You can use deadly force against someone if a reasonable person would deem that that force is necessary to protect yourself. If you are scared by Jehovah's Witnesses and shoot one that comes to your door, it doesn't matter that you're scared of them.
It says that Joe Sixpack can use deadly force when it is immediately necessary to defend himself against serious injury if he is somewhere he has a legal right to be. This was clearly not the case for Zimmerman, who was not defending himself.
It also says that he cannot be arrested for it unless there is a reasonable suspicion that he used that force unlawfully -- y'know, like every other crime. That reasonable suspicion has been satisfied in this case, so the police should arrest him. That clause means that if somebody breaks into my house with a knife and I shoot them, the police should not arrest me, put me on trial, and then make me assert self-defense in a courtroom. It has no bearing here since there is a reasonable suspicion.
The law has nothing to do with this case, other than that Zimmerman is citing it in his own defense when it doesn't apply.
It means that there is nothing wrong with the law, but with the people who are enforcing it.
If you have a bad law that leads to a miscarriage of justice, you change the law. If you have bad cops that lead to a miscarriage of justice, you get new cops.
Oh, certainly. That's what I mean by "cops being bad at their jobs" -- and, besides, just because we pay the government to build roads for us doesn't mean that we shouldn't build our own roads, too, when the situation warrants it.
My point was really that when the cops *are* bad at their jobs, we *have* to take their jobs back into our own hands, since we're the ones who gave them to the cops in the first place.
I got my car window smashed in three days after I moved there, and I'm in a "reasonably decent" part of town. There are police cars on my street nearly every night.
In 2010, of cities >250k, it is seventh in the nation in murders and third in robberies.
We pay cops to do violence on our behalf -- under the premise that the controlled use of violence is a specialized trade and that we ought to leave it to folks who are good at it.
The trouble comes when the cops are bad at their job -- what do we do then? Do it for them?
Now look at education statistics in the US vs. Holland. We have so much crime here for reasons that have nothing at all to do with firearms. If we'd adopt something more like Dutch drug laws, or address inner-city education and culture issues, we'd have less crime. There are a whole lot more differences between the Americans and the Dutch that have nothing to do with guns.
Washington DC is one of the most crime-ridden cities in the US. It's also nearly impossible to legally own a firearm there. Same with Chicago.
It's funny that in Germany they say "Free speed for free people" and have no speed limits on large sections of the Autobahn, despite having a lower population density than the US. If it's safe for the Germans to drive fast in their country (593 people per square mile), then it's surely safe for Americans to drive fast in, say, Nevada (18 people per square mile).
Having just moved to DC, I'm glad they don't let the residents vote. Nobody in this damn town should be trusted with a ballot for anything more substantial than pizza toppings.
The point of making people stop is to make them take enough time to verify that it is safe to proceed. Reducing my speed to 2mph (or even 5mph sometimes) accomplishes this with far less strain on my engine and transmission.
If the law prohibits things that are safe, then it is a bad law.
About your elevator example: Yes, yes it is, so long as the speed of that elevator was below a minimum threshold for not causing undue difficulty for the passengers. That speed should be determined by an engineering study, not by lawmakers trying to fine elevator makers. It's probably awfully low (5 mm/sec?), but it's not zero.
Only because the District of Columbia ain't a state.
Mayor gets elected, does sketchy things.
Then he gets thrown in prison on (federal) crack charges.
He gets out after a while and instantly gets reelected. He mismanages the city so badly that Bill Clinton takes budgetary authority away from him, resigns after martyring himself, and gets on the City Council. Since then he's driven drunk, embezzled money, and not paid taxes for eight years at a time. Now he wants to be mayor again.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you read the law? It says nothing of the sort.
No, it doesn't.
You can use deadly force against someone if a reasonable person would deem that that force is necessary to protect yourself. If you are scared by Jehovah's Witnesses and shoot one that comes to your door, it doesn't matter that you're scared of them.
Why does it mean that it's bad?
It says that Joe Sixpack can use deadly force when it is immediately necessary to defend himself against serious injury if he is somewhere he has a legal right to be. This was clearly not the case for Zimmerman, who was not defending himself.
It also says that he cannot be arrested for it unless there is a reasonable suspicion that he used that force unlawfully -- y'know, like every other crime. That reasonable suspicion has been satisfied in this case, so the police should arrest him. That clause means that if somebody breaks into my house with a knife and I shoot them, the police should not arrest me, put me on trial, and then make me assert self-defense in a courtroom. It has no bearing here since there is a reasonable suspicion.
The law has nothing to do with this case, other than that Zimmerman is citing it in his own defense when it doesn't apply.
It means that there is nothing wrong with the law, but with the people who are enforcing it.
If you have a bad law that leads to a miscarriage of justice, you change the law. If you have bad cops that lead to a miscarriage of justice, you get new cops.
Hi, politically-motivated mods! If you disagree, comment, don't moderate.
No, you can't -- pretty much everyone agrees that the Zimmerman/Martin case is an example of a local police department not doing its job.
That means you don't take freedom of speech seriously.
There's no stigma against people who watch or make movies, is there? Or who read fiction?
He's claiming that it's not robbery since there was no taking of property.
Oh, certainly. That's what I mean by "cops being bad at their jobs" -- and, besides, just because we pay the government to build roads for us doesn't mean that we shouldn't build our own roads, too, when the situation warrants it.
My point was really that when the cops *are* bad at their jobs, we *have* to take their jobs back into our own hands, since we're the ones who gave them to the cops in the first place.
I got my car window smashed in three days after I moved there, and I'm in a "reasonably decent" part of town. There are police cars on my street nearly every night.
In 2010, of cities >250k, it is seventh in the nation in murders and third in robberies.
We pay cops to do violence on our behalf -- under the premise that the controlled use of violence is a specialized trade and that we ought to leave it to folks who are good at it.
The trouble comes when the cops are bad at their job -- what do we do then? Do it for them?
Now look at education statistics in the US vs. Holland. We have so much crime here for reasons that have nothing at all to do with firearms. If we'd adopt something more like Dutch drug laws, or address inner-city education and culture issues, we'd have less crime. There are a whole lot more differences between the Americans and the Dutch that have nothing to do with guns.
Washington DC is one of the most crime-ridden cities in the US. It's also nearly impossible to legally own a firearm there. Same with Chicago.
They can, when those debts are obtained voluntarily. If you loan me money then you run the risk that I may declare bankruptcy and discharge that debt.
If you take money from me by force, you can't just declare bankruptcy. You've robbed me, and go to prison.
Why does government robbery work any differently?
This is true. When I took my driver's test I never got out of third gear (in a five-speed).
This is an epic post and you should be proud of it.
Sadly I'm in the District itself, and have to deal with it. Who is "da bitch"? The girlfriend he embezzled on behalf of?
Lots of the interstates are actually quite nice...
Can you send us Berlusconi once you're tired of laughing at him? He's probably better than either Obama or Bush (or Romney or Santorum).
Love,
The United States
So, question from someone new to the area:
The local ghetto denizens spray paint fucking everything. Don't they ever spray paint the cameras?
It's funny that in Germany they say "Free speed for free people" and have no speed limits on large sections of the Autobahn, despite having a lower population density than the US. If it's safe for the Germans to drive fast in their country (593 people per square mile), then it's surely safe for Americans to drive fast in, say, Nevada (18 people per square mile).
Having just moved to DC, I'm glad they don't let the residents vote. Nobody in this damn town should be trusted with a ballot for anything more substantial than pizza toppings.
I think walking around EMPing them would be effective too...
The question is "should they be against the law?"
The point of making people stop is to make them take enough time to verify that it is safe to proceed. Reducing my speed to 2mph (or even 5mph sometimes) accomplishes this with far less strain on my engine and transmission.
If the law prohibits things that are safe, then it is a bad law.
About your elevator example: Yes, yes it is, so long as the speed of that elevator was below a minimum threshold for not causing undue difficulty for the passengers. That speed should be determined by an engineering study, not by lawmakers trying to fine elevator makers. It's probably awfully low (5 mm/sec?), but it's not zero.
Only because the District of Columbia ain't a state.
Mayor gets elected, does sketchy things.
Then he gets thrown in prison on (federal) crack charges.
He gets out after a while and instantly gets reelected. He mismanages the city so badly that Bill Clinton takes budgetary authority away from him, resigns after martyring himself, and gets on the City Council. Since then he's driven drunk, embezzled money, and not paid taxes for eight years at a time. Now he wants to be mayor again.