of facts, but the inferences that are drawn from it are not.
They must only consider the evidence, not all of which would pass muster as facts. Circumstantial evidence is a kind of evidence, for example. In addition, the state of mind of the accused is integral to determining the charges brought and deciding guilt or innocence in a variety of crimes. Of course, we can never know another person's state of mind, but it still figures in nonetheless.
WARNING: I am not a lawyer.
Quite true, which is why you seem to have a layman's confusion about what circumstantial evidence is.
Forensic evidence is circumstantial evidence, though most laymen would not think so.
And you have a layman's understanding of scientific evidence.
Forensic evidence may consist of facts, but the inferences that are drawn from it are not.
They are, legally, once the jury decides that they are. That's the effect of the jury's role as the triers of fact. The jury makes deductions from circumstantial evidence and determines legal fact.
In any event, i think the "stand your ground" self-defense was dropped in this case in favour of the more traditional variety.
I'm sure you know this, but, to be clear, the judge's instructions to the jury was that GZ had a right to Stand His Ground and the jury discussed the SYG law and used it in their determining their verdict.
i did see those instructions however, they were part of a broad and generic summation of the law. the jury may have discussed the "stand your ground" defense but ultimately opted for the more traditional and apt version of self-defense. after all, he did not have an option of retreat when trayvon was supposedly on top of him.
finally, i have not followed the case as closely as i would have liked but i understood that zimmerman's claim to the police was that trayvon was circling his car in a menacing fashion. if that is the case, why the fuck did he get out of the car in the first place? please, non-banned members, correct me if i am wrong.
i have not followed the case as closely as i would have liked but i understood that zimmerman's claim to the police was that trayvon was circling his car in a menacing fashion. if that is the case, why the fuck did he get out of the car in the first place? please, non-banned members, correct me if i am wrong.
You're wrong. There was never any talk, by Zimmerman or anyone else, about Trayvon "circling his car."
Okay. The poll numbers are in from last week. We are no longer talking about this Trayvon kid, so let's wrap this up. We're talking about the economy now.
Okay. The poll numbers are in from last week. We are no longer talking about this Trayvon kid, so let's wrap this up. We're talking about the economy now.
Okay. The poll numbers are in from last week. We are no longer talking about this Trayvon kid, so let's wrap this up. We're talking about the economy now.
Comments
A shotgun was once used on a monster rattlesnake back in the late '70's. That came amongst handling dozens upon dozens of other snakes (including many rattlesnakes) without the need of a gun, for only that one rattlesnake that was as thick as a man's well-developed arm and firmly planted on our back patio for like an hour called for a shotgun.
And nobody I know has ever used an AR-15 on a bear. As mentioned earlier, the last one that posed a problem was caged and released peacefully.
But y'all keep making up your fantasy arguments against strawmen out here in internet land.
Whoops!
So. I guess you don't know your dad.
Dear idiot.
It's the citizens of Cyprus that are uarmend. Thus the goverment in Cyprus could easily confiscate their bank accounts.
xxx ooo
Saba
We bots seem to know more about your dad than you do.
You lose ... again.
Cyprus. Private citizens are completely forbidden from owning handguns and rifles in any calber, even .22 rimfire. Only shotguns are allowed, and these require a license. Shotguns are limited to two rounds. The only shotguns typically sold in stores are double-barreled side-by-sides or over-unders. Pump actions and semiautomatics are prohibited. A private citizen can own a total of ten different shotguns. A citizen is not required to specify a reason for ownership to obtain a license, but most own their guns for hunting. Licenses are issued by provincial police. A gun license is required to buy ammunition, and ammunition sales are recorded. A shotgun owner may purchase up to 250 shells at one time. Cyprus also controls airguns, and airgun owners require a license.
Or you could have actually looked deeper in the regulations and the footnotes to the figures from your stupid anti-gun website.
Has it changed?
And if so, when?
It seems that Saba's point is "With the exception of firearms, firearms are banned in Cyprus".
I am always confused about stand your ground/self defense laws because it seems they are based entirely on emotion. Someone has to be in fear of their life in order to justify killing someone. How can a jury, or anyone for that matter, objectively assess someone's emotion? You can assess the expression of that emotion, but it is impossible to prove someone's emotion. Juries are always told that they cannot use their own emotion to make their decision, but must only consider the facts. Emotions are not provable facts. They can only be assessed by the person feeling them. So how can a law be written that justifies killing or harming another person because of an emotion?
I am reminded of the South Park episode where the hunter dudes skirt hunting laws by saying "It's coming right at us" to justify killing bunnies and baby deers. The law states you could kill any animal if you fear that it will attack you.
I realize this comparison is open for ridicule ("so are you comparing humans to cartoon animals? huh, are ya?), but I just saw a rerun of that episode and the thought behind it seemed similar to this question I have been pondering for awhile.
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/7/22/cornel_west_obamas_response_to_trayvon
my thumbnail, very general take is this:
all common law countries (as far as i am aware) recognize self-defense as a legitimate defense in cases where one cannot retreat or there is no way to call to the police, in other words: emergent situations to prevent an imminent unlawful physical assault upon that person or a third party. generally, the form of self defense must be proportionate to the threat. so if someone shoves you, you are not entitled to break their eye socket. Typically, self-defense will be determined (by judge or jury) on the basis of "reasonableness". So the judge or jury (who determine the facts and are reasonable people) must answer this question: in the fact scenario, where a person could not retreat, would a reasonable person have reacted similarly? in the case of deadly force, the question becomes "would a reasonable person believe that his or her life was in immediate danger or that he or she would sustain serious (grievous) bodily harm." in the absence of a truthful confession, the jury must asses credibility, make inferences and apply a "societal standard" by determining if, in all the circumstances, the action taken was "reasonable".
The stand your ground laws are different in that the victim need not retreat in order to invoke self-defense, as i understand them.
In any event, i think the "stand your ground" self-defense was dropped in this case in favour of the more traditional variety. zimmerman would have argued that at the point trayvon was sitting on his chest that zimmerman did not have the ability to retreat.
i think the "stand your ground" defense is perverse concept that will only increase violent and deadly confrontations.
my question is very simple: why did he get out the car if he felt threatened? he could have retreated.
The defense wasn't that he felt threatened before he got out of the car. It was that he was in fear for his life after (as he claimed) Trayvon was on top of him "smashing his head" into the sidewalk.
Yes
Not exactly. They must only consider the evidence, not all of which would pass muster as facts. Circumstantial evidence is a kind of evidence, for example. In addition, the state of mind of the accused is integral to determining the charges brought and deciding guilt or innocence in a variety of crimes. Of course, we can never know another person's state of mind, but it still figures in nonetheless.
WARNING: I am not a lawyer.
Quite true, which is why you seem to have a layman's confusion about what circumstantial evidence is.
Forensic evidence is circumstantial evidence, though most laymen would not think so.
I'm sure you know this, but, to be clear, the judge's instructions to the jury was that GZ had a right to Stand His Ground and the jury discussed the SYG law and used it in their determining their verdict.
And you have a layman's understanding of scientific evidence.
Forensic evidence may consist of facts, but the inferences that are drawn from it are not.
They are, legally, once the jury decides that they are. That's the effect of the jury's role as the triers of fact. The jury makes deductions from circumstantial evidence and determines legal fact.
i did see those instructions however, they were part of a broad and generic summation of the law. the jury may have discussed the "stand your ground" defense but ultimately opted for the more traditional and apt version of self-defense. after all, he did not have an option of retreat when trayvon was supposedly on top of him.
finally, i have not followed the case as closely as i would have liked but i understood that zimmerman's claim to the police was that trayvon was circling his car in a menacing fashion. if that is the case, why the fuck did he get out of the car in the first place? please, non-banned members, correct me if i am wrong.
You're wrong. There was never any talk, by Zimmerman or anyone else, about Trayvon "circling his car."
Bush's fault -> Washington's fault
is what i'm hearing right now
you guys still have an economy? ;)
Well we don't owe them trillions and we aint in a recession so I guess its okay. Plus their food is much better.
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/9506213/fruitvale-station-trayvon-martin