The Gun Control Debate Thread

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

I live in a Stand Your Ground State (Texas) and thank God I do. I’ve had to shoot three people in the 18 months I’ve been living here. Two of them were after hard screens in pickup basketball at LA Fitness.

[TMK9973]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

 

... no.

So you have never - in your entire life - Doubled park in front of the grocery story to pick someone up?  Pulled into a Double white line in a parking lot so someone ran in while you waited? Pulled into a metered space and not pay because the person in your front seat was just jumping out?  Pulled next to a red crub while you waited for your friend to run out to meet you?

You have never done ANY OF THAT?  

 

1 hour ago, twa said:

So are the people here claiming arguing/shouting at someone justifies someone else knocking them to the ground?.....cause that changes the whole protester game. 

Depends - But yes. He was yelling/ shouting at his family and moving closer to his car where young children were there.  If someone starts screaming and yelling at your family and children in a public parking lot and started moving closer to them - would you NOT push them away?

 

and the "changes the protester game" is just a dumb argument. Context DOES matter. In fact -the entire argument is around context.  

[Bang]

2 hours ago, tshile said:

That sounds great, but is not how these things are actually evaluated.

... no.

So, they do not evaluate him seeing the man was unarmed and backing away? I mean, he was facing the man while he pulled his gun, Looking right at him while he raised it.. held it, aimed, and then fired.
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/victims-girlfriend-says-florida-gunman-provoked-fatal-stand-095904222--abc-news-topstories.html
Here's the video again.. 
In fact, it was nearly 4 seconds from the time he hit the ground to the time he turned and fired with the man's hands clearly visible.

He points the gun at the guy for almost 2 full seconds, and the guy backs up a step and raises both hands from his side.

If that is how these things are evaluated, then the truth is these things are not evaluated at all.

Lunatic paradise. 

Why bother to make anything illegal? This is clearly murder.

 

~Bang

Edited July 23, 2018 by Bang

[tshile]

27 minutes ago, TMK9973 said:

So you have never - in your entire life - Doubled park in front of the grocery story to pick someone up

Nope. I'm not a douchebag. I don't park where I'm not supposed to park just because I think I or what I am doing is special.

 

I park where I'm allowed to park.

 

I certainly don't take up a spot dedicated to people who have a harder time going through the world, just because I promise i'll be quick about it.

[twa]

From my review he did not need to shoot him, which is different from could he legally shoot him....which I think he could.

Once you initiate force you need to clearly demonstrate no further danger (in their reasonable perception) to the person you attacked to escape the self defense box.

 

 

[tshile]

21 minutes ago, Bang said:

So, they do not evaluate him seeing the man was unarmed and backing away?

 

What you actually said:

2 hours ago, Bang said:

 

that is entirely on him.

He only gave himself a second to make any assessment when he pulled the trigger.

He pulled the gun, he pulled the trigger. The only thing that made it a fast developing situation was him.

 

this is murder.

 

~Bang

 

 

And no, they don't evaluate it that way.

 

This isn't a football play where we're evaluating whether someone's toes touched the line or not. Combing through it frame by frame.

 

You have to analyze it with respect to real time decision making and circumstance. Something the public, in general, does an absolutely terrible time with. People have a real hard time seeing things from anything other than their personal world view.

 

I don't like the situation. It seems to be within the law. He's not required to do anything in that situation, and once someone assaults him he's allowed to defend himself with deadly force.

 

Self defense is not a cut and dry thing. It never has been and it never will be. 

[AJ*]

Eh, it was murder. The guy got shoved to the ground, was angry and had plenty of time to aim for a nice kill shot or not shoot at all since the guy who shoved him was clearly backing away. He chose to kill the guy who shoved him, bottom line. 

[TMK9973]

17 minutes ago, tshile said:

Nope. I'm not a douchebag. I don't park where I'm not supposed to park just because I think I or what I am doing is special.

 

I park where I'm allowed to park.

 

I certainly don't take up a spot dedicated to people who have a harder time going through the world, just because I promise i'll be quick about it.

I suppose you have never speed even 1 mph over speed limit, never exceded time limit on a metered space, never didnt use your turn single...

please....

Once again -She stayed in the car, There is a term for that -its called "Standing"  

[twa]

40 minutes ago, TMK9973 said:

 

 

Depends - But yes. He was yelling/ shouting at his family and moving closer to his car where young children were there.  If someone starts screaming and yelling at your family and children in a public parking lot and started moving closer to them - would you NOT push them away?

 

and the "changes the protester game" is just a dumb argument. Context DOES matter. In fact -the entire argument is around context.  

 

The context here is someone verbally accosting someone breaking the law and being violently blindsided.

 

What I would do does not matter(I've been shot for being stupid myself)

 

introducing violence removes the protections afforded you by the law, he could place himself between the jerk and his family w/o being violent......and if attacked then legally defend himself/them.

[tshile]

Definitely speed, though normally only 5 mph unless i'm on 95 then i drive 79

 

i don't have to worry about metered space because I have parkmobile

 

I try to use my turn signal if anyone's around. 

 

 

[TMK9973]

Just now, twa said:

 

The context here is someone verbally accosting someone breaking the law and being violently blindsided.

 

What I would do does not matter(I've been shot for being stupid myself)

 

introducing violence removes the protections afforded you by the law, he could place himself between the jerk and his family w/o being violent......and if attacked then legally defend himself/them.

So lesson here. The guy (Father) should have been carrying and just run out and shoot him.

He could have said he was protecting his family.

TWA would be posting that he was justified.  

 

We live in a F'd up place.  

[tshile]

2 minutes ago, TMK9973 said:

So lesson here. The guy (Father) should have been carrying and just run out and shoot him.

 

No. The lesson here is don't put your hands on other people.

 

We generally try to teach this to people while they're in the age range of 3-5.

 

(the bigger lesson is that stand your ground laws suck and you should think twice before voting to adopt them in your state)

 

Edited July 23, 2018 by tshile

[twa]

1 minute ago, TMK9973 said:

So lesson here. The guy (Father) should have been carrying and just run out and shoot him.

He could have said he was protecting his family.

TWA would be posting that he was justified.  

 

We live in a F'd up place.  

 

Verbally abusing someone is not reason to use force....at least if you want the laws protection.

 

What is the difference in your mind between shooting and knocking someone to the pavement? (both are considered deadly force under the law)

[Bang]

21 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

What you actually said:

 

 

And no, they don't evaluate it that way.

 

This isn't a football play where we're evaluating whether someone's toes touched the line or not. Combing through it frame by frame.

 

You have to analyze it with respect to real time decision making and circumstance. Something the public, in general, does an absolutely terrible time with. People have a real hard time seeing things from anything other than their personal world view.

 

I don't like the situation. It seems to be within the law. He's not required to do anything in that situation, and once someone assaults him he's allowed to defend himself with deadly force.

 

Self defense is not a cut and dry thing. It never has been and it never will be. 

 

 

I did, this is why i went back and reviewed the tape after my first post, so i could see it real time and see the positioning and timing.

 

He's got the gun pointed at the man for 2 seconds. Doesn't seem like a long time, but it's plenty to be able to make an assessment of the man you are level headed enough to point the gun at.

the man has nothing in his hands, clearly.

If the killer can't distinguish that in two seconds he has no business being allowed by any law anywhere to utilize deadly force with a gun.

Insanity. Once the gun was leveled the threat was quickly deflating. At the very least, it was clear and obvious that the man was unarmed, and there is ample time to make a decision as to fire. he didn't just turn and fire. He took time to aim. If he has that time, he has time to decide.

 

Murder.

 

~Bang

 

[TMK9973]

3 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

No. The lesson here is don't put your hands on other people.

 

We generally try to teach this to people while they're in the age range of 3-5.

 

(the bigger lesson is that stand your ground laws suck and you should think twice before voting to adopt them in your state)

 

Or dont yell at strangers.

We dont know what the guy was yelling -but according to someone who he yelled at before, and according to the store owner who called the cops on him before -When he was screaming may very well have been assault as well.  

 

[tshile]

Just now, TMK9973 said:

Or dont yell at strangers.

We dont know what the guy was yelling -but according to someone who he yelled at before, and according to the store owner who called the cops on him before -When he was screaming may very well have been assault as well.  

 

 

Maybe. The problem is, as the sheriff explained, all those incidents are irrelevant. 

 

You can use them to paint a picture about the guy, but based on the video I'm willing to bet I know all I need to know about him.

 

But it doesn't matter. The rules about deadly force are simple, which is why applying them is so hard - He was assaulted, he claimed he was in fear of his life, there lacks evidence to properly refute either of those. So, no charges.

 

And maybe if SYG wasn't the law in florida, this guy would have done the same things and shot the guy anyways. He'd be in jail.

 

And the father would still be dead over something stupid.

 

The lesson here is to think twice before putting your hands on other people. I'd also say you should just mind your own business, but that's just my personal view on things.

 

[TMK9973]

9 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Verbally abusing someone is not reason to use force....at least if you want the laws protection.

 

What is the difference in your mind between shooting and knocking someone to the pavement? (both are considered deadly force under the law)

Well thats just false on many levels.

1st- VA (And other states) have fighting words laws.  Most states have some version of that. "Fighting words" are not free speech and can be used in defense of physical reaction. I.E - "Im going to come come up to you and punch you in the fact until you are knocked out"  and then he takes a step forward- I dont have to now wait until he throws a punch.  that happens. I can push or use physical force before he throws the 1st punch.

 

Knocking someone to the pavement is not considered deadly force.  

If it was - that means anytime someone shoved anyone, cops would arrest them with attempted murder.

 

Come on TWA - you can do better.  

 

Edited July 23, 2018 by TMK9973

[tshile]

5 minutes ago, Bang said:

He's got the gun pointed at the man for 2 seconds. Doesn't seem like a long time, but it's plenty to be able to make an assessment of the man you are level headed enough to point the gun at.

the man has nothing in his hands, clearly.

If the killer can't distinguish that in two seconds he has no business being allowed by any law anywhere to utilize deadly force with a gun.

Insanity. Once the gun was leveled the threat was quickly deflating. At the very least, it was clear and obvious that the man was unarmed, and there is ample time to make a decision as to fire. he didn't just turn and fire. He took time to aim. If he has that time, he has time to decide.

 

I've never drawn a gun on someone, much less shot at someone.

 

But the people who do the training for it, tell the rest of us we should be careful making assumptions like you have.

 

The sheriff certainly doesn't seem to agree with you.

[TheGreatBuzz]

Fwiw, to everyone saying the guy should have realized the threat was defused between the time he pulled the gun and the time he pulled the trigger, that is not what is taught in most gun courses.  By the time you pull the gun, you have already decided to kill.  You should only be thinking about aim.  A gun is not a tool used to take control of a situation, get someone to "freeze", or scare someone off.  A gun is a tool to kill and you should have made that decision before pulling it.

 

All that said, I d9nt think the gun should have been pulled.  The situation had not reached that point yet.  But that is my moral opinion, not a legal one.

[twa]

9 minutes ago, TMK9973 said:

Well thats just false on many levels.

1st- VA (And other states) have fighting words laws.  Most states have some version of that. "Fighting words" are not free speech and can be used in defense of physical reaction. I.E - "Im going to come come up to you and punch you in the fact until you are knocked out"  and then he takes a step forward- I dont have to now wait until he throws a punch.  that happens. I can push or use physical force before he throws the 1st punch.

 

Knocking someone to the pavement is not considered deadly force.  

If it was - that means anytime someone shoved anyone, cops would arrest them with attempted murder.

 

Come on TWA - you can do better.  

 

 

Can you demonstrate any fighting words used?(if that is even a law in Fl)

 

Yes knocking someone to the pavement is considered deadly force under common self defense law, and if the guy had hit his head when knocked down and died from it it would be a murder charge.

 

 

[Kilmer17]

So we have a mentally ill (my own conclusion) with a gun.  And we're arguing about the ****ing stand your ground law instead of why that guy has a gun to begin with?

 

THAT'S what's crazy about all of this.

 

This incident could probably go either way in court.  SYG could certainly apply, but the court could also easily say it was excessive.

[tshile]

6 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

This incident could probably go either way in court.  SYG could certainly apply, but the court could also easily say it was excessive.

 

Generally, sure.

 

In FL (and I'm sure you know this, I'm just adding on) they changed the law recently where the burden of proof is on the prosecution. It used to be (and is elsewhere) where they just need to prove you shot the person (which is easy because the shooter admits to it...), the defendant has to prove it was justified. That's why you're probably going to be arrested if you shoot someone in self defense, it's just the process you go through.

 

When you change the burden of proof you change everything. I'm not necessarily against changing the burden of proof, but when combined with stand your ground, you get what we have here. Without additional evidence (like what the guy was saying to the wife.... i can't think of anything else that would help) all you've got is the father shoving this guy to the ground and the guy shooting him in (what he claims is) self defense.

 

Not much there. They could try to prosecute him, but it's not a good case.

 

9 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Fwiw, to everyone saying the guy should have realized the threat was defused between the time he pulled the gun and the time he pulled the trigger, that is not what is taught in most gun courses.  By the time you pull the gun, you have already decided to kill.  You should only be thinking about aim.  A gun is not a tool used to take control of a situation, get someone to "freeze", or scare someone off.  A gun is a tool to kill and you should have made that decision before pulling it.

 

All that said, I d9nt think the gun should have been pulled.  The situation had not reached that point yet.  But that is my moral opinion, not a legal one.

 

This is exactly where I am.

 

I think the people hanging on 2 seconds are misguided. You're not taught that way. It didn't play out that way. We're back to "why didn't he just shoot him in the leg" stuff. It's just not realistic, it's not how anyone is trained. 

Edited July 23, 2018 by tshile

[Destino]

6 hours ago, Why am I Mr. Pink? said:

The point I am making is .... a person shouldnt be confronting people over parking spaces and then be able to shot and kill someone because a "confrontation" ensues. It seems like baiting and fishing, just looking for an argument. Much like your obtuse post. My post was clear - I am talking about the initial aggressor ... who was the stranger who decided to create a situation with a mom waiting in a car. She didnt start with him, he started with her. He went to her car. He originated and escalated the situation.

There's a reason cultures develop civility and etiquette and it's not just because old people enjoy pestering the young. We too often treat it like it's sort of a useless decoration that entirely non essential.  It's extremely unwise to think that displaying anger towards anyone is harmless, you have no idea how you'll be perceived by others that see you through the lens of their own life experience.  It creates a dangerous situation that can easily turn violent.  All of us inherently know this to be true.  If you don't think so, ask yourself why people don't go off on larger scary looking people the same way they would others.  Surely people are not given pause by the potential for witty response or cutting insult. 

 

My point is, assuming anyone is still reading after all that finger wagging, is that I agree that a person starting an angry confrontation should not then be allowed to quickly use deadly force and stand your ground as a defense.  If someone politely says "sir you shouldn't park in a handicap spot" and moves on, that person should not lose any right to defend themselves if attacked.  If however a person becomes aggressive, insulting, loud, or otherwise threatening they should not longer be able to claim stand your ground as a defense.  You start an angry confrontation then you don't get to shoot people that respond angrily to you, especially not third parties that arrive in the middle of it and read you as a threat to their family.

 

I also think that laws that change exactly when someone can kill a person shouldn't be passed without much larger efforts to educate the population.  This is a common theme in American society.  People are not clear on when cops or private citizens can use force.  Matters of life and death should not be poorly understood and/or vague. 

 

[TMK9973]

5 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Can you demonstrate any fighting words used?(if that is even a law in Fl)

 

Yes knocking someone to the pavement is considered deadly force under common self defense law, and if the guy had hit his head when knocked down and died from it it would be a murder charge.

 

 

I wasn't there-I dont know...Only circumstantial evidence.  

-Tape shows that it was in fact very loud argument.

-Bystander went in and told the owner "there was a fight in the parking lot that might turn physical"

-Owner in the past said he has called police on the guy

-Guy who was yelled at before said the same guy threaten him and called him racial names.

 

So i dont know if there were fighting words or not. But based on what I saw (Man screaming and approaching the car) i have my own thoughts. 

Do you have any evidence to suggest there weren't?

ITs a F'd up law where i have to PROVE that someone who is seen yelling and approaching my family used fighting words -but there is s a presumption that if im shoved I can legally shoot someone .

[Destino]

37 minutes ago, tshile said:

No. The lesson here is don't put your hands on other people.  We generally try to teach this to people while they're in the age range of 3-5. 

 

(the bigger lesson is that stand your ground laws suck and you should think twice before voting to adopt them in your state)

 

This is undeniable in states with stand your ground legislation.  How you imagine things should be doesn't make the bullets bounce harmlessly away.  Right now people need to be made aware that shoving someone gives that person legal cover to draw and fire a weapon.  It's not about agreement, it's a question of public safety.  The public needs to know which actions can lead to their deaths.