Wow. Just wow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs-M
Printable View
Wow. Just wow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs-M
It's not all that difficult. TM, at the time the killer called dispatch, was still alive, wasn't doing anyone any harm, wasn't carrying a weapon, and wasn't acting aggressively.Quote:
Originally posted by Bae.
Given that you didn't interview Mr. Zimmerman or the witnesses or see the physical evidence presented or the timeline/reconstruction of events, as might happen in an actual trial, I don't see how you can know that...
You'll find in most banks now a sign at the door that says "No hoodies/hats/sunglasses".
Not where I live have I ever seen that. I must live really in hicksville.
Oh, come now... From our perspective (and where we reside), it's sickening to watch the continued carnage unfold in a country where "the law is the gun".Quote:
Originally posted by Bae.
Wow. Just wow.
Except, of course, as has been pointed out repeatedly in other threads, that's not how things work here in *reality*, it's just how you, Mrs-M, in your imagination, *think* they must work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs-M
In Canada, the killer would have had the book thrown at him. The end. Unless you are involved with law-enforcement or high-level security, you are NOT permitted to carry a gun. (The way the law should be).
Do gun-control laws work? Absolutely, in some cases they do, making for a much more stable (and safer) society. If there's any doubt as to whether gun-control laws work or not, pause for a moment and reflect on TM, the young man who's life was taken so tragically. Now, alter the country where this took place. If TM, was in our country (Canada) at the time and the same unfolded, TM would still be alive, because the neighbourhood watchman wouldn't have had a gun to turn on him.
As if it's not bad enough already where everyday ordinary people (innocent people minding their own business) occasionally end up being statistics, I can't imagine having to be fearful of a neighbourhood watchman, someone who should be a friend. Reiterates to me how broken the gun-law is in the US. But, as has been pointed out repeatedly in other threads, I am well aware that the watchman was qualified and trained (professionally).
It's a pity some people take such pride in denying others the basic right of self defense. If TM pounded GZ's head into the sidewalk until he was dead we could all just toast the event as an epically Canadian victory for spineless victimization. The case is a tragedy no doubt, but the bigger tragedy will be if people use this as fuel for ignorant demagoguery. If GZ was an aggressor he gave up the right of self defense and should be prosecuted. If TM was the aggressor, which you can question but so far is the only evidence made public, you can't lionize an alternative that would have destroyed a victim's life. Oh but wait, you watched a tabloid TV episode so you know what happened with enough certainty to call for the abrogation of the rule of law. How ironic given your false characterizations of the actual rule of law and it's relation to firearms ownership.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs-M
To what capacity? When someone else has a gun pointed at you? Or when someone else gets the upper-hand (in a fist fight) and bloodies your face for you, and there's not a darned thing you can do about it? Is that your definition of "basic right of self-defense?Quote:
Originally posted by East River Guide.
It's a pity some people take such pride in denying others the basic right of self defense.
The applicable standard in this case is the force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to the defender or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs-M