Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman

[Azuremen]

We are clear here. That is what wiki says also. Arguing against wiki is probably a really naive thing at this point. I've heard the brightest minds in the world quote wiki.

Please, show me a respected publication using a Wiki as a primary source, let alone their only source?

It's not circular, it's just that every situation has a lot of variables to consider.
No reasonable person is going to shoot another individual intentionally and expect them to live.

You realize how easy it is to wound someone with a small caliber weapon without killing them? Or even a small shotgun like a 410?

You are directly refuting the definitions wiki offers for deadly force and the reasonable outcome of the use of a deadly weapon. Do you understand how audacious and naive you ( and everyone who agrees with him, you too) that is? At least have some links or something to prove wiki wrong.

You understand how audacious and naive of you to think Wiki, a user editable source, is a valid standpoint for a discussion regarding legal definitions?

I must ask what level of education you've received, as wiki is not a valid source for any research, argument, publication, and so on. Because it can easily be edited by those that have no qualifications in a field. Which I believe you've argued that many have no right to question experts in a field without themselves being experts, so I find this mildly ironic that you are so adamant about leaning on wiki as a highly reliable source.

 

[Dapper]

Check the sources on wiki if you want.
And all the research papers I've done I used wiki, not directly, but I used it nonetheless.

And your example of hurting someone with a gun is overtly irrelevant. And there are a lot of wiki's with sources that prove how ridiculous that example is.

 

[Azuremen]

And your example of hurting someone with a gun is overtly irrelevant. And there are a lot of wiki's with sources that prove how ridiculous that example is.

What do you mean how ridiculous? Have you ever handled a fire arm, shot one, or see the respective damages? Do you understand why police forces have changed weapons to have additional stopping power because of issues with guns not incapacitating fast enough?

Please provide your own information for the claims you continue to make and refuse to support with actual sources. I'm not doing the research to back your faulty arguments

And again, what education do you have?

 

[Dapper]

You need my education because you can't defend your pathetic argument?

A firearm is a deadly weapon. Using it intentionally to cause harm is intent to kill.

 

[McLaren]

Now look how you look.

I assume it's how you've looked from the start of this discussion?

Regardless, you said if you shoot someone, you must understand they will die. That is false. A gun shot does not = death. A person defending themselves does not have to have the intent to kill if they must use a gun. In most cases, a person using a weapon in self defense is normally attempting to stop/scare the attacker from hurting them, not the intent to kill them.

A person who uses his weapon with the sole intent to kill (even in self-defense) seems to be quite clearly the opposite of a responsible owner.

 

[a6m5]

I just started reading what some of you are discussing, but is Dapper seriously arguing that anytime someone fire at another person, the intent is definitely to kill the other person? Say it ain't so.

 

[McLaren]

I just started reading what some of you are discussing, but is Dapper seriously arguing that anytime someone fire at another person, the intent is definitely to kill the other person? Say it ain't so.

You obviously are not capable of thinking on his level or understanding "logic".

 

[a6m5]

You obviously are not capable of thinking on his level or understanding "logic".

Like you just noted in your previous post, how do you explain countless shooters who shot in self-defense who actually tried to incapacitate the attacker without killing them? This isn't opinion, it happens all the time!

 

[Dapper]

I just started reading what some of you are discussing, but is Dapper seriously arguing that anytime someone fire at another person, the intent is definitely to kill the other person? Say it ain't so.

You know a single cut can cause a person to bleed out?
I mean, a steak knife can easily kill someone, just like small caliber bullet.



Thinking otherwise is unreasonable.

 

[a6m5]

You know a single cut can cause a person to bleed out?
I mean, a steak knife can easily kill someone, just like small caliber bullet.



Thinking otherwise is unreasonable.

Alright buddy, you have a good night, too.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

When did wiki become the official source, can we actually get statistics or perhaps edu links like stanford law and others? Just asking. Azureman it's funny you bring that up about certain calibre weapons not being deadly at all, such as how .25 rounds once used were known to bounce off leather jackets like nothing.

What I need clarification on is why is this now an argument against guns that will further perpetuate into gun laws? I went back but didn't really see anything that linked to why it is this way. It just seems thinly veiled that it is becoming a gun argument. It seems one side of this had it implied that they needed to either defend or fight the gun subject because of this case. Shouldn't we be talking about other things with this case?

 

[a6m5]

When did wiki become the official source, can we actually get statistics or perhaps edu links like stanford law and others? Just asking. Azureman it's funny you bring that up about certain calibre weapons not being deadly at all, such as how .25 rounds once used were known to bounce off leather jackets like nothing.

What I need clarification on is why is this now an argument against guns that will further perpetuate into gun laws? I went back but didn't really see anything that linked to why it is this way. It just seems thinly veiled that it is becoming a gun argument. It seems one side of this had it implied that they needed to either defend or fight the gun subject because of this case. Shouldn't we be talking about other things with this case?

Totally agreed, but it's premature at this stage with so little details available to public.

 

[Azuremen]

You need my education because you can't defend your pathetic argument?

Another one of my irony meters exploded.

I'm going to run out at this rate.

A firearm is a deadly weapon. Using it intentionally to cause harm is intent to kill.

A knife is a weapon. It can be used to disable an attacker. With some training, it can be used to kill someone.

A rock is a weapon. It can be used to disable an attacker. With some training, it can be used to kill someone.

A firearm is a weapon. It can be used to disable an attacker. With some training, it can be used to kill someone.

A weapon is not suddenly more deadly simply because you want it to be. An untrained person will have trouble hitting a target with a gun, let alone hitting a target accurately so as to be lethal. A skilled shooter can easily aim for a leg to disable an attacker, or have a lower velocity/smaller caliber/wide spread shotgun that will reduce severity of wounds.

 

[Dapper]

Wow. Talk about ignorant. Getting shot in the leg can easily result in death.

@LMS- am I coming across as anti gun? Blow mugs away all you want. 👍
You just can't say I shot him and I didn't think he would die. That is unreasonable knowing what guns can do.

 

[arora]

What I need clarification on is why is this now an argument against guns that will further perpetuate into gun laws?

It's always the case when things like this come up, so far the anti gun side has not been to outrageous but they are prevalent in the major news outlets so inevitably it comes up.

This reminds me of an incident that happened near where I live, the guys name is Elton John Richard, he chased down and fatally shot a would be car burglar(on foot), iirc he deterred the criminal act but then kept going several blocks. Anyway, he was charged with murder and then plead guilty to voluntary manslaughter, sentenced to two years prison and 4 years probation. There was some talk of a Governor's pardon or clemency.

It's not the exact scenario but just popped in my head.

 

[homeforsummer]

A firearm is a deadly weapon. Using it intentionally to cause harm is intent to kill.

No it isn't, otherwise every shot ever fired would be aimed at a vital organ.

That people are intentionally shot in non-deadly areas - like the shoulder, or the legs, to incapacitate but not kill them - turns your entire argument to mush.

A gun can be deadly, but aiming it at a person isn't necessarily intent to kill.

If anything, using a knife as a weapon is more deadly than using a gun, because if you're close enough to stab someone you're not going to be doing it just to make them back off a bit.

Another good one would be a baton. You can aim it for someone's temple and kill them, or you can clobber them on the arm or wind them to stop their attack.

Wow. Talk about ignorant. Getting shot in the leg can easily result in death.

Yes, it can, but that doesn't mean the shot fired was intentionally to kill. You could say the same about being shot in the foot.

Given the rest of the body to aim at, why would I shoot someone in the foot to kill them? They may accidentally die from loss of blood, but surely a shot fired at a foot would be to disable rather than kill?

 

[Dapper]

He didn't plea down because of his lack of intent to kill. That part is inherent with the shooting...

And there are large arteries in the shoulder area, too.
And that's not even mentioning the possible secondary causes of death from such a traumatic event.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

@LMS- am I coming across as anti gun? Blow mugs away all you want. 👍
You just can't say I shot him and I didn't think he would die. That is unreasonable knowing what guns can do.

Never said it wasn't, so not sure why you bring it up. Especially since I've agreed with most of what you said as far as the case goes. Blow mugs away? Uh ok...

I'm not saying you're coming across anti-gun or started to, now you are if I said you weren't I'd be lying to myself. However, the otherside seems to defend certain parts of this case due to a fear of gun laws being challenged. I don't feel that fear, and the reason why is the media is too busy having a field day with a black teen getting killed and no one going to jail for it.

 

[McLaren]

Wow. Talk about ignorant. Getting shot in the leg can easily result in death.

Ignorant is taking a basic example & automatically applying death to it even though the example covered the least possible chance of death; you'd literally have to avoid treatment & die from blood loss in a couple hours to be killed by a small caliber bullet to the leg.

 

[homeforsummer]

He didn't plea down because of his lack of intent to kill. That part is inherent with the shooting...

And there are large arteries in the shoulder area, too.
And that's not even mentioning the possible secondary causes of death from such a traumatic event.

Yes, and those such instances would all be secondary to the shooting, not the primary aim.

If I wanted to kill someone I wouldn't shoot them in an area they might recover from. Are you planning to answer why anyone would get shot in the foot rather than aiming for the rather bigger chest or head areas?

And you can put the "indiff" smily away as if everyone else in the world just "doesn't get it". You've been talking guff for several pages now. You're the one who doesn't get it.

 

[Dapper]

And you can put the "indiff" smily away as if everyone else in the world just "doesn't get it". You've been talking guff for several pages now. You're the one who doesn't get it.

You think gtp'ers are smarter than wiki.

 

[arora]

He didn't plea down because of his lack of intent to kill. That part is inherent with the shooting...

I'm not engaging in your intent argument, in taking a different angle I'm trying to put a perspective on the case being discussed. Surely you can see some similarity and also note the courts accepted the lesser plea, also even though the sentence may seem light I believe he was granted clemency but I cannot confirm that part.

 

[Zenith]

You think gtp'ers are smarter than wiki.

Do you know how wiki's work? There aren't any esteemed professors editing wiki's.

Wow. Talk about ignorant. Getting shot in the leg can easily result in death.

It can result in death. It will not always result in death. More often than not does not result in death.

 

[Dapper]

Do you know how wiki's work? There aren't any esteemed professors editing wiki's.



It can result in death. It will not always result in death. More often than not does not result in death.

A. Yes, special laws apply anytime anyone uses deadly force, whether or not the weapon is concealed. Florida law defines deadly force as force that is likely to cause death or great bodily harm. When you carry a handgun, you possess a weapon of deadly force. The law considers even an unloaded gun to be a deadly weapon when it is pointed at someone.

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html

Is that enough to convince you opposers how wrong you've been all night?

 

[Blackex99]

Using a gun is always deadly force I don't care where you get shot.If anyone disagree you should never own a gun.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

The bolded part isn't what anyone was arguing.

 

[Zenith]

How can it be this hard to get this through your skull?

Just because a weapon is capable of deadly force does not mean that any use of that weapon is for the purpose of killing nor will lead to killing.

Oh, I'll do your thing... And you're ignorant and pathetic and your logic isn't right.

Using a gun is always deadly force I don't care where you get shot.If anyone disagree you should never own a gun.

Have you ever fired a gun? Have you ever examined ballistic data? If not then you shouldn't be carrying around such ignorant opinions.

 

[Dapper]

The bolded part isn't what anyone was arguing.

You've been arguing any use of a gun qualifies as deadly force.

Hellllooo out there? The bold part is the only thing in question.
Clearly, well, according to wiki and Florida's law, Azureman took the losing side of the argument, which also happens to be the illogical, irresponsible and unreasonable side.

Just because a weapon is capable of deadly force does not mean that any use of that weapon is for the purpose of killing nor will lead to killing.

Who said that?

 

[Zenith]

Hellllooo out there? The bold part is the only thing in question.
Clearly, well, according to wiki and Florida's law, Azureman took the losing side of the argument, which also happens to be the illogical, irresponsible and unreasonable side.

Possessing a weapon of deadly force and using a weapon that is capable of deadly force are two different things.

Instead of spending time looking for new words to denounce opposing arguments, you should probably try understanding your own and those of everyone else.

 

[arora]

Oh, I'll do your thing... And you're ignorant and pathetic and your logic isn't right.

Even Dapper needs to see the humor in that