Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman

[homeforsummer]

But a car journey is not shooting to kill.

Neither is shooting someone in the leg 💡👎

 

[Doth1s]

But a car journey is not shooting to kill.

Shooting to kill is not a car crash. I think we are getting somewhere now.

 

[Dapper]

Neither is shooting someone in the leg 💡👎

Yes it is. I posted stuff, you didn't read it?
Pointing a gun is deadly force, much less actually shooting someone.

Go find something that says you are right. (You won't)

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.

*waits for anti-logic-gtp'er that says a gun is not a deadly force*

 

[Famine]

But a car journey is not shooting to kill.

But car journeys can still cause death.

So you're rejecting both and rephrasing then? Only it's the exact same thing with three different words - shoot/shot/shooting for car journey, death for crash and deadly force for reckless driving. The same logic is required for both - so either both are wrong or both are right. So if you have two sources that say you're right, stop driving.

Shooting to kill is not a car crash. I think we are getting somewhere now.

http://[domain blocked due to malware]/instances/400x/9465886.jpg​

That's not how Dapper functions, on any of his accounts.

CEUCON1, everyone.

 

[Zenith]

Can I ask what CEUCON is?

 

[Famine]

Can I ask what CEUCON is?

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

Reference to this.

Note how he's not bothered to comment on a single part of my extremely reasonable "What a gun does" post?

 

[Dapper]

But car journeys can still cause death.

So what?

So you're rejecting both and rephrasing then? Only it's the exact same thing with three different words - shoot/shot/shooting for car journey, death for crash and deadly force for reckless driving. The same logic is required for both - so either both are wrong or both are right. So if you have two sources that say you're right, stop driving.

Come on dude. You changed words, you changed meanings.
Shooting a gun at someone !=driving

Note how he's not bothered to comment on a single part of my extremely reasonable "What a gun does" post?

You are wrong.

 

[homeforsummer]

Yes it is. I posted stuff, you didn't read it?
Pointing a gun is deadly force, much less actually shooting someone.

Go find something that says you are right. (You won't)

I don't need to, it's called "reality". You should try it some time.

Pointing a gun and firing at someone doesn't always mean that you intend to kill them. It might sometimes, but not always, regardless of whatever law you can dredge up says.

It's no use you posting stuff if it's irrelevant to the discussion 💡👍👎

The fact the law says even an unloaded gun is deadly force should tell you all you need to know about the law.

 

[XoravaX]

As far as I know the universal definition of "deadly force" is using weaponry with an intent to kill the person (or cause a large possibility of death to the person) it's applied to. Fairly close to that in Florida Law.
Here's an example:
The police are told to never use deadly force unless necessary to save innocent lives. So, they will never shoot people in the chest or other vital areas (outside of counter-terrorism operations and such), but in the arm or leg instead (and that only if the person is considered dangerous and doesn't follow the policemen's orders and can't be stopped otherwise). The shot person are always treated medically if they don't die immediately - over 90% of them survive if the bleeding is stopped properly. If that ends in death of the shot person, then it's just bad luck.

And shooting someone in the thighs is idiotic if that's the case, as it can easily cut the large blood vessels resulting in bleeding to death - therefore shooting in the thighs can be considered "deadly force", while the lower leg quite isn't. There are thousands of people who were shot to legs in WWII and yet they still live, it just depends where the shot is placed at and how well and quickly the wound is treated and bleeding stopped.

Should Zimmerman have tried to stop Martin from bleeding, he wouldn't pretty likely have died.

 

[Dapper]

A gun is not deadly force.

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

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.

Now, quit talking out of your 🤬 and find something that says you are right.

 

[Famine]

Come on dude. You changed words, you changed meanings.

Nope, I just changed words. The exact same logical processes are required for both. You know that if you shoot a gun at someone (or something else living) you could kill them - this, you say, classes as deadly force (force is used, it ends up being deadly). You know that if you go out for a drive you could crash - this, you should say, classes as reckless driving (driving occurred, it ends up being reckless).

But you don't. We know why.

You are wrong.

Nope. Not one comment passed on that post.

We know why too. Well, those of us who know how you function in this forum.

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

Now, quit talking out of your 🤬 and find something that says you are right.

A gun is not deadly force. Florida law might say that it is, but since when was law the arbiter of reality? Or are black people really only worth 60% of a person because it was once in a statute book somewhere?

As a gun sits on a shelf, unloaded, unprepped, it is neither deadly nor force. I mentioned this in the long post about what guns really are that you didn't respond to. A gun is not deadly force.

Incidentally, address someone like that again and you're gone. You've had enough chances across enough accounts now.

 

[Dapper]

A gun is not deadly force. Florida law might say that it is, but since when was law the arbiter of reality? Or are black people really only worth 60% of a person because it was once in a statute book somewhere?

Just ignore the world around you...

I'll wait for you to have something that says you are right. But we all know you won't and I know you can't.

A gun is not deadly force.

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

 

[Zenith]

Just ignore the world around you...

I'll wait for you to have something that says you are right. But we all know you won't and I know you can't.

What is with this reverence you have towards what some law or online article says? Just because some policy makers decided that something should be a law does not make that the truth. (see 3/5th's Compromise above)

A law is an authority in official matters. It is not an authority on how the world truly works. Thousands of stupid laws both of times past and in modern day are a testament to this.

 

[McLaren]

Leg shot will kill in a matter of minutes.

It says Brown was shot around 1am. Police followed his trail of blood & pronounced him dead at 2:13am. He died from a loss of blood, which as said, will happen if the wound is not treated within' a certain period.

Leg shots kill woman.

This article says she was taken to a hospital around 12:15pm, but did not specify when she died later on. It also doesn't specify on how she died; blood loss, complications, etc.

And leg shots kill police, too.

The shot caused him to be amputated & placed in a medically induced coma. And while the round isn't specified, if it was enough to be shot from 100 yards away & cause an amputation, then it was obviously anything but a small caliber bullet.

You can google & use specific articles as you wish, the fact remains most leg wounds are not all too life threatening as long as they treated within' time. Blood loss is usually the most common cause.

 

[homeforsummer]

Dapper, authority =/= reality. The sooner you realise that, the less tosh you'll be talking.

 

[Famine]

Just ignore the world around you...

So you're rejecting both and giving up your car then? Excellent - a man of principles.

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

Feel free to operate your own thoughts and explain how a gun with no bullets in it and not prepared for its normal operation cycle - a gun that is incapable of delivering remote, penetrative and injurious force - is a "weapon of deadly force".

You won't, of course, or you'd have addressed it when I posted it in the big post about what guns really do that you never responded to.


Incidentally, a greater authority than you says the drink drive limit is zero. And that there isn't one.

[Morwenna Banks] It is! It's true! [/Morwenna Banks]

 

[Conza]

My 2 cents, as an Australian observer, the 'stand your ground law' appears unconstitutional, and if George Zimmerman gets 25 years in prison, it'll be too little too soon, what an idiot, he deserves to be punished just like any other murderer, I don't see how anyone in their right mind would defend Zimmerman on moral grounds at all, since I don't see any existing.

 

[Dapper]

So you're rejecting both and giving up your car then? Excellent - a man of principles.



Feel free to operate your own thoughts and explain how a gun with no bullets in it and not prepared for its normal operation cycle - a gun that is incapable of delivering remote, penetrative and injurious force - is a "weapon of deadly force".

You won't, of course, or you'd have addressed it when I posted it in the big post about what guns really do that you never responded to.


Incidentally, a greater authority than you says the drink drive limit is zero. And that there isn't one.

[Morwenna Banks] It is! It's true! [/Morwenna Banks]

Look at that. I was right again. "When you carry a handgun, you possess a weapon of deadly force." has yet to be contested with anything substantial.

A gun with no bullets is a deadly weapon. So deadly, in fact, the act of pointing an unloaded gun with malice gets 3 years behind bars where this murder took place. Trauma is traumatic and I don't expect such deep idea to resonate here, though.

I'll check back in later and see if anything factual gets mentioned.

 

[Famine]

Look at that. I was right again. "When you carry a handgun, you possess a weapon of deadly force." has yet to be contested with anything substantial.

It has yet to be shown by anything substantial.

A gun with no bullets is a deadly weapon.

Please cite an instance where an individual using a gun with no bullets has caused the death of another individual through his actions with that gun alone.

Or stop driving.

 

[Dapper]

I'm waiting on your evidence first. Remember, my two sources to your none.

 

[Famine]

I'm waiting on your evidence first. Remember, my two sources to your none.

Remember, legislation is irrelevant and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

You're claiming that a gun containing no bullets at all is a deadly weapon. Not that Florida law says so, but that it is. That is an extraordinary claim, since, as far as anyone on Earth is concerned, no unloaded gun has ever been used to kill someone - though I imagine you can use the butt to squish a cockroach, that doesn't really distinguish an unloaded firearem from a baseball.

Since you insist that an unloaded gun is a deadly weapon, you need to provide evidence that an unloaded gun has been used to kill someone by the person wielding the gun.

 

[Dapper]

Your opinion is irrelevant, remember. I'm still waiting.

A google search yielded several deaths from unloaded guns, but I'll wait for anything first.

 

[Famine]

Your opinion is irrelevant.

Yes it is. So is yours. So is the State of Florida's.

Prove your claim that a gun with no bullets in can cause the death of the person threatened by the perpetrator with it through only the actions of that perpetrator or drop it.

 

[Zenith]

I'm waiting on your evidence first. Remember, my two sources to your none.

Your sources prove:

A) Florida law sees guns as a weapon of deadly force.

B) Somebody died from a gunshot.

Hardly evidence for any claim, let alone one as ridiculous as yours.

 

[homeforsummer]

A google search yielded several deaths from unloaded guns, but I'll wait for anything first.

No it didn't.

A google search reveals plenty of deaths related to people who thought guns were unloaded, when they weren't. Otherwise known as a "loaded" gun...

The rest involved someone being clubbed with one. In which case an appropriately rolled-up newspaper can be a deadly weapon.

 

[a6m5]

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

What I spelled out in my post was that, you are combining two different moments into one. If I see a suspicious character, I might not feel threatened while following him. However, by the time I confront him, if he physically assault me, at that point, I would feel threatened. Maybe enough to draw my concealed carry weapon.

And let me say again, this is a complete waste of time or you & I arguing on presumption.

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.

If I was feeling threatened being followed by neighborhood watch, it does not give me the right to overreact, same goes for someone in Zimmerman's position. And the key is, exactly at what moment was the firearm drawn? In pursuit? When Zimmerman's safety was in danger?(if ever?) Somewhere in between?

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.

Pursuing and punching is not at all same thing. Punching is an assault. Someone following you could maybe, possibly lead to an assault.

This argument is truly an waste of our time, as you are arguing someone who also believe that Zimmerman is at fault, but merely pointing out that there is a possibility for overreaction by both parties involved. Is this a lock tight case, or do anybody even know at this point? I doubt it. And if you continue to insist that neighborhood watch following someone & two guys fistfighting is exactly the same thing, we could never come to an agreement there.

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.

This is non-sense. People, including police shoot to incapacitate all the time. Firing firearm at someone automatically equaling the shooter trying to kill the target is ignoring what happens on this planet, probably daily. Do the people who's been shot in these type scenario die? All the time. Do people also survive them? All the time. Now you are merging the intent & the risk taken.

 

[Touring Mars]

Please cite an instance where an individual using a gun with no bullets has caused the death of another individual through his actions with that gun alone.

Zugibe FT, Costello JT., J Forensic Sci. 1986 Apr;31(2):773-7



In that case, a gun without a magazine was used to bludgeon someone to death.

However, I agree with your point. An unloaded gun is no different to any other hard object... is an auto jack also a deadly weapon?

Zugibe FT, Costello JT., J Forensic Sci. 1985 Jan;30(1):239-42

 

[FoolKiller]

Guns are deadly. Zimmerman chased Martin down and shot him. Both facts.

I was unaware the case was over and these allegations have been proven as fact with a preponderance of evidence. I know that is what the prosecutor claims happened, to justify their charge of 2nd degree murder, but they have released nothing more than a statement.

So for now, your statement is not a known fact.

Or do we need to quote wiki on the difference between alleged and proven?

 

[Famine]

Zugibe FT, Costello JT., J Forensic Sci. 1986 Apr;31(2):773-7



In that case, a gun without a magazine was used to bludgeon someone to death.

However, I agree with your point. An unloaded gun is no different to any other hard object... is an auto jack also a deadly weapon?

Zugibe FT, Costello JT., J Forensic Sci. 1985 Jan;30(1):239-42

Yep. Or a brick:

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.

 

[homeforsummer]

Yep. Or a brick:

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.

I sure as hell wouldn't like to be battered over the head with a honey bee, I know that...