Trayvon Martin: Before the world heard the cries

[Scott_Lafrance]

Better that than living with the paranoia that permeates the gun culture.

Describe this for me, please! I would love to understand that my affinity for personal safety and that of my family is really paranoia.

 

[Cider]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_Act

“Named for its primary legislative sponsor, state senator Timothy Sullivan, a notoriously corrupt Tammany Hall politician, it dates to 1911, and is still in force, making it one of the older existing gun control laws in the United States.”

The history of gun control and the history of political corruption and ties to organized crime travel the same path.

I can’t believe that they listed people with carry permits on there.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

So now the media or the court decide who a child is? In my family, a child includes anyone of college-age whose age still ends in teen. And I know we are not unique.

No. There’s a legal definition and that is what counts in court. You can call your college-age offspring child or children as you like; you’re not bound by the legal definition.

 

[Calgar]

Amen to that. I’d rather live in a place where the police were the only ones with guns.

Yeah, the gubment will protect you. Just put your trust in them.

When any random hothead in a t-shirt can shoot me.

Just because that’s what you would do with a gun, doesn’t mean that everyone else would. By the way, I hope you don’t have any guns.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Yeah, the gubment will protect you. Just put your trust in them.

When seconds count, the police are minutes away.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Describe this for me, please! I would love to understand that my affinity for personal safety and that of my family is really paranoia.

Read the post. I said “permeates.” I didn’t say that every last gun owner, myself included, is paranoid. Long gun and shotgun owners don’t seem to display that tendency as much as the pistoleros do.

 

[seekerz]

A gun is a weapon of last resort. If you pull it prior to being in a life threatening situation, there are serious legal and criminal consequences for doing so.

But I may have been wrong on the superpower thing. There is a new study out that says that others perceive you as bigger and stronger than you really are if you’re carrying a gun. news.yahoo.com/people-carrying-guns-may-appear-bigger-210313387.html

I wasn’t saying he should have pulled his gun, but simply that turning your back on someone who you deem to be possibly dangerous, makes little sense.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

When seconds count, the police are minutes away.

Oh? How many times has your home been invaded by gun-wielding killers?

 

[SwizzleStick]

Amen to that. I’d rather live in a place where the police were the only ones with guns …

Oh, sorry, you were serious?

Yes, that was an attempt at levity and not meant to offend.

 

[Calgar]

Raging against self-defense

vcdl.org/new/raging.htm

Here, this describes the mentality we’re running into here.

 

[seekerz]

Yeah, the gubment will protect you. Just put your trust in them.

Just because that’s what you would do with a gun, doesn’t mean that everyone else would. By the way, I hope you don’t have any guns.

The gubment, hmm? Long may they live, in every place I’ve ever been, they’ve managed to protect me just fine. I have no doubt they can continue to manage it for the few decades I have left.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

By the way, I hope you don’t have any guns.

I wish the same for every one on this Forum.

 

[Calgar]

Oh? How many times has your home been invaded by gun-wielding killers?

I’ve used a concealed pistol twice in self-defense. I and my children are still around because of it. Does that make you mad?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Read the post. I said “permeates.” I didn’t say that every last gun owner, myself included, is paranoid. Long gun and shotgun owners don’t seem to display that tendency as much as the pistoleros do.

Do you have any idea how silly one would look toting a shotgun around town with them? I’m actually an advocate of loose open carry laws. I think Trayvon Martin would have been much less inclined to tangle with Zimmerman if he saw George strutting back to his car with a hogleg strapped to his thigh.

 

[maryjk]

When seconds count, the police are minutes away.

Sad part is, not only are they not there when you need them, but they are also not required to protect you.

 

[seekerz]

Oh, sorry, you were serious?

Yes, that was an attempt at humor. Please don’t be offended.

Oh, but I’m dead serious - as long as they’re disarmed when in plain clothes. If someone’s going to be shooting me for reasons that exist inside his head, at least I want witnesses to not be fighting over which color t-shirt my shooter was wearing.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Sad part is, not only are they not there when you need them, but they are also not required to protect you.

No, they aren’t. Generally, they get there just it time to clean up the mess.

 

[vz71]

That was the first slant in the case, that Martin was called a “child” instead of a minor. He was 17 years old, not legally a “child,” but the media held onto that as long as they possibly could.

True.
But of all the people I would expect to hear it from, the mother would be the first.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

The gubment, hmm? Long may they live, in every place I’ve ever been, they’ve managed to protect me just fine. I have no doubt they can continue to manage it for the few decades I have left.

Yup. I’ve lived in Brooklyn, NY and been in the roughest neighborhoods in that borough, as well as in the South Bronx, Hell’s Kitchen and Harlem. At night. The cops have done a good job for me for the past 70 years and I anticipate that they won’t fall down on the job in the next quarter century either.

 

[St_Francis]

This is the part that I find truly ridiculous and dismissive of the value of human life: how could any law allow a person who is on top in such a fight (I’m using this scenario simply for argument’s sake), and who has the benefit of a firearm, to not retreat?! It is basically legalizing vengenance IMHO, because a person who has other options to protect his life, particularly with the police on their way, is not morally justified in shooting someone.

I think this is a very tricky area of the law. IIRC, one of the reasons Fl passed this law was that there were elderly people being attacked on the streets who had no way to defend themselves, and who found it difficult to retreat.

The problem is that when one is actually in a situation, it can be difficult to figure out what to do. I myself was mugged once–the guy, who was behind me, told me he had a gun. If I had turned quickly and shot him with my gun, then I would have been in a world of trouble if it turned out he didn’t have a gun. At the same time, if he had had a gun, how could I have retreated?

Prosecutions in these types of situations are what the law is designed to deal with. Under affirmative self-defense, I would have somehow had to prove that he said he had a gun; under Stand Your Ground, the burden of proof would have been lower *and *would have been before the full trial commenced. Additionally, all potential for civil suits would have been eliminated, so the business I was at and I wouldn’t have been potentially liable for the death.