Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

Racism in Florida

Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2014 12:23:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Given two recent highly publicized murder trials in Florida, there have been cries of racism due to the two acquittals. However, if systemic racism to blame, I submit a suspect who has yet to be questioned: Angel Corey, prosecuting attorney in both cases.

In both cases, I am of the opinion that first degree murder was too high of a charge, and that juries would not convict on this offense, where they may well have on a lesser charge of manslaughter and/or second degree murder. If racism is to blame for the acquittal, why is the prosecution above suspicion for deliberately overcharging defendants so allow them to literally get away with murder?

Now, obviously, the race-baiters and outraged individuals would have had a field day had murder not been the charge for Zimmerman or Dunn, so political pressures (or aspirations) could have come into play. But, since both juries had minorities that voted for acquittal (Dunn was 9-3 deadlocked), why are only the jurors viewed as being racist?

Is it not entirely possible the prosecution intended this to occur, and allowed it to happen? It is equally as believable, yet does not seem to be considered.
Thoughts?
My work here is, finally, done.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2014 1:34:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I am of the opinion that first degree murder in the Zimmermann case was appropriate. I'm also of the opinion that the Florida justice system is corrupted by racism. If this insane and destructive practice of SYG vibilante law is allowed to stand then the people of Florida will increasingly become the victims of gun violence.

At 3/2/2014 12:23:33 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Given two recent highly publicized murder trials in Florida, there have been cries of racism due to the two acquittals. However, if systemic racism to blame, I submit a suspect who has yet to be questioned: Angel Corey, prosecuting attorney in both cases.

In both cases, I am of the opinion that first degree murder was too high of a charge, and that juries would not convict on this offense, where they may well have on a lesser charge of manslaughter and/or second degree murder. If racism is to blame for the acquittal, why is the prosecution above suspicion for deliberately overcharging defendants so allow them to literally get away with murder?

Now, obviously, the race-baiters and outraged individuals would have had a field day had murder not been the charge for Zimmerman or Dunn, so political pressures (or aspirations) could have come into play. But, since both juries had minorities that voted for acquittal (Dunn was 9-3 deadlocked), why are only the jurors viewed as being racist?

Is it not entirely possible the prosecution intended this to occur, and allowed it to happen? It is equally as believable, yet does not seem to be considered.
Thoughts?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2014 1:41:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/2/2014 1:25:29 PM, tulle wrote:
Haven't heard about this other trial, but:

http://thegrio.com...
http://www.alternet.org...

The other trial was the "loud music" case, where Dunn was convicted of attempted murder of three, but a hung jury on murdering the one fatality. Racism was cited amid the jury, which I found exceptionally odd.

So, if the prosecution purposely botched the case, is the jury racist? Is Florida?
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2014 1:52:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/2/2014 1:34:04 PM, monty1 wrote:
I am of the opinion that first degree murder in the Zimmermann case was appropriate.
Why?
Do you believe it was not self-defense?
Do you believe Zimmerman set out to kill Mr. Martin?
Replace the gun with a rock that was used to bash Martin's head with. Would you still feel the same way?

I'm also of the opinion that the Florida justice system is corrupted by racism. If this insane and destructive practice of SYG vibilante law is allowed to stand then the people of Florida will increasingly become the victims of gun violence.

Even though SYG wasn't used in either case?
Why is SYG racist by nature?
My work here is, finally, done.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2014 2:14:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/2/2014 1:52:23 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/2/2014 1:34:04 PM, monty1 wrote:
I am of the opinion that first degree murder in the Zimmermann case was appropriate.
Why?
Do you believe it was not self-defense?
Do you believe Zimmerman set out to kill Mr. Martin?
Replace the gun with a rock that was used to bash Martin's head with. Would you still feel the same way?

I'm also of the opinion that the Florida justice system is corrupted by racism. If this insane and destructive practice of SYG vibilante law is allowed to stand then the people of Florida will increasingly become the victims of gun violence.

Even though SYG wasn't used in either case?
Why is SYG racist by nature?

I believe it wasn't self defence.

Zimmerman set out to find a black man on which to use his gun. Zimmermann's record speaks for his ugly racist and violent demeanour.

I see no value in replacing the gun with a rock and don't understand why you would suggest that. Zimmermann didn't possess the courage to go hunting for a victim with a rock. Most American probably don't either and hence their insistence on their right to carry a gun as a replacement for courage.

SYG laws were implied, an in fact applied, in finding Zimmermann innocent. In another society Zimmermann would have likely been found guilty of at least manslaughter, if not murder.

In Canada or even most other countries SYG laws wouldn't be seen as racist. That sort of law would be seen as encouraging violence. Explicitlly, gun violence. In a racist society such as Florida and much of the southern US as well, SYG laws are purposely designed to use guns as a means of defending themselves against blacks. It then results in unnecessary deaths. It is condoned because of racist attitudes. Those supporting SYG laws are doing so out of fear.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2014 2:27:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/2/2014 2:14:07 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 3/2/2014 1:52:23 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/2/2014 1:34:04 PM, monty1 wrote:
I am of the opinion that first degree murder in the Zimmermann case was appropriate.
Why?
Do you believe it was not self-defense?
Do you believe Zimmerman set out to kill Mr. Martin?
Replace the gun with a rock that was used to bash Martin's head with. Would you still feel the same way?

I'm also of the opinion that the Florida justice system is corrupted by racism. If this insane and destructive practice of SYG vibilante law is allowed to stand then the people of Florida will increasingly become the victims of gun violence.

Even though SYG wasn't used in either case?
Why is SYG racist by nature?

I believe it wasn't self defence.
Okay, but can you PROVE it wasn't in a court of law? If not, the charge was too high.

Zimmerman set out to find a black man on which to use his gun. Zimmermann's record speaks for his ugly racist and violent demeanour.
Really, he left his house that day wanting to kill a black youth. Did he forget his rope and sheet at home?

I see no value in replacing the gun with a rock and don't understand why you would suggest that. Zimmermann didn't possess the courage to go hunting for a victim with a rock. Most American probably don't either and hence their insistence on their right to carry a gun as a replacement for courage.
Again, you cite him as hunting, yet, as far as can be proven, the gun didn't come into play until Martin was atop Zimmerman. So, if instead a rock he found to bash his head in while atop him, that doesn't change the criminal element.

SYG laws were implied, an in fact applied, in finding Zimmermann innocent. In another society Zimmermann would have likely been found guilty of at least manslaughter, if not murder.
1. Which is it: murder or manslaughter? These are very different things with legal meanings.
2. What are you talking about with the underlined? A STG defense was explicitly not used.

In Canada or even most other countries SYG laws wouldn't be seen as racist. That sort of law would be seen as encouraging violence. Explicitlly, gun violence. In a racist society such as Florida and much of the southern US as well, SYG laws are purposely designed to use guns as a means of defending themselves against blacks. It then results in unnecessary deaths. It is condoned because of racist attitudes. Those supporting SYG laws are doing so out of fear.

That doesn't sound racist at all, mate.
But, if you are defending yourself, why should it be illegal to shoot?
You are aware that what SYG laws do is make it so you don't have to run away, you can "stand your ground". That means that if you break into my house and enter my bedroom on the main floor, I could shoot you (if I thought I was in danger for my life) instead of breaking the window and escaping to safety.

What does that have to do with racism?
What does that have to do with morons chasing other morons down the street?
My work here is, finally, done.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2014 2:54:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/2/2014 2:27:42 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/2/2014 2:14:07 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 3/2/2014 1:52:23 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/2/2014 1:34:04 PM, monty1 wrote:
I am of the opinion that first degree murder in the Zimmermann case was appropriate.
Why?
Do you believe it was not self-defense?
Do you believe Zimmerman set out to kill Mr. Martin?
Replace the gun with a rock that was used to bash Martin's head with. Would you still feel the same way?

I'm also of the opinion that the Florida justice system is corrupted by racism. If this insane and destructive practice of SYG vibilante law is allowed to stand then the people of Florida will increasingly become the victims of gun violence.

Even though SYG wasn't used in either case?
Why is SYG racist by nature?

I believe it wasn't self defence.
Okay, but can you PROVE it wasn't in a court of law? If not, the charge was too high.

Zimmerman set out to find a black man on which to use his gun. Zimmermann's record speaks for his ugly racist and violent demeanour.
Really, he left his house that day wanting to kill a black youth. Did he forget his rope and sheet at home?

I see no value in replacing the gun with a rock and don't understand why you would suggest that. Zimmermann didn't possess the courage to go hunting for a victim with a rock. Most American probably don't either and hence their insistence on their right to carry a gun as a replacement for courage.
Again, you cite him as hunting, yet, as far as can be proven, the gun didn't come into play until Martin was atop Zimmerman. So, if instead a rock he found to bash his head in while atop him, that doesn't change the criminal element.

SYG laws were implied, an in fact applied, in finding Zimmermann innocent. In another society Zimmermann would have likely been found guilty of at least manslaughter, if not murder.
1. Which is it: murder or manslaughter? These are very different things with legal meanings.
2. What are you talking about with the underlined? A STG defense was explicitly not used.

In Canada or even most other countries SYG laws wouldn't be seen as racist. That sort of law would be seen as encouraging violence. Explicitlly, gun violence. In a racist society such as Florida and much of the southern US as well, SYG laws are purposely designed to use guns as a means of defending themselves against blacks. It then results in unnecessary deaths. It is condoned because of racist attitudes. Those supporting SYG laws are doing so out of fear.

That doesn't sound racist at all, mate.
But, if you are defending yourself, why should it be illegal to shoot?
You are aware that what SYG laws do is make it so you don't have to run away, you can "stand your ground". That means that if you break into my house and enter my bedroom on the main floor, I could shoot you (if I thought I was in danger for my life) instead of breaking the window and escaping to safety.

What does that have to do with racism?
What does that have to do with morons chasing other morons down the street?

I'm not familiar with the replying options here yet so I'll answer your questions as best I can at the end of your comments.

Zimmermann went out hunting with his gun looking for a fight. That trumps the self-defence claims.

SYG laws are designed to allow a person to kill another person and that's a bad and undesirable outcome. In the Zimmermann incident there is a teenager dead. That's a bad outcome.

The reason why it should be illegal to shoot a person while defending yourself is because it will usually result in the death of a person. Had there been no gun involved then it's likely that nobody would have died. Had there been no gun involved then it's highly unlikely that Zimmermann would have gone hunting for trouble. Had Zimmermann relied on his own strength and prowess, sans a gun, the death would likely have not occurred.

If someone breaks into your house and you use your gun then it's likely that a death will be the result. If you don't use your gun then the outcome will likely not result in a death of anyone. Canadian statistical evidence will vouch for that. Which result would you prefer, considering that racism has no bearing on your comments and the victim of your gun could be either white or black?

I have nothing to say about your claim that it was morons chasing morons down a street.

I consider my main interest to be in the preventing of gun deaths and socially responsible outcomes, as opposed to dead victims of gun violence. I would stongly suggest that more Americans should be thinking in the same terms, as opposed to celebrating the death of black people who engage in crimes or violence. The latter applicable in the Zimmermann case and the former obviously not.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2014 3:30:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/2/2014 2:54:35 PM, monty1 wrote:


I'm not familiar with the replying options here yet so I'll answer your questions as best I can at the end of your comments.
By the way, welcome.
As long as there is a colon in front on the first line of a paragraph, it is "quoted". So, you can just insert text in between paragraphs as I am doing here, or hitting "enter" and putting a colon in front of text you are breaking up.

Zimmermann went out hunting with his gun looking for a fight. That trumps the self-defence claims.
If you are saying Zimmerman got out of his car saying "Yeehaw, I just found me a black boy to kill", then you are correct.
However, if he grabbed the gun for protection while he asked the youth a question (on public property no less), then it is not trumped as it is not proven.

Again, this is why I ask about the rock.
If Zimmerman wasn't afraid of the kid and had no gun, did the same things, but got his nose broken (as he did) and bashed Martin's head with a nearby brick/rock while Martin was on top of him, which led to his death, is this murder?
I don't see why the gun is the issue, except you clearly don't like them.

SYG laws are designed to allow a person to kill another person and that's a bad and undesirable outcome. In the Zimmermann incident there is a teenager dead. That's a bad outcome.
So, killing another in self defense is bad, wrong, and should be illegal? Is that your contention?
If a man is raping my wife, I am in no danger, so can I stop him with force?

The reason why it should be illegal to shoot a person while defending yourself is because it will usually result in the death of a person. Had there been no gun involved then it's likely that nobody would have died. Had there been no gun involved then it's highly unlikely that Zimmermann would have gone hunting for trouble. Had Zimmermann relied on his own strength and prowess, sans a gun, the death would likely have not occurred.
So, is the issue the death or the weapon?
Is it wrong to throw someone off the roof of a hotel because they are trying to stab me with a knife?

If someone breaks into your house and you use your gun then it's likely that a death will be the result. If you don't use your gun then the outcome will likely not result in a death of anyone. Canadian statistical evidence will vouch for that. Which result would you prefer, considering that racism has no bearing on your comments and the victim of your gun could be either white or black?
Are you calling me a racist? If so, we'll just be done now.
Common sense will vouch for that. The issue is, can a 90-lb elderly women scare off three men breaking into her home.
Can she use a knife? A bat?

I have nothing to say about your claim that it was morons chasing morons down a street.
SYG does not protect vigilantes from chasing perceived threats down the street.
It states that you do not have a "duty to retreat", as in, if I am mugged at gun/knife/lead pipe point, I can use deadly force (gun/knife/lead pipe) to protect myself regardless if I can flee or not. Tell me why I have to flee when I have every right to be where I am.

To be clear, SYG only applies if all of the following are true:
1. There is a reasonable belief of harm or death (does not apply if the threat is absolved by their retreat)
2. I am allowed to be where I am (this does not apply if I am trespassing)

I consider my main interest to be in the preventing of gun deaths and socially responsible outcomes, as opposed to dead victims of gun violence. I would stongly suggest that more Americans should be thinking in the same terms, as opposed to celebrating the death of black people who engage in crimes or violence. The latter applicable in the Zimmermann case and the former obviously not.

Do police in Canada carry guns?
Do homeowners in Canada have guns on their premises?
I don't see many Americans celebrating many people's deaths. Where do you?

You clearly have an issue with guns, and that is fine.
I would even go so far as agree with you that the current mix between American culture and guns is dangerous. But, SYG is not to blame, nor is it racist.
My work here is, finally, done.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2014 6:41:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
khaos_Mage, you asked: "So, killing another in self defense is bad, wrong, and should be illegal? Is that your contention?"

Yes, of course it's wrong. All killing of fellow human beings is wrong and we all should strive to prevent with all means possible. If an altercation takes place and one participant kills the other then that needs to be investigated in order to determine if undue force was employed. If it is found that undue force was used then the perpetrator should be found guilty by the courts and suitably punished.

It appears to me that this distinction is not at all understood by far too many Americans. It also appears that there is a rush to use force with your guns and a definite lust to kill in any circumstance where the perpetrator can get away with it.

If you don't understand that your country's gun violence is much higher than it should be in a civilized first world country then I suppose that you're not going to understand the points I'm making. By all means my friend, continue to kill at every opportunity that arises where it can be done within the law. I would just warn that you could lose a loved one to gun violence too and the perp could claim innocence by claiming a SYG defence. Perhaps that would be lesser true if you aren't a black man and the perp is not a white man. The distinction is of no particular importance to me as a Canadian. It's not my problem to deal with. People don't shoot and kill others in Canada without undue cause and get away with it. We consider it to be undesiarable but it's pretty evident that it's not so frowned upon in the US.
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2014 8:38:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/2/2014 1:41:45 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/2/2014 1:25:29 PM, tulle wrote:
Haven't heard about this other trial, but:

http://thegrio.com...
http://www.alternet.org...

The other trial was the "loud music" case, where Dunn was convicted of attempted murder of three, but a hung jury on murdering the one fatality. Racism was cited amid the jury, which I found exceptionally odd.

So, if the prosecution purposely botched the case, is the jury racist? Is Florida?

Not really sure how that's relevant... my response was to your claim that the possibility of the prosecution being racist was left unconsidered.
yang.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2014 8:42:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/2/2014 6:41:42 PM, monty1 wrote:
khaos_Mage, you asked: "So, killing another in self defense is bad, wrong, and should be illegal? Is that your contention?"

Yes, of course it's wrong. All killing of fellow human beings is wrong and we all should strive to prevent with all means possible.
Not an answer to my question.

If an altercation takes place and one participant kills the other then that needs to be investigated in order to determine if undue force was employed.
You mean like an investigation and a trial. I am pretty sure that happens.
If it is found that undue force was used then the perpetrator should be found guilty by the courts and suitably punished.
Yep, pretty sure that happens currently. It's called an affirmative defense, and the prosecution needs to prove that the defense is unwarranted beyond a shadow of a doubt.

It appears to me that this distinction is not at all understood by far too many Americans. It also appears that there is a rush to use force with your guns and a definite lust to kill in any circumstance where the perpetrator can get away with it.
I think I am afraid of the Americans you know, then.
I know plenty of Americans that do not even own a gun, but I'll make sure to tell them they aren't American enough for some Canadians.

If you don't understand that your country's gun violence is much higher than it should be in a civilized first world country then I suppose that you're not going to understand the points I'm making.
Wouldn't the issue be violence period, not just gun violence?
I am aware of our gun violence record, but what I do not know is if Americans, on balance, are more violent than other first worlders. When we use violence, we use guns, but are we more violent? This I do not know.
Feel free to cite some sources, though.

By all means my friend, continue to kill at every opportunity that arises where it can be done within the law.
Why do you assume I have the bloodlust? I socialize with no one that wishes ill will on anyone, let alone looks for excuses to kill others.
I would just warn that you could lose a loved one to gun violence too and the perp could claim innocence by claiming a SYG defence.
Because that is so much better than a botched police investigation, or a regular self-defense, right? If my loved one was threatening another, then I feel no remorse if the threatened person acted within reason.

Perhaps that would be lesser true if you aren't a black man and the perp is not a white man.
Fun fact: black people are killed far more often by other blacks than by whites.
Fun fact: white people kill more whites than they do blacks.

The distinction is of no particular importance to me as a Canadian. It's not my problem to deal with. People don't shoot and kill others in Canada without undue cause and get away with it.
Since you know so much about American legal matters, care to tell me how many times a murder charge is acquitted? I would wager it is in the 3% range.

We consider it to be undesiarable but it's pretty evident that it's not so frowned upon in the US.
By all means, cite the evidence you have.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2014 8:46:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/2/2014 8:38:43 PM, tulle wrote:
At 3/2/2014 1:41:45 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/2/2014 1:25:29 PM, tulle wrote:
Haven't heard about this other trial, but:

http://thegrio.com...
http://www.alternet.org...

The other trial was the "loud music" case, where Dunn was convicted of attempted murder of three, but a hung jury on murdering the one fatality. Racism was cited amid the jury, which I found exceptionally odd.

So, if the prosecution purposely botched the case, is the jury racist? Is Florida?

Not really sure how that's relevant... my response was to your claim that the possibility of the prosecution being racist was left unconsidered.

I suppose it is not relevant, but I am curious what you think.
If the prosecution is racist, does it follow the citizens/jury are racist?
I can see an argument for both.

And thanks for the sources.
My work here is, finally, done.
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2014 9:18:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/2/2014 8:46:09 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

I suppose it is not relevant, but I am curious what you think.
If the prosecution is racist, does it follow the citizens/jury are racist?
I can see an argument for both.

And thanks for the sources.

Oh... I don't think the prosecution being racist is related to the jury being racist. What are some of the arguments? And no problem :)
yang.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2014 9:37:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/2/2014 9:18:03 PM, tulle wrote:
At 3/2/2014 8:46:09 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

I suppose it is not relevant, but I am curious what you think.
If the prosecution is racist, does it follow the citizens/jury are racist?
I can see an argument for both.

And thanks for the sources.

Oh... I don't think the prosecution being racist is related to the jury being racist. What are some of the arguments? And no problem :)

Well, if the prosecution was racist in that they purposely overcharged so that the defendant wouldn't be found guilty, it is hard to say that the jury (made up of the citizenry) are racist simply for doing what was expected and "right".

However, the citizenry did elect the prosecutor, didn't they? Or at least the governor who appointed the special prosecutor.
My work here is, finally, done.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2014 10:08:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Khaos_Mage, If I've gained anything from this conversation at all, it's in having it confirmed in my mind that Americans such as those who argue in favour of SYG laws are much more interested in finding ways to justify killing as opposed to finding ways to preserving human lives. Why would othersise rational peaceloving people prefer to promote SYG laws when it obviously leads to deaths of your fellow Americans? Indeed, do you even consider black people your fellow Americans?

Considering that Americans are much more practicing Christians than are Canadians, it could be a Christian trait.

Also, it appears to be very much motivated by racist hate for blacks or maybe even racist hate by blacks against whites. Could it have something to do with the south never having got over the loss of the civil war? It does definitely appear to be mostly a problem of the Americans south!

Do you have any better explanation for that?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 9:24:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/2/2014 10:08:16 PM, monty1 wrote:
Khaos_Mage, If I've gained anything from this conversation at all, it's in having it confirmed in my mind that Americans such as those who argue in favour of SYG laws are much more interested in finding ways to justify killing as opposed to finding ways to preserving human lives. Why would othersise rational peaceloving people prefer to promote SYG laws when it obviously leads to deaths of your fellow Americans?
So, in the event that I do kill someone in my house and exhibits a reasonable threat, I don't go to jail simply because I didn't chance being shot in the back as I run out the back door.

Under what circumstances do you feel that force is warranted?
If I were to push the intruder down the stairs and they broke their neck, should I be thrown in jail for that?

Indeed, do you even consider black people your fellow Americans?
What the fvck kind of question is that?!?
I don't consider those who present a threat to my well-being as peace loving, so your assertion makes no sense. Further, you have failed to explain how these laws are inherently racist. More importantly, you have failed to explain why you think I am one.

Considering that Americans are much more practicing Christians than are Canadians, it could be a Christian trait.
WOW!!! I can't tell if you are a troll or not, but you sure are insulting.
Please define when I should be allowed to use force that may result in death, and in the event of death, I am not criminally liable.
Please define when I may use lethal force, and not be criminally liable.

Also, it appears to be very much motivated by racist hate for blacks or maybe even racist hate by blacks against whites. Could it have something to do with the south never having got over the loss of the civil war? It does definitely appear to be mostly a problem of the Americans south!
Self defense is motivated by racism?!?
Are you listening to yourself?

Do you have any better explanation for that?
I can't speak for southerners, as I don't know many, and the few I do know, claim to not be racist.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 10:14:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
According to these (but are probably separate years):
Canada has about 1/3 the guns and 1/3 the murder rate as America.
However, Russia has 1/10 the guns, and twice the murder rate as America.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Compare Mexico to Canada: they have half the guns, and 20x higher murder rate.

How can we say that guns are the main issue for death?

And, according to this, total crimes in Canada affect twice the population as the U.S.
http://www.nationmaster.com...
My work here is, finally, done.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 11:36:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Let's try to put this whole issue in perspective by answering one of your questions:
If you push somebody down a flight of stairs and break his/her neck then in Canada it would be investigated in order to determine whether or not you used undue force. In many instances fitting your very brief description it could be found that you did and you would be punished by the law.

But again, why is the emphasis always on finding excuses to take a human life with you Americans? Why is it not the reverse and the emphasis be on preserving human lives? Is it predominantly a Christian thing?

At 3/3/2014 9:24:03 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/2/2014 10:08:16 PM, monty1 wrote:
Khaos_Mage, If I've gained anything from this conversation at all, it's in having it confirmed in my mind that Americans such as those who argue in favour of SYG laws are much more interested in finding ways to justify killing as opposed to finding ways to preserving human lives. Why would othersise rational peaceloving people prefer to promote SYG laws when it obviously leads to deaths of your fellow Americans?
So, in the event that I do kill someone in my house and exhibits a reasonable threat, I don't go to jail simply because I didn't chance being shot in the back as I run out the back door.

Under what circumstances do you feel that force is warranted?
If I were to push the intruder down the stairs and they broke their neck, should I be thrown in jail for that?

Indeed, do you even consider black people your fellow Americans?
What the fvck kind of question is that?!?
I don't consider those who present a threat to my well-being as peace loving, so your assertion makes no sense. Further, you have failed to explain how these laws are inherently racist. More importantly, you have failed to explain why you think I am one.

Considering that Americans are much more practicing Christians than are Canadians, it could be a Christian trait.
WOW!!! I can't tell if you are a troll or not, but you sure are insulting.
Please define when I should be allowed to use force that may result in death, and in the event of death, I am not criminally liable.
Please define when I may use lethal force, and not be criminally liable.

Also, it appears to be very much motivated by racist hate for blacks or maybe even racist hate by blacks against whites. Could it have something to do with the south never having got over the loss of the civil war? It does definitely appear to be mostly a problem of the Americans south!
Self defense is motivated by racism?!?
Are you listening to yourself?

Do you have any better explanation for that?
I can't speak for southerners, as I don't know many, and the few I do know, claim to not be racist.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 11:43:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 11:36:18 AM, monty1 wrote:
Let's try to put this whole issue in perspective by answering one of your questions:
If you push somebody down a flight of stairs and break his/her neck then in Canada it would be investigated in order to determine whether or not you used undue force. In many instances fitting your very brief description it could be found that you did and you would be punished by the law.

I can't speak of Christian things.

Let me ask you this:
1. I break into your home wielding a weapon. What do you do? What should you be legally able to do?
2. I break into your home with a gun and threaten your life. You believe this threat is credible. What do you do? What should you be able to do?
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 11:47:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 11:36:18 AM, monty1 wrote:


But again, why is the emphasis always on finding excuses to take a human life with you Americans? Why is it not the reverse and the emphasis be on preserving human lives? Is it predominantly a Christian thing?

This issue is usually in the context of the response to someone else wanting to harm/take a life. This is self-defense. How do you preserve a life that wants to, for whatever reason, harm yours?
My work here is, finally, done.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 3:15:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 11:43:34 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/3/2014 11:36:18 AM, monty1 wrote:
Let's try to put this whole issue in perspective by answering one of your questions:
If you push somebody down a flight of stairs and break his/her neck then in Canada it would be investigated in order to determine whether or not you used undue force. In many instances fitting your very brief description it could be found that you did and you would be punished by the law.

I can't speak of Christian things.

Let me ask you this:
1. I break into your home wielding a weapon. What do you do? What should you be legally able to do?
2. I break into your home with a gun and threaten your life. You believe this threat is credible. What do you do? What should you be able to do?

1. Defend myself by using an appropriate amount of force. The circumstances will decide what that could be. SYG laws encourage people with guns to use excessive force in defending themselves. And then, in fact it is well known that those kind of laws do just that. But again, I can't stress clearly enough that the desirable outcome is to have no loss of life in such instances. Let alone the homeowner's life which is much more likely to be taken when any firearms are involved. But loss of life is something that you are refusing to understand as the desirable outcome. You appear to be obsessed with the homeowner or the gunowner defending him/herself, taking a life. As long as you continue to possess that attitude then we are not going to be able to move on and talk about the issue in any sensible and reasonable way.

2. If you break into my home and I think that the threat to my life is credible then I will act in a way in which I believe is lawfully defending myself. If you are asking me specifically then it will be without the use of a firearm. I'm fully aware that when the homeowner tries to use a gun he/she is more likely to end up shot dead. I would choose to lose belongings while maintaining the wellbeing of myself and my family. And then of course, the force I used to defend myself and my family, if it resulted in injury to you, that would be investigated to determine if I used undue force.

Perhaps I could imagine you a 12 year old kid who broke into my house. I wouldn't want to injure the kid unduly but if I did I would understand that I could be found guilty of using undue force.

It really does seem to me at this moment that your preference would be to see a 12 year old kid lying dead on your living room floor! I certainly hope I'm wrong about that but it's just that everything you say leads to that conclusion.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 3:32:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 3:15:10 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 3/3/2014 11:43:34 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/3/2014 11:36:18 AM, monty1 wrote:
Let's try to put this whole issue in perspective by answering one of your questions:
If you push somebody down a flight of stairs and break his/her neck then in Canada it would be investigated in order to determine whether or not you used undue force. In many instances fitting your very brief description it could be found that you did and you would be punished by the law.

I can't speak of Christian things.

Let me ask you this:
1. I break into your home wielding a weapon. What do you do? What should you be legally able to do?
2. I break into your home with a gun and threaten your life. You believe this threat is credible. What do you do? What should you be able to do?

1. Defend myself by using an appropriate amount of force. The circumstances will decide what that could be. SYG laws encourage people with guns to use excessive force in defending themselves. And then, in fact it is well known that those kind of laws do just that. But again, I can't stress clearly enough that the desirable outcome is to have no loss of life in such instances. Let alone the homeowner's life which is much more likely to be taken when any firearms are involved. But loss of life is something that you are refusing to understand as the desirable outcome. You appear to be obsessed with the homeowner or the gunowner defending him/herself, taking a life. As long as you continue to possess that attitude then we are not going to be able to move on and talk about the issue in any sensible and reasonable way.
So, if lethal force in appropriate, it is acceptable. Got it.

2. If you break into my home and I think that the threat to my life is credible then I will act in a way in which I believe is lawfully defending myself. If you are asking me specifically then it will be without the use of a firearm. I'm fully aware that when the homeowner tries to use a gun he/she is more likely to end up shot dead. I would choose to lose belongings while maintaining the wellbeing of myself and my family. And then of course, the force I used to defend myself and my family, if it resulted in injury to you, that would be investigated to determine if I used undue force.
Again, lethal force is acceptable to you.

See, you are blinded by your hatred of guns that you can't even address the issue logically. You say that you could kill someone if it was deemed appropriate, yet you demonize others for doing what you say you may do simply because they will use a gun.

Perhaps I could imagine you a 12 year old kid who broke into my house. I wouldn't want to injure the kid unduly but if I did I would understand that I could be found guilty of using undue force.

It really does seem to me at this moment that your preference would be to see a 12 year old kid lying dead on your living room floor! I certainly hope I'm wrong about that but it's just that everything you say leads to that conclusion.
It depends. Is he pointing a gun at my wife and demanding I open the safe "or else"?

It appears you do not understand the concept of self-defense. It isn't that one just shoots another. With SYG, the issue is when you are allowed to shoot at a credible threat. Oh, wait, did I say shoot? I mean use lethal force, be it a knife, bat, or other instrument that is likely to seriously wound.

If the threat is not reasonable, chances are, you go to jail.
My work here is, finally, done.