Does One Have A Right To Self Defense

[bshole]

America has a murder rate that is basically on a par with many 3rd world nations. There isn't single first world nation with a murder rate that even approaches America's. We do have a culture of extreme violence. We are just used to it.



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


Iraq's murder rate is 2.0 per 100,000 inhabitants
America's murder rate is 4.8
Japan's murder rate is 0.4
Germany's murder rate is 0.8
Canada's murder rate is 1.6

 

[poofyhairguy]

Life is therefore unequal and weighs unevenly to those with the power of firearms.

FIFY

 

[xj0hnx]

America has a murder rate that is basically on a par with many 3rd world nations. There isn't single first world nation with a murder rate that even approaches America's. We do have a culture of extreme violence. We are just used to it.



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


Iraq's murder rate is 2.0 per 100,000 inhabitants
America's murder rate is 4.8
Japan's murder rate is 0.4
Germany's murder rate is 0.8
Canada's murder rate is 1.6

And do you think that is because we have a lot of inanimate objects, or a lot of violent inner cities?

 

[Whiskey16]

FIFY

Do not misquote me. You are in error to change what I wrote:

US law, is therefore unequal and weighs unevenly to those with the power of firearms.

The acceptance of disproportionate use of force in the USA is relatively immoral and socially dangerous.

I see that you have interest nor care to address the fair points that I went further into detail with in my post....Unsurprising, as this is the P&N.

 

[Zebo]

Thank you, to follow that up:

As per this ruling, if one is confronted by another who is armed and returns your unseen death at the confrontation, the armed man gets the final and say for an unbalanced defencive version of events. Default impunity by having the willing means to kill.

US law, is therefore unequal and weighs unevenly to those with the power of firearms.

The acceptance of disproportionate use of force in the USA is relatively immoral and socially dangerous.

you have a distorted view. I've never seen anyone walk on self defense that wasnt justfied. You think they they just take zimmermans word? Naw evidence must support.

Beyond that what's your solution if someone is getting the hell beat out of them and cant retreat? Just die?

 

[Zebo]

America has a murder rate that is basically on a par with many 3rd world nations. There isn't single first world nation with a murder rate that even approaches America's. We do have a culture of extreme violence. We are just used to it.



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


Iraq's murder rate is 2.0 per 100,000 inhabitants
America's murder rate is 4.8
Japan's murder rate is 0.4
Germany's murder rate is 0.8
Canada's murder rate is 1.6

And switzerland has none hardly and have full auto machine guns in house. Provo utah has lower rates than most European capitals. What's your point?

It's culture not guns. Least if you have guns innocent/weak people have a chance. Besides you can kill many other ways petro attacks, bombs, knives etc. worst US school massacre didn't even involve guns at all. Banning wont' do anything.

 

[Fern]

Thank you, to follow that up:

"...Under the current law in many states, people threatened by armed people have few good options, because fighting back might create a license to kill.”

That armed person threatening someone is committing a crime under FL law. Unless they are doing it in necessary self-defense they can go to prison.

If you mean that starting a fight with a person you know to be armed is not a good option, I agree but it's not because of the law.

As per this ruling, if one is confronted by another who is armed and returns your unseen death at the confrontation, the armed man gets the final and say for an unbalanced defencive version of events. Default impunity by having the willing means to kill.

US law, is therefore unequal and weighs unevenly to those with the power of firearms.

The acceptance of disproportionate use of force in the USA is relatively immoral and socially dangerous.

I think people are drawing too many unfounded conclusions from this case.

At the most simple and correct level, the real point of what occurred in this trial is simply a lack of evidence in conjunction with the burden being on the prosecution. This is common. Every day in this country we have people who are killed, robbed or raped etc. yet no one is arrested. In many of these cases no one is arrested, not because the police don't know (or think they know) who did it but, because police prove can't it with evidence.

Z was beat up. This is indisputable.

T was not beat up. This is indisputable.

A witness saw T on top of G. A witness saw T on top of G. A 'tie' goes to the defense. This is because the prosecution has the burden of proof, not the defense.

No one saw who started the fight. I.e., no evidence (excluding G's testimony).

In short, the lack of evidence and the burden being on the prosecution means no conviction here. Period.

This case should not be interpreted to mean any armed person can start a fight, kill the other person and be free of prosecution.

What would have happened if Z wasn't beaten bloody? I believe he would now be in prison for life under a murder #2 conviction.

People can concoct far-fetched scenarios where an armed person murders someone but gets away by claiming self-defense. (And I mean merely regular self-defense laws.) But they better make sure there are no witnesses and no forensics, and so it rarely works. People actually try this. I've seen it here recently in my small town (he got life in prison IIRC) and it's been the subject of numerous movies and TV shows like CSI etc.

Finally, yes, guilty people do go free. Happens all the time. It may be because the killer is unknown, or can't be proven (lack of evidence). However, that is how our (and many other) justice systems work. Remember this quote:

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone's_formulation

^That is our system.

When one thinks they see a guilty man walk, it is the fool who clamors for disregarding the law or changing the whole system.

Fern

 

[poofyhairguy]

Do not misquote me. You are in error to change what I wrote:

I changed it to make my own comment, namely that you can do all the civil proselyting you want and at the end of the day the guy with the biggest gun wins.

I see that you have interest nor care to address the fair points that I went further into detail with in my post....

You are right, I am not addressing the "points" because I don't believe that if I even get attacked I should have to worry about not using "excessive force."

If me or my family ever feels threatened, I will use as much force as it takes to end the threat. If they try to kill me, I will kill them.

Your philosophy only works if the populace isn't armed to the teeth like Americans are and will always be.

 

[werepossum]

Do not misquote me. You are in error to change what I wrote:

I see that you have interest nor care to address the fair points that I went further into detail with in my post....Unsurprising, as this is the P&N.

Your post was nonsensical. Someone being beaten up, mugged or rape is already victimized by a disproportionate use of force, unless one subscribes to the idea that might makes right as long as no guns are involved.

As has been quoted in various forms: G-d made all men, but Samuel Colt made all men equal. There is no inherent right to brutalize others as long as you do not do so with a gun.

 

[Abwx]

Thank you, to follow that up:

As per this ruling, if one is confronted by another who is armed and returns your unseen death at the confrontation, the armed man gets the final and say for an unbalanced defencive version of events. Default impunity by having the willing means to kill.

US law, is therefore unequal and weighs unevenly to those with the power of firearms.

The acceptance of disproportionate use of force in the USA is relatively immoral and socially dangerous.

A real juridical analysis , far from the NRA shills ramblings....

 

[Abwx]

Culture of rights and the rule of law.

You really should stop speaking about subjects with which you are unfamiliar.

I own or have access to many guns.

I don't own my guns for self defense. I don't keep any guns ready for self defense. I don't carry any guns with me except to and from a range.

So where am I getting this power from?

Here only collectors have a lot of arms but most are disabled.

The possession of all this arsenal forcibly filll a need
like others have several cars but in my opinion passion
for arms is just passion for personal power , your discourse
about respect of law is senseless , to respect laws one doesnt
need weapons , truth is that it makes you feel that you can
actualy enforce your own laws , and not only when necessary.

 

[OverVolt]

You never know but what is sure is that if arms were
legal he would be 100% sure armed since he would be
100% sure that everybody is armed ,so being armed
yourself wont help you , rather the contrary.

There s far more people agressed and killed in the US
proportionately , so how could you say that legalization
of weapons allow better security.?.

Haha, crime spills over from the Mexico border from drug trade. There are city hot zones of gang crime, like DC, Chicago, Detroit, etc. Everywhere else is as safe as Europe. A breaking news story is a storm that knocked down 3 trees. You are twice as likely to be assaulted or raped in Europe actually.

 

[OverVolt]

Here only collectors have a lot of arms but most are disabled.

The possession of all this arsenal forcibly filll a need
like others have several cars but in my opinion passion
for arms is just passion for personal power , your discourse
about respect of law is senseless , to respect laws one doesnt
need weapons , truth is that it makes you feel that you can
actualy enforce your own laws , and not only when necessary.

Which country are you from?

 

[OverVolt]

America has a murder rate that is basically on a par with many 3rd world nations. There isn't single first world nation with a murder rate that even approaches America's. We do have a culture of extreme violence. We are just used to it.



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


Iraq's murder rate is 2.0 per 100,000 inhabitants
America's murder rate is 4.8
Japan's murder rate is 0.4
Germany's murder rate is 0.8
Canada's murder rate is 1.6

Geography really baffles you that much? Mexico's murder rate spills over the border. Pay attention to geography, the crime rate of a neighboring country highly correlates to that specific countries crime rate, look at Canada, or Europe core/periphery etc.

Also being an island seems to help the murder rate too. Less immigration conflicts I guess.

China probably lies about its statistics, like they do for almost all their statistics :awe:

 

[poofyhairguy]

opinion passion
for arms is just passion for personal power

This part makes sense.

I suck at fighting. Only got in a few fistfights and every time I got beat up. I own and practice with my guns partially to make up for this deficiency so i can defend myself or my family.

If I was in a country that limited arms, I would probably take hand to hand combat classes and have a baddass knife collection instead. Problem is all the classes in the world can't make up for a guy a foot taller than me with more training or desperation.

So I will fight for my right to bear arms, to own a gun.

 

[Abwx]

Which country are you from?

I live in France where murder rate is high but still
way below US numbers , at 1.1 per 100 000.

In my city we manage to reach the US rate providing
failed homicides are counted as well as road accidents
where a driver has been convicted of wrongdoings
that have either harmed or killed people , in wich case
it s considered as homicide or non willfull homicide if no one
was seriously injured.

 

[Abwx]

This part makes sense.

I suck at fighting. Only got in a few fistfights and every time I got beat up. I own and practice with my guns partially to make up for this deficiency so i can defend myself or my family.

If I was in a country that limited arms, I would probably take hand to hand combat classes and have a baddass knife collection instead. Problem is all the classes in the world can't make up for a guy a foot taller than me with more training or desperation.

So I will fight for my right to bear arms, to own a gun.

I pointed that lots of people will use the Zimerman/Martin
trial as a precedent that gives a licence to kill provided
they can implement the good scenario , no matter that
they are wrong or right , only the end count , so ultimately
i must admit that if i lived in the US i would have no other choice
than being armed myself as well given all the up to the teeth armed
burned heads hanging by there who hold arms for other matters
than simple defense.

 

[BoberFett]

I live in France where murder rate is high but still
way below US numbers , at 1.1 per 100 000.

In my city we manage to reach the US rate providing
failed homicides are counted as well as road accidents
where a driver has been convicted of wrongdoings
that have either harmed or killed people , in wich case
it s considered as homicide or non willfull homicide if no one
was seriously injured.

Oh, you mean the country that let Hitler waltz into Paris? Maybe if the Germans had people taking pot shots at soldiers from every window the occupation wouldn't have been so easy...

 

[Abwx]

Oh, you mean the country that let Hitler waltz into Paris? Maybe if the Germans had people taking pot shots at soldiers from every window the occupation wouldn't have been so easy...

Sorry to disapoint you even more , i m in east France ,
in the german speaking region of this country.....

Sieg Heil....

 

[piasabird]

If you beat a man up, you better be prepared for him or his friends to take revenge. All criminals end up dead eventually. Either that or they rot in jail. Is this your message to young black men that it is normally to be a thug and go around beating people up? Violence does not solve problems. Violence just causes more violence.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Sorry to disapoint you even more , i m in east France ,
in the german speaking region of this country.....

Sieg Heil....

Like where there are good rieslings?

 

[poofyhairguy]

I pointed that lots of people will use the Zimerman/Martin
trial as a precedent that gives a licence to kill provided
they can implement the good scenario , no matter that
they are wrong or right , only the end count , so ultimately
i must admit that if i lived in the US i would have no other choice
than being armed myself as well given all the up to the teeth armed
burned heads hanging by there who hold arms for other matters
than simple defense.

Exactly. That is why we like Zombie movies so much.

 

[Zorkorist]

The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, is all about self defense.

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

People need a reminder of the Bill of Rights. The first ten amendments to the constitution.

These are your inviolate rights, as far as law is concerned.

DO NOT GIVE THEM AWAY.

1st Protects freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press, as well as the right to assemble and petition the government September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791 Full text

2nd Protects the right to bear arms September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791 Full text

3rd Prohibits the forced quartering of soldiers during peacetime September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791 Full text

4th Prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets out requirements for search warrants based on probable cause September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791 Full text

5th Sets out rules for indictment by grand jury and eminent domain, protects the right to due process, and prohibits self-incrimination and double jeopardy September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791 Full text

6th Protects the right to a fair and speedy public trial by jury, including the rights to be notified of the accusations, to confront the accuser, to obtain witnesses and to retain counsel September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791 Full text

7th Provides for the right to trial by jury in certain civil cases, according to common law September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791 Full text

8th Prohibits excessive fines and excessive bail, as well as cruel and unusual punishment September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791 Full text

9th Protects rights not enumerated in the constitution September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791 Full text

10th Limits the powers of the federal government to those delegated to it by the Constitution

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.