Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Hellllooo out there? The bold part is the only thing in question.

Use does not equate to carrying. Don't twist your argument.

 

[Dapper]

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.

Shooting a gun at another person is what we are talking about.
Where you came up with possessing a gun is deadly force or using a gun at all is deadly force I don't know.

I said 'pointing is not shooting' twice already, but Florida says pointing is deadly force.

 

[Zenith]

Who said that?

You did.

Using a deadly weapon=intent to kill

-

And neither is it the intent to kill.

Yes it is.

-

That does not mean that the use of a gun as a weapon is invariably for the purpose of killing..

Yes it does..

-

Yes, you are. Guns=cars=deadly force.

-

Using it intentionally to cause harm is intent to kill.

 

[Dapper]

Use does not equate to carrying. Don't twist your argument.

When you carry a handgun, you possess a weapon of deadly force.

Argue with the law. A gun has deadly force, it is a deadly weapon. If you shoot at someone, you used deadly force which means you had an intent to kill. Are you seriously saying you thought I said carrying a gun meant deadly force?

You did.

I said shooting a gun at another person is deadly force.
From page 5-

Anyone who carries a gun, points it at someone and pulls the trigger is trying to kill them.

Using a gun against someone else is deadly force. Florida law says so.

 

[dautolover]

That's little more assumption than I'd like. Is Zimmerman an reasonable person? Did he necessarily feel threatened when he followed Trayvon Martin, or is it possible that it was when the confrontation got physical, that he felt threatened?

I still think we need to learn more before we can discuss this case more in depth.

Had Zimmerman felt threatened, he would've stood back. Simple as that.

As to the second part... I'm sure Martin felt threatened as well, especially being followed around and, eventually, having a gun pointed at his face. As for Zimmerman feeling threatened during the confrontation... if he was pursuing Martin, the case for feeling threatened is no longer an issue. Consider a scenario where I punch you. You react and start heading my way to land a punch. I then get my gun and kill you, because I feel threatened as to what you're going to do.

It would be insane for a jury or judge to think that I acted in self-defense and that my sense of danger justifies me shooting at you.

That probably is fact, but there's no proof that Zimmerman finished his chase. There's too many scenarios that could have played out between those two events.
...
They told him "we don't need you to do that." They didn't tell him to stop following him.
...

Had Martin turned around to face the person following him, that would make him into a pretty gutsy kid. Indeed, a plausible scenario. I would assume, had this been the case, that Martin would have done this as a form of self-defense. Did this act of self-defense threaten Zimmerman so much that he felt compelled to use his weapon?

Does a person defending himself against the perceived aggressor make the perceived aggressor threatened? I bet so. But it's not a reasonable way of defending one's actions. Again, if you react from my punch (in reference to my response to a6m5) and you get ready to land one on me, does that justify me grabbing my gun and shooting you? Probably not.

Regardless of what the operator said, the statement shows that he was repeatedly told that he could step back if he felt threatened or scared to continue the pursuit (he's not a cop, he doesn't have to). Those were instances where he could have pulled off, and allowed the police to come. This wasn't the case; he was keen to continue the pursuit, because he wasn't scared... hence, that shows intent... thus, you have a plausible second degree murder charge.

 

[Dapper]

Did this act of self-defense threaten Zimmerman so much that he felt compelled to use his weapon?

If that was the case, Zimmerman still wasn't legally allowed to shoot Martin.
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html

Example of the kind of attack that will not justify defending yourself with deadly force: Two neighbors got into a fight, and one of them tried to hit the other by swinging a garden hose. The neighbor who was being attacked with the hose shot the other in the chest. The court upheld his conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm, because an attack with a garden hose is not the kind of violent assault that justifies responding with deadly force.

 

[dautolover]

I said 'pointing is not shooting' twice already, but Florida says pointing is deadly force.

So, in effect, this whole debate of what (or who) kills who is irrelevant. Florida law already gives us the answer, whether we agree with it or not.

 

[Blackex99]

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.

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

Yes I fired a gun that's shows how ignorant you are already.I own a SP2022 and a P226 Sig Sauer and I've examined ballistic nice try fake law enforcement guy.Dont twist my words like I said shooting a gun at a human is a us of deadly force regardless where you shoot them.Yes I do own two weapons that are capable of deadly force I know that.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Regardless of what the operator said, the statement shows that he was repeatedly told that he could step back if he felt threatened or scared to continue the pursuit (he's not a cop, he doesn't have to). Those were instances where he could have pulled off, and allowed the police to come. This wasn't the case; he was keen to continue the pursuit, because he wasn't scared... hence, that shows intent... thus, you have a plausible second degree murder charge.

Whether he was scared during the pursuit doesn't factor in anything. And again there are two many assumptions to be made about what happened after.

Argue with the law. A gun has deadly force, it is a deadly weapon. If you shoot at someone, you used deadly force which means you had an intent to kill. Are you seriously saying you thought I said carrying a gun meant deadly force?

It's not beyond you and that's the part you bolded, so yeah.

 

[dautolover]

Example of the kind of attack that will not justify defending yourself with deadly force: Two neighbors got into a fight, and one of them tried to hit the other by swinging a garden hose. The neighbor who was being attacked with the hose shot the other in the chest. The court upheld his conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm, because an attack with a garden hose is not the kind of violent assault that justifies responding with deadly force.

That sounds like my example of shooting someone who's reacting out of self-defense... and the conclusion being that you can't use this as a legal defense. The only difference is that the court is using a level of severity to make a determination of justified deadly force. If this is the case, then Zimmerman would have to say something like "Martin pulled a gun out at me." Which would be untrue, because no gun was found on him...

 

[Tornado]

Dont twist my words like I said shooting a gun at a human is a us of deadly force regardless where you shoot them.Yes I do own two weapons that are capable of deadly force I know that.

Pick one. It's either capable of deadly force or inherently deadly force. It cannot be both.

 

[Dapper]

It's not beyond you and that's the part you bolded, so yeah.

The bolded part says

When you carry a handgun, you possess a weapon of deadly force.

All that says is guns are a deadly force. Argue the law, not me.

Pick one. It's either capable of deadly force or inherently deadly force. It cannot be both.

A gun sitting on the shelf has deadly force. A gun pointed at you (according to Florida law) or being shot at you is being used as deadly force. The 'force' never leaves. It is only used when aimed or shot at someone.

This is like doing English homework with my son (in 1st grade).

 

[dautolover]

Whether he was scared during the pursuit doesn't factor in anything. And again there are two many assumptions to be made about what happened after.

When talking about intent, whether he's scared or not isn't the basis to measure intent. It's the pursuit that implies intent. A bank robber may be scared about what he or she is doing, but that doesn't change intent.

It's only when talking about self-defense that this notion of feeling threatened kicks in.

Indeed, a lot of assumptions, which the prosecution may already have ironed out into facts that we haven't really heard of just yet. This whole debate stems from a comment made by someone saying that a second degree murder case is unlikely to win, that a manslaughter charge would have been better off... what Dapper and I are arguing is that, yes, it's perfectly possible to argue that this shooting involved second degree murder.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

This is like doing English homework with my son (in 1st grade).

...you have a...you know what I'm going to just move on.

 

[Zenith]

Yes I fired a gun that's shows how ignorant you are already.I own a SP2022 and a P226 Sig Sauer and I've examined ballistic nice try fake law enforcement guy.Dont twist my words like I said shooting a gun at a human is a us of deadly force regardless where you shoot them.Yes I do own two weapons that are capable of deadly force I know that.

Hm. You don't put spaces after sentences, use commas, spell check your posts, or use other basic grammatical devices... So you'll have to excuse me if I find it difficult to believe that a fully grown adult from Maryland with a couple of firearms doesn't have an elementary use of grammar.

But anyways, on to your post.

I never claimed to be law enforcement.

I never said that you didn't have experience with either of those things.

I never twisted your words. The top was in response to Dapper. That's why it was above the response to you. It's a pretty standard thing around here.

You seem to be reacting a post that didn't happen.

...you have a...you know what I'm going to just move on.

 

[Tornado]

A gun sitting on the shelf has deadly force. A gun pointed at you is being used as deadly force.

Wow. That's great!


Too bad that means nothing for what he said, which was that his handguns are capable of deadly force, but if he uses them they are always deadly force. Note how I was asking him to clarify. Not for you to do it on his behalf.

This is like doing English homework with my son (in 1st grade).

Are acceptable things to put in first grade English papers nowadays?

Or is he the one helping you with it?

 

[dautolover]

Pick one. It's either capable of deadly force or inherently deadly force. It cannot be both.

I doubt that anyone will want to go into the metaphysics of a gun. What are the qualities of the gun? Well, it surely isn't an item designed to be looked at. It's a thing with a function: to shoot bullets. Those bullets, when fired, don't tickle. They kill.

I agree with Dapper. The entire purpose of guns is based on the notion of using deadly force (albeit, for a number of reasons, such as self-defense, pleasure, etc.). To think otherwise would be to ignore the history and purpose of guns.

 

[Dapper]

Wow. That's great!


Too bad that means nothing for what he said, which was that his handguns are capable of deadly force, but if he uses them they are always deadly force. Note how I was asking him to clarify. Not for you to do it on his behalf.

He said his guns used on people is an example of deadly force, and even while not being used in that context, the guns still retain the same amount of deadly force, ie capable. And he is right.

Where do you think it, the deadly force, goes?

 

[Famine]

I doubt that anyone will want to go into the metaphysics of a gun. What are the qualities of the gun? Well, it surely isn't an item designed to be looked at. It's a thing with a function: to shoot bullets. Those bullets, when fired, don't tickle. They kill.

I've shot... oooh... a hundred rounds from five handguns (and a few other rounds from a rifle) and not one of those bullets has tickled or killed anything.

The function of a gun is to deliver remote, penetrative and injurious force in normal operation. That is that when a gun is used normally it transfers force from the individual holding the gun to a target with the aim of penetrating and injuring that target. The gun isn't especially bothered what the target is, so notions of killing are somewhat moot. You just press the "go" button in normal operation and it delivers remote, penetrative and injurious force to whatever it's pointing at (plus gravity and ricochets).

Take it to the range, load it, take the safety off (where applicable) point it at a target and press the go button and it delivers remote, penetrative and injurious force to a paper and nylon sheet. No killing. Load it, take the safety off (where applicable) point it at a target and press the go button and it delivers remote, penetrative and injurious force to a kneecap. No killing. It's still doing what it's designed to do.


Of course a gun on a shelf with no rounds in the firing chamber or preloaded (magazine or secondary chambers) will kill no-one unless used outside of normal operation - beating them over the head with it or throwing it at them. In many respects a rule-1-safe gun is less dangerous than a brick, a honey bee or a peanut.


A gun is not deadly force. A loaded gun is not deadly force. A loaded gun with safety off is not deadly force. A loaded gun with safety off and pointing at someone is not deadly force. A loaded gun with safety off, pointing at something living and fired is not deadly force. A loaded gun with safety off, pointing at something living and fired with the intent to kill them by delivering that penetrative, injurious force to the chest or head is deadly force.

But a responsible gun owner will know rule 2 and won't allow the pointy end of a gun to point at anything they don't want destroyed - and they'll know rule 1, so it won't matter if it's loaded or not.


Minor note on legality - if you have a fully-operational firearm, point it at someone and pull the trigger with the intent to kill them but you are a crap shot and kill the person next to them (like I did with the nylon target - still it removed the hostage situation by killing the hostage), are you still a murderer? You still have the use of deadly force (one that satisfies all convolutions of definition), you still have intent to kill and you still have a death by those actions - it's just accidental...

 

[Dapper]

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.

I'll just put this here.

Leg shot will kill in a matter of minutes.
Leg shots kill woman.
And leg shots kill police, too.

 

[Zenith]

I'll just put this here.

Florida law is not an authority on the universal definitions of "deadly force" and "self defense."

This is especially true for this discussion since you've been making claims that apply to all defensive uses of a gun, including in places outside of Florida.

Leg shot will kill in a matter of minutes.

No.

That specific leg shot killed. Leg shots do not always kill. Once again, it depends on placement, type of bullet, range, and plenty of other factors.

You have this lovely habit of taking one incident or source and then expanding it into a sweeping claim. It's ludicrous.

EDIT: Hey, there's an example of a man who was shot several times. He lived. Therefore multiple gunshots will not kill. I love Dapper logic.

http://bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20110327man_survives_multiple_gunshots_in_hyannis_barnstable_police_investigate_third_village_shooting_in_three_months

 

[Dapper]

Florida law is not an authority on the universal definitions of "deadly force" and "self defense."

Florida's law is most relevant in this thread.

No.

Yes. Read the article. Understand the human body. Let it all digest. Then come back.

That specific leg shot killed. Leg shots do not always kill. Once again, it depends on placement, type of bullet, range, and plenty of other factors.

You have this lovely habit of taking one incident or source and then expanding it into a sweeping claim. It's ludicrous.

EDIT: Hey, there's an example of a man who was shot several times. He lived. Therefore multiple gunshots will not kill. I love Dapper logic.

Hey look, a guy shot in the head and leaves the hospital right after surgery. Getting shot in the head must be OK.

Leg shots do not always kill.

This is probably the most nonsense I've read yet.x a few

Wait a second. I went a line down and found a new contender.

EDIT: Hey, there's an example of a man who was shot several times. He lived. Therefore multiple gunshots will not kill. I love Dapper logic.

Don't you get what you are saying?
I am advocating the law, you are saying it is OK to shoot people! This is the most retarded conversation ever!
You think because people don't always die from a gun shot to the leg then a gun shot to the leg is not deadly force- erroneous, ridiculous and scary to think an adult who is able to own a gun actually thinks that. Tupac was shot in the head several times and he lived. People get shot in the leg and live. Both are instances of deadly force, the law and wiki say so.

 

[Zenith]

Florida's law is most relevant in this thread.

Not with the claims you've been making.

Using a deadly weapon=intent to kill

I see no mention of Florida in there.

Yes. Read the article. Understand the human body. Let it all digest. Then come back.

I am well versed in terminal ballistics in the human body. You, on the other hand, are using an fallacious method to make claims based on a single event.

Hey look, a guy shot in the head and leaves the hospital right after surgery. Getting shot in the head must be OK.

Hey! Maybe I was using your version of logic applied to a related situation to make an ludicrous claim! Since you took one example and then concluded that any other case with similar circumstances will lead to the same result, I did too!

You see, you found an example of man dying from being shot in the leg. Then you made the inaccurate claim that a leg shot will kill in a matter of minutes. Which is possible, but unlikely.

I took the opposite approach where a man was shot several times and lived. Then I made the inaccurate claim that being shot several times will not kill. Which is possible, but unlikely.

See it?

This is probably the most nonsense I've read yet.x a few

You think that a person shot in the leg will always die? Because you described the contrary as "nonsense"

Don't you get what you are saying?
I am advocating the law, you are saying it is OK to shoot people! This is the most retarded conversation ever!

See above. I cannot tell if you're trolling or just really thick...

 

[Dapper]

Since you took one example and then concluded that any other case with similar circumstances will lead to the same result, I did too!

But you are wrong. The law says so.
Your logic is because every leg shot doesn't result in death it is not deadly force. But, clearly, leg shots result in deaths. Therefore, if you shoot someone in the leg, you know they could die... that is deadly force.

Find something that says you are right.

You think that a person shot in the leg will always die? Because you described the contrary as "nonsense"

Did I say a person will always die from a leg shot? I posted a vid of a guy who lived after a head shot.
And the contrary, leg shots never end in death, is nonsense! I posted 3 articles of leg shots resulting in death.

 

[Famine]

Your logic is because every leg shot doesn't result in death it is not deadly force. But, clearly, leg shots result in deaths. Therefore, if you shoot someone in the leg, you know they could die... that is deadly force.

Every time I drive my car I know I could crash and die. That's not reckless driving and suicide.

 

[Dapper]

Every time I drive my car I know I could crash and die. That's not reckless driving and suicide.

Great. And if you get in your car and try to harm someone with your car, which is the equivalent of shooting at a person with a gun, that is called deadly force. The car and gun never relinquish this force, though.

Since you are late.

Deadly force, as defined by the United States Armed Forces, is the force which a person uses, causing—or that a person knows, or should know, would create a substantial risk of causing—death or serious bodily harm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadly_force

 

[homeforsummer]

This just in: Police marksmen advised to shoot people in the legs to kill them.

It might kill them, so that's good enough when given the "shoot to kill" order.

Reports also suggest marksmen are being advised to shoot people in the head to incapacitate them.

They might survive (2pac did! That time, anyway!), so that's as good as shooting them in the leg, right?

Brought to you by DapperLogic 1.0.

 

[Zenith]

But you are wrong. The law says so.
Your logic is because every leg shot doesn't result in death it is not deadly force. But, clearly, leg shots result in deaths. Therefore, if you shoot someone in the leg, you know they could die... that is deadly force.

Find something that says you are right.

You have obviously never heard of a satirical argument, nor sarcasm. I'll spell this out for you and anyone who is among the mentally disabled.

-When I said "I love Dapper logic" I was referring to how it doesn't work. When I wrote in a sarcastic tone making wild and inaccurate claims punctuated by exclamation marks, I was being sarcastic.

-When I made the claim that states that gunshots cannot kill, I was doing so to take your logic and apply it elsewhere. I do not believe that gunshots are incapable of killing.

-I do not need to find anything that "says I am right" because the entire purpose of that post was to be obviously wrong.

Did I say a person will always die from a leg shot?

Right here.

Leg shot will kill in a matter of minutes.

Leg shot will kill in a matter of minutes.
Leg shot will kill in a matter of minutes.
Leg shot will kill.
Will kill.

Define: Will
am (is, are, etc.) about or going to:
I will be there tomorrow. She will see you at dinner.

Oh snap.

 

[Famine]

Try again:

Your logic is because every leg shot doesn't result in death it is not deadly force. But, clearly, leg shots result in deaths. Therefore, if you shoot someone in the leg, you know they could die... that is deadly force.

Your logic is because every car journey doesn't result in a crash it is not reckless driving. But, clearly, car journeys result in crashes. Therefore, if you drive, you know you could crash... that is reckless driving.

Your words, just with car journey for shot/shooting, crash for death and reckless driving for deadly force. If that doesn't make sense, feel free to reject both or rephrase. If it does make sense, feel free to accept both and never drive again.


*prepare for condescending emoticon use... we're at CEUCON 2*

 

[Dapper]

Try again:





Your words, just with car journey for shot/shooting, crash for death and reckless driving for deadly force. If that doesn't make sense, feel free to reject both or rephrase. If it does make sense, feel free to accept both and never drive again.


*prepare for condescending emoticon use... we're at CEUCON 2*

But a car journey is not shooting to kill.

Find something that says you are right. I have two sources to your none.