Online Now 836

Off-Topic

On this Board 228
Record: 1825 (5/20/2013)

Online now 693
Record: 11761 (2/27/2012)

Boards ▾

Inside Scoop

The Web's No. 1 forum for coverage and discussion of Terps sports

Terps Sports

Visitor discussion of University of Maryland and college sports

General Sports Water Cooler

A place for lively discussion for all other sports unrelated to Maryland athletics

Off-Topic

Test/Feedback Forum

Feedback for IMS and 247Sports

The Ticket Exchange

Reply

Handgun Debate

  • I own a handgun. But ive never killed an unarmed person who was no threat to anyone. Handgun was not to blame. This guy was a timebomb. He was a cop wannabe.

    He started a fight and when he started losing used deadly force. Makes its self defense. Happened to my cousin, but the guy knifed him when he started losing. Jury bought the self defense argument.

    So this kind of result can happen even without a gaun. a knife can kill too. And a nut like this guy-if he couldnt have a gun, hed have a knife or something just as deadly.

    This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by Nolaeer on 3/20/2012 at 1:25 PM

    Many of Pitt's 58 "rushing attempts" were the result qb Tino Sunseri fleeing the pocket like a man whose clothes were on fire.

    Nolaeer

  • I'll assume zimmerman had a carry permit...and this is the issue i have. would he have tried to accost the kid without the weapon? Would the kid be alive to tell his side of the confrontation had a weapon not been present. Why would a kid who's doing nothing subject himself to some stranger? Zimmerman could have been a criminal for all he knows.

    TerpPride

  • this law is working very well...

    Suspects Claim Self Defense in Deadly Shootout: UPDATE

    Judge dismisses manslaughter charges, rules men were standing their ground under Florida law.

    www.wctv.tv

    BrotherAbstract

  • This shooting may not lead to a gun debate, but that law probably should. I'm pretty sure that law was passed based on some strong lobbying efforts of the NRA et al. There has been a movement by the gun lobby to overturn the common-law "duty to retreat" laws with "stand your ground" laws (although usually this is done in the context of the "castle doctrine" / home defense laws, where the gun lobby generally believes that you should be able to stand your ground instead of retreating if you reasonably can).

    terps99

  • I can see this guy getting off and Florida having to revise that law.

    It may leave too many loopholes.

    You should not be able to get off if you aggresively initiate contact with someone, get into a fight over that contact (regardless of who threw the first punch), and be able to resort to shooting them if you are losing what we used to call in my neighborhood, a "fair one" (a fight with no weapons at all but your fists).

    People say the boy was acting suspicious...if you were 17 and saw some 250lb guy creeping behind you in the dark in a truck and then following you on foot while you are walking/running away only to still corner you, I'm sure the kid would be the one terrified and would feel HE needed to defend himself.

    IF the kid was indeed "winning the fair fight", it's a damn shame he knew how to fight.

    In these states basically it boils down to if you get into a fight with someone, and you are winning the fight, they can pull out a gun and kill you.

    If you're broadcasting a game, tell it the way it really is, but keep your opinions to yourself...! Peter Angelos

    raveninwoodlawn

  • Good, comprehensive article with references

    The Trayvon Martin Killing, Explained | Mother Jones

    http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/03/what-happened-trayvon-martin-explained

    motherjones.com

    BrotherAbstract

  • raveninwoodlawn said...

    I can see this guy getting off and Florida having to revise that law.

    It may leave too many loopholes.

    You should not be able to get off if you aggresively initiate contact with someone, get into a fight over that contact (regardless of who threw the first punch), and be able to resort to shooting them if you are losing what we used to call in my neighborhood, a "fair one" (a fight with no weapons at all but your fists).

    People say the boy was acting suspicious...if you were 17 and saw some 250lb guy creeping behind you in the dark in a truck and then following you on foot while you are walking/running away only to still corner you, I'm sure the kid would be the one terrified and would feel HE needed to defend himself.

    IF the kid was indeed "winning the fair fight", it's a damn shame he knew how to fight.

    In these states basically it boils down to if you get into a fight with someone, and you are winning the fight, they can pull out a gun and kill you.

    Agree 100%. Add to that the fact that Zimmerman was the one who iniated the physical contact when he shoved Trayvon and knocked the phone out of his hand.

    I don't think he was losing a fight and resorted to shooting him. The 911 call from a witness has Trayvon screaming for help for 15-20 seconds prior to being shot. You don't do that when you are winning the fair fight.

    Baldwin

  • raveninwoodlawn said...

    I can see this guy getting off and Florida having to revise that law.

    It may leave too many loopholes.

    You should not be able to get off if you aggresively initiate contact with someone, get into a fight over that contact (regardless of who threw the first punch), and be able to resort to shooting them if you are losing what we used to call in my neighborhood, a "fair one" (a fight with no weapons at all but your fists).

    People say the boy was acting suspicious...if you were 17 and saw some 250lb guy creeping behind you in the dark in a truck and then following you on foot while you are walking/running away only to still corner you, I'm sure the kid would be the one terrified and would feel HE needed to defend himself.

    IF the kid was indeed "winning the fair fight", it's a damn shame he knew how to fight.

    In these states basically it boils down to if you get into a fight with someone, and you are winning the fight, they can pull out a gun and kill you.

    I agree. I don't necessarily object to the stand your ground law - but the burdens to rely on it have to be more onerous.

    TerpPride

  • BrotherAbstract said...

    Good, comprehensive article with references

    Good lord.

    In that article...

    "This has led to some stunning verdicts in the state. In Tallahassee in 2008, two rival gangs engaged in a neighborhood shootout, and a 15-year-old African American male was killed in the crossfire. The three defendants all either were acquitted or had their cases dismissed, because the defense successfully argued they were defending themselves under the "stand your ground" law. The state attorney in Tallahassee, Willie Meggs, was beside himself. "Basically this law has put us in the posture that our citizens can go out into the streets and have a gun fight and the dead person is buried and the survivor of the gun fight is immune from prosecution," he said at the time."

    If you're broadcasting a game, tell it the way it really is, but keep your opinions to yourself...! Peter Angelos

    raveninwoodlawn

  • IT'S COMING RIGHT FOR US!

    attachment

    Baldwin

  • So you're the fuck sending me emails every day? Should've never signed that petition to bring McDonalds breakfast bagels to the west coast...

    TheGreenBastard

  • terps99 said...

    This shooting may not lead to a gun debate, but that law probably should. I'm pretty sure that law was passed based on some strong lobbying efforts of the NRA et al. There has been a movement by the gun lobby to overturn the common-law "duty to retreat" laws with "stand your ground" laws (although usually this is done in the context of the "castle doctrine" / home defense laws, where the gun lobby generally believes that you should be able to stand your ground instead of retreating if you reasonably can).

    So on one case of questionable judgement (which was reviewed by a court and found a proper adherence to the law), we need to revisit the law. I understand, BUT how about asking for the other side, ie how mmany cases occur in which inocents prevent harm by being armed?

    I grow weary of the single example being used as a determinative example as to what always happens, and then is further used to diminish the rights of the many, and in doing so add to the number of maimed and killed innocents. There are always unintended consequences of laws, so there must be an equity balance, and that occurs in a case by case basis in a court room. A mistake in judgement which may have occurred here is no reason to change a law.

    If you are arguing against the 'castle doctrine,' or for the incorporation of a "duty to retreat" as an abridgement of the castle doctrine in a home invasion, I challenge that conclusion. If you believe what you are saying, post a sign on your house that you will retreat if your home is invaded. How about the case I linked; there are many more!!!

    In the instant case, I would leave the right to retreat to the judge. He ruled in the case. Maybe you ought to argue his rationale rather then issue Brady talking points

    Oklahoma mom calling 911 asks if shooting an intruder is allowed - CNN

    Home alone with her 3-month-old son, Sarah Dawn McKinley of Blanchard, Oklahoma, said she decided to make a stand when two men tried to break into her home on New Year's Eve.McKinley, who had been

    articles.cnn.com

    tagterp

  • The school/school district still has not offered counseling for these kids. I heard his classmates/teachers on the radio and they are having a hard time dealing with this tragedy.

    This kid just wanted some Skittles, and now he is dead and in the ground and his killer is sitting at home.

    Layman ... Jake Layman!

    reeceg1

  • I'm having trouble seeing the difference (other than numbers) between this guy and the Army Sgt who offed 16 Afghanis.

    SATerp

  • tagterp said...

    I grow weary of the single example being used as a determinative example as to what always happens, and then is further used to diminish the rights of the many, and in doing so add to the number of maimed and killed innocents. There are always unintended consequences of laws, so there must be an equity balance, and that occurs in a case by case basis in a court room. A mistake in judgement which may have occurred here is no reason to change a law.

    If the law allows you to chase an unarmed person down and shoot them in "self defense" it needs to be changed.

    Baldwin

  • tagterp said...

    So on one case of questionable judgement (which was reviewed by a court and found a proper adherence to the law), we need to revisit the law. I understand, BUT how about asking for the other side, ie how mmany cases occur in which inocents prevent harm by being armed?

    I grow weary of the single example being used as a determinative example as to what always happens, and then is further used to diminish the rights of the many, and in doing so add to the number of maimed and killed innocents. There are always unintended consequences of laws, so there must be an equity balance, and that occurs in a case by case basis in a court room. A mistake in judgement which may have occurred here is no reason to change a law.

    If you are arguing against the 'castle doctrine,' or for the incorporation of a "duty to retreat" as an abridgement of the castle doctrine in a home invasion, I challenge that conclusion. If you believe what you are saying, post a sign on your house that you will retreat if your home is invaded. How about the case I linked; there are many more!!!

    In the instant case, I would leave the right to retreat to the judge. He ruled in the case. Maybe you ought to argue his rationale rather then issue Brady talking points

    Only its not a single example....check out some of the linked articles.

    BrotherAbstract

  • SATerp said...

    I'm having trouble seeing the difference (other than numbers) between this guy and the Army Sgt who offed 16 Afghanis.

    hopefully the law won't see a difference either.

    TerpPride

  • Baldwin said...

    If the law allows you to chase an unarmed person down and shoot them in "self defense" it needs to be changed.

    I seriously doubt that was the Legislative intent. I say impeach the judge.

    tagterp

  • BrotherAbstract said...

    Only its not a single example....check out some of the linked articles.

    Nor is mine, but I was not arguing about this case which by all standards is an egregious application of the law, but terp99's 'Bradyesque' comment about the 'castle doctrine' which is an entirely different set of circumstances.

    tagterp

  • Heh, spammer deleted so it looks like Baldwin is peppering me with emails.

    TheGreenBastard

  • TheGreenBastard said...

    Heh, spammer deleted so it looks like Baldwin is peppering me with emails.

    Not sure they were spamming, it was a link to the petition to have this asshole arrested...

    BrotherAbstract

  • BrotherAbstract said...

    Not sure they were spamming, it was a link to the petition to have this asshole arrested...

    It was the person's first ever post. Figure they're probably googling around about it and throwing that change.org link all over the internet. I really do get emails from those fucks every day. TOOTHPASTE THAT TASTES BAD, STAND UP AND FIGHT FOR YOUR RIGHTS AS AN AMERICAN AND CLICK ON OUR WEBSITE!!!

    TheGreenBastard

  • reeceg1 said...

    The school/school district still has not offered counseling for these kids. I heard his classmates/teachers on the radio and they are having a hard time dealing with this tragedy.

    This kid just wanted some Skittles, and now he is dead and in the ground and his killer is sitting at home playing XBOX or PS3.

    Omar, Chris and Snoop would love living in Florida.

    Come on out and get your whoopin!

    CaliforniaTerp

  • tagterp said...

    I seriously doubt that was the Legislative intent. I say impeach the judge.

    Me neither, but if he can use that law to get away with murder, shouldn't the law be modified to better fit the intent?

    Baldwin

  • lol that wasnt spam that was BOTB

    "WE WANT MORE WE WANT MORE girl is providing the rallying cry for the 2013 O's." ~dh2k3

    JDawgBBall9

Maryland
247Sports
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports