George Zimmerman found Not Guilty.

It's not sarcasm. That's the definition of innocence in the US code of justice. How reasonable is reasonable? I don't know. Each incident though will be described according to the perspective of the viewer; Zimmerman's proponents will say that he followed Martin and was engaged in a fight by him. But maybe the fundamental problem is 'reasonability' as a threshold.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you are seriously comparing the risks of owning jewelry to the risks of owning a gun - you probably shouldn't be allowed to own a gun.

A gun is a deadly weapon that must be handled VERY carefully if it is not to become the instrument of your own death - or the death of a family member. It is nothing at all like a piece of jewelry.

Neither is accidentally shooting yourself with your own gun, or having your 4 year old son shoot and kill you or a family member.

Total gun deaths in the US in 2011: 32,163 (including intentional use, accidents and suicide)
Total car deaths in the US every year: 32,367 (including intentional use, accidents and suicide)

Yep. And if that bad judgment is paired with a gun, often other people die as well. Sort of a Darwin award, but for people who are foolish enough to simply be near someone with a gun.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I didn't say you had to let them in. I'm just saying you don't have to shoot them through the door. Maybe you could just shout out, "Go away, I called the Police." rather than shoot them through the door without a word of warning! I've actually had this kind of thing happen to me. I lived in an apartment complex where people would sometimes walk in because they thought they had the right door. Heck, I've had crack heads try to rob me, I've been in many fights in which they're friends jumped. I've been hit over the head with bottles. Throughout all that, I never felt the need to do excessive harm even when I have people trying to beat the crap out of me. i usually do carry a pocket knife of me, and never have I ever thought to pull it out while in a fight. I've always had an extreme distaste for the pussies that needed to pick up a weapon in a fist fight. I'm so lucky that I made it through all that without being shot! I'm not talking about what should be the law and what shouldn't. I'm talking about how a human life should be more valuable. You should be willing to suffer a ass whoopin if it means nobody has to die. I'm not saying you have to be willing. There are other options though rather than engaging someone who wants to fight you. you could call the cops or run. I just believe that taking a life should be the last resort not the first!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I didn't say you had to let them in. I'm just saying you don't have to shoot them through the door. Maybe you could just shout out, "Go away, I called the Police." rather than shoot them through the door without a word of warning! I've actually had this kind of thing happen to me. I lived in an apartment complex where people would sometimes walk in because they thought they had the right door. Heck, I've had crack heads try to rob me, I've been in many fights in which they're friends jumped in. I've been hit over the head with bottles. Throughout all that, I never felt the need to do excessive harm even when I have people trying to beat the crap out of me. i usually do carry a pocket knife of me, and never have I ever thought to pull it out while in a fight. I've always had an extreme distaste for the pussies that needed to pick up a weapon in a fist fight. I'm so lucky that I made it through all that without being shot! I'm not talking about what should be the law and what shouldn't. I'm talking about how a human life should be more valuable. You should be willing to suffer a ass whoopin if it means nobody has to die. I'm not saying you have to be willing. There are other options though rather than engaging someone who wants to fight you. you could call the cops or run. I just believe that taking a life should be the last resort not the first!

 

I would hope that when I become old I don't become so fearful as to shoot people simply because I was afraid.

How long was slavery legal? I don't see how a moral depraved law being on the books for even hundreds of years makes it any less morally depraved.

Does it matter where else it applies. The difference between self-defence and stand your ground, is that if you can run away you don't have too, you can just kill a human being instead. That is not emotional, that is exactly what the law states.

 

I would say it is reasonable if you kill someone there needs to be "reasonable doubt" that that person was not going to kill, maim or rape you for you to avoid conviction. Your still innocent until proven guilty (what ever that means as is it BS because we would not have innocent people in custody or having to pay bail if innocent until proven guilty was really true policy, in reality a person is "suspect" and held to prevent flight until proven innocent, thus they are neither innocent or guilty under the law until a court case determines their state) until they are proven beyond reasonable doubt that that the person you killed was not going to kill you first. Say you catch a robber in your home and shoot him dead, if its found said robber was unarmed and their was no evidence that he attack you, you need to be imprisoned for at least manslaughter in my opinion. Now if you chase a man down, get in a fight with him and shoot him dead, the fault is completely on you, beyond any reasonable doubt! The only exception would be if your a police officer and have the right to stop and question someone, then if they pummel you, you can shot them in "self defence". but Zimmerman, police wantabee, pig to be, did not have that right.

 

The legal term is actually "presumed innocent."

 

Well it makes no sense, you would not put someone in custody or make them pay bail to leave if you presumed they are innocent, clearly in actually they are seen as potentially not innocent, warranting being held physically of financially to prevent them from running away.

 

Because there is sufficient evidence against them to warrant a trial. The outcome is presumed to be "not guilty" - but they must be compelled to show up for the trial. If they are an upstanding member of the community, present no flight risk etc then often they are simply released back to their regular lives to await trial. If it is likely they will try to flee the jurisdiction to avoid going to the trial, then you have bail and/or jail time.

 

No. I wasnt seriously comparing the risk of jewelry vs guns. It was in response to the ridiculous claim that if people didnt own guns criminals wouldnt steal them. You would be amazed at how many home burglaries the thief leaves the guns. Its a LOT of trouble to get busted for stealing a gun vs stealing a computer.

Farm I grew up in was robbed once. By a foster child (the only way someone could get past the dogs without killing them). He took money, no guns.

House my ex lived in was robbed once. By a neighbor. He took stuff and money, no guns.

And I like your ending. Thought police. Typical anti-gun effort to restrict freedom. I dont like what you say soooo you probably shouldnt own a gun regardless of whether you threatened anyone, encouraged violence, etc.

Gun ownership is more common in the South (54%) and Midwest (51%) than in the East (36%) or West (43%) -- a finding typical of Gallup's trends in gun ownership by region.

www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx

And keep in mind thats self reporting.

 

Good! Far too many people do, using logic like "You can be killed by a butter knife you know. Why don't you BAN BUTTER KNIVES, huh? That would be the same thing!"

Nope. Not even close.

Interesting. That's also where violent crime is highest.

 

These Republican controlled red states are reverting to caveman justice. He with the bigger club is always right.

 

Your life has to be in danger, do you understand that part?

 

You keep saying that, but you are yet to prove it. If it were truly so than a person could only kill when someone threatened to kill them. A person committing a forcible felony doesn't always intend to end your life. Maybe they are just pounding on the door to see if you are home so if you are not home they can steal your tv. Does that person truly deserve to die? To be shot through the door without any even warning? If so, why don't we execute all burglars?

 

How do you know your life is in danger? As is with most "stand your ground" laws all you need is to say you thought you were endangered, not actual physical proof you were, I could in theory kill a man and claim he was attacking me, without witnesses testimony otherwise, I would go free. That's simply too subjective for my taste. The courts for EVERY CASE of deadly self defense should decide if the physical evidence justified the suspects claim of self defense, that the suspect was in fact in danger, not that he thought he was. As is the police judge if a case of self defense occurred on the spot, I think that is grossly unfair and open to abuse, rather EVERY CASE of self defense needs review in court.

 

The odd part is that under such laws you could have people killing each other - with no one at fault.

Guy 1: "Hey what are you doing here?"
Guy 2: "What are YOU doing here?"
Guy 1: "I watch out for my family and I check out any strangers around here. You better hold still while I call the cops."
Guy 2: "I live right there and I'M going to call the cops! Don't move, I have a gun!"

Guy 1 reaches for his cellphone. Guy 2 seeing a sudden move, draws his gun. Guy 1 now sees a stranger pointing a gun at him and has reason to fear for his life; he draws and fires his gun in self defense. Guy 2, seeing himself being attacked, fires in self defense. Both are killed. No one is at fault; they were both just "standing their ground."

 

WUT?

The same applies for any self defense case.

 

I agree with many of your points. Although my understanding is forcible means force upon a person or intent to do harm or even the perception that you will be harmed. By perception i mean a real threat to do harm.

 

So when you spew out no trusted sources its OK (without providing links) but when I do it including link to NTSB National Highway Transportation and Saftey Admin (dot gov) and gunpolicy.org

About GunPolicy.org and Gun Policy News

GunPolicy.org is hosted by the Sydney School of Public Health, the University of Sydney. The School provides internationally recognised leadership in public health by advancing and disseminating knowledge — in this case, supporting global efforts to prevent gun injury.australia)

At least I show my sources. Lifetime odds. National Safety org.

Motor vehicle incident 1-98
Intentional Self Harm (all causes) 1-109
Assault by firearm 1-321

http://www.nsc.org/NSC Picture Library/News/web_graphics/Injury_Facts_37.pdf

May 2013:
"Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49 percent lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation's population grew," according to the Pew study.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...gun-violence-has-fallen-since-1993-study-says

Well, its become obvious you are so biased you wont Do the Math.