I leave this thread for one day, there's two more pages of comments... ugh
Enforce the existing laws before writing new ones, we have plenty of anti gun laws on the books now that are not enforced.
[hippy soft side]My broader opinion is this; we should get to the root of the social problems we have instead of applying band aids, there are reasons these people find themselves doing terrible things, social reasons. I'll admit there will always be a pure criminal element but I believe a lot of people simply make very bad decisions that ruin their lives and the lives of others under stress or under the positions they unwilling find themselves in at the time.[/hippy soft side]
Agreed... and to make things clear, I never suggested more anti-gun laws either.
On the second part... that would be great if we could mitigate the root of the social problem. I agree 100%
Just one more thing...
[/Columbo]
Knives are dangerous. Cutting people is wrong. Therefore, surgeons are violent criminals who use deadly force and need to be sent to prison.
LOGIC!
Sarcastic, I know. But to set things straight, you would need to sign a waiver form before they do that.
A) This doesn't help you.
B) This isn't law.
It was Harvard
Law Review.
Walter E. Oberer is an expert on labor laws. It is a long stretch to call him an authority on this subject.
If he has a law degree, that makes him authority. Lawyers don't graduate from Law School as specialists in one field. Indeed, they can move from one type of law to the next if they want to.
To me the issue, as it applies to this case, is not in how we define the use of a deadly weapon and how it applies to intent, but whether the prosecution can prove the intent was to harm or kill. The law you are quoting from wiki says that it may be used to infer intent. It does not automatically imply intent in the way you appear to claim. We do not know the events leading up to the shooting, and just because there was a gun used does not mean that Zimmerman intended to kill anyone.
The prosecution believes Zimmerman did not intend to use his gun to kill Martin before the confrontation. If they thought that they would have gone for 1st degree murder. By choosing a 2nd degree murder charge they will have to prove that the physical confrontation was started by Zimmerman and that he at least intended to harm Martin. The fact that he had a gun on his person and that after the confrontation began it was used does not mean he intended to harm or kill Martin. The prosecution either has unknown evidence or they are over-reaching.
The difference between 1st degree murder and second is the premeditation phase, not the intent. Malice is key to murder cases, whereas malice is present in the former degree, and a lesser degree of malice is present for the latter.
If malice is not there, then you have manslaughter.
Hopefully they do have unknown evidence. Not saying that they can't pull it off if they don't have it, but it would certainly help their case.
*Some* of your argument is correct, as I've illustrated above. But not all of it. In a life or death situation, shooting IS deadly force. But in some other situations, that isn't always the case. Which is what myself and several others have been saying for the last dozen pages or more.
Does the person have to die for it to be considered "deadly force?" Deadly force is used. If I intend to kill someone, but fail to do so, does that make the state's argument that I used deadly force weak?
Nope. Deadly force isn't implied when you intend to use force that causes death. It's explicit. Even if it's the wrong death.
Deadly force is implicit if you intend to shoot someone dead but only injure them.
No, you still used the same amount of force (deadly force) to shoot someone. Doesn't matter if you miss or you injure or you actually kill them.
If there is intent, then you go on to other questions: was the use of deadly force used as a means of self-defense or out of malice? Thus, the discussion of whether the prosecution can effectively pull of this charge as opposed to an easier manslaughter charge...
However, if you shoot someone to injure them and do so, you have only used the innate properties of the gun - to deliver remote, penetrative and injurious force.
Which is the same force used regardless if you injure, kill or miss. If you miss your target, this doesn't diminish the fact that the weapon has released "less force."
Except you've now shuffled past the point. The statement is that a gun is a deadly weapon. You've already agreed that it isn't, only a weapon. You've already agreed that deactivated guns are not deadly weapons either. You just need to make that last step and agree with the original statement that an empty, fully rule-1-safe gun sitting on a shelf is not a deadly weapon and you'll have agreed with the point you posted to disagree with...
.
You put my words out of context. Of course it's a deadly weapon (even if I didn't put "deadly" in my sentence.
Actually, they are tools. Tools used in the production of beeswax, honey and royal jelly.
They are not tools innately. Their purpose (in nature--as they're insects) is not to help us produce and sell honey. The purpose of guns is to, as you keep repeating, induce remote, injurious force.
Thus, bees are not innately deadly weapons. As to whether they could be, if they are purposefully placed in a place that the aggressor knows that they will sting and kill, is another question (they could or could not be).
Oddly, there is a kind of sense in UK law - a sentence not often uttered - when it comes to this. The law here differentiates between a tool designed as a weapon and a tool used as a weapon - essentially it being worse for you if you use a weapon (a sword, gun, African Throwing Knife, baseball bat [not much baseball over here], knife kept under the pillow for defence purposes) than if you pick something to use as a weapon (frying pan, random beehive in the hallway, paperweight, hockey stick).
Which is what I'm kind of getting at.
But then it all falls down when we're not allowed to use deadly force in self-defence and where guns are the Antichrist and made of dead babies.
You are allowed. That's where the "Stand Your Ground" law comes in the picture. I never said it was ever bad to use deadly force. And it shouldn't, depending on the circumstances.
