Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Hey Ray, first of all I want to thank you for acknowledging that Zimmerman was in the wrong following Martin. You're the first person who supports the Zimmerman verdict I've encountered who can even admit that his hands were not dirty in this incident or like one person here believes "the jury determined him [Zimmerman] to be 100% innocent".Our law (as in most other states) permits the victim to use deadly force if it's believed that they (or others) are in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. That's the law.
Also in our state, you cannot initiate the confrontation. While armed, you must retreat from any possible situation where such violence may occur.
In the Zimmerman situation, he was wrong by following Martin. He was not actually chasing him. Martin ran first and Zimmerman had to exit his vehicle and run to keep up with him. After Martin easily outran Zimmerman, that ended that episode. Zimmerman stayed on the phone with dispatch for nearly another minute. It is clear on the recording of the call that Zimmerman stopped running when the dispatcher told him it was not necessary. Martin hid from Zimmerman until he was off the phone. It's unclear if Martin suspected he was on the phone with police. In any case, Martin came back to Zimmerman and attacked him. That started the confrontation.
Now, if Zimmerman attacked Martin first, Martin would have reserved the right to defend himself, but again, Martin was long gone and clearly out of danger if that's what he was actually thinking.
To put it another way, let's say I'm at the doughnut shop at the counter. The guy next to me drops his doughnut and it lands on my pants leaving chocolate on it. I get pissed off at the guy and tell him off because he didn't even apologize. He gets pissed off and leaves the doughnut shop. When I leave the doughnut shop 20 minutes later, he is eating for me outside in the parking lot and attacks me. It's irrelevant what took place in the doughnut shop. All that counts is that I am being attacked which if overpowered, allows me to use deadly force.
Your scenario, while I understand your point is not similar to what occured in the killing of Martin. Let me try one. If I'm walking to my car and it's dark & rainy out and my situation awareness is zero because I'm talking on my phone and someone jumps out of the bushes and grabs me, then my assumption is that this person not only means me harm but I'm in danger of emminent harm because they have already attacked. I don't think anyone would complain about the use of deadly force in that situation.
On the other hand, if I'm walking but happen to notice someone following me, my thought process will be pretty much the same - that I'm in danger of a possible attack it's just not emminent YET. In the first instance there is no apprehension because I wasn't aware of the person prior to the attack, in the second instance the apprehension begins once I become aware that I'm being stalked.
Now compare my awareness that someone is stalking me or following me if you will with your scenario of two guys saying "let's get him". Would I be within my lawful right to shoot someone because they're following me in a dark parking lot and eventually catch up to me and force a confrontation? What if those guys that you heard "let's get him" were not even referring to you or not meaning anything harmful? You would shoot them if they got too close to you?
In my opinion, neither of these scenarios are clear cut cases but my understanding of the law is that there has to be an emminent threat of grievious bodily harm or death, not just apprehension.
In states like mine, the presumption of innocence is with the victim. Our law states "If you believe." Okay, how would a prosecutor be able to prove what I believed at the time?
So two well built younger guys say "LETS' GET HIM!" and start charging towards me. The first thing I would do is get out of their path. If they altered their course to continue towards me, I pull out my gun. 99 times out of a hundred, the brandishing of a firearm stops most any attack. There are hundreds of local stories just like that if you have the time to fish them out. They seldom make national news.
So now, I tell police why I shot the two guys. It's reasonable to assume they were coming after me since I crossed the street to get away from them. It's clear they had intent on serious harm to me given the fact they continued their attack after I brandished my weapon.
No prosecutor could charge me with a crime because it's reasonable assumption these guys were on dope, or otherwise had some strong issues with me enough to do me harm. After all, whatever they wanted to do was worth risking their lives.
Admit it.......the gun would have made you shoot them.....it would have taken over your soul....forced you to aim it, and forced you to pull the trigger, even if they ran away...in fact, the gun would force you to hunt them down, and then kill them.....then, after the gun was finished, it would make you believe you had to do it......
Those guns...can't trust em for anything.....
They actually believe it too. I always ask them what if we took an upper-middle-class area of white people, created a law all homes must have a gun, what kind of difference it would make in crime? That usually shuts them up. Only then do they come to the realization it's not the gun--it's the people.
Yes....research shows more whites own guns but commit little crime.....fewer Blacks own guns, but commit more gun crime......Whites commit more suicide with guns though.......
It isn't race either, it is about fatherless homes.
Hey Ray, first of all I want to thank you for acknowledging that Zimmerman was in the wrong following Martin. You're the first person who supports the Zimmerman verdict I've encountered who can even admit that his hands were not dirty in this incident or like one person here believes "the jury determined him [Zimmerman] to be 100% innocent".
Your scenario, while I understand your point is not similar to what occured in the killing of Martin. Let me try one. If I'm walking to my car and it's dark & rainy out and my situation awareness is zero because I'm talking on my phone and someone jumps out of the bushes and grabs me, then my assumption is that this person not only means me harm but I'm in danger of emminent harm because they have already attacked. I don't think anyone would complain about the use of deadly force in that situation.
On the other hand, if I'm walking but happen to notice someone following me, my thought process will be pretty much the same - that I'm in danger of a possible attack it's just not emminent YET. In the first instance there is no apprehension because I wasn't aware of the person prior to the attack, in the second instance the apprehension begins once I become aware that I'm being stalked.
Now compare my awareness that someone is stalking me or following me if you will with your scenario of two guys saying "let's get him". Would I be within my lawful right to shoot someone because they're following me in a dark parking lot and eventually catch up to me and force a confrontation? What if those guys that you heard "let's get him" were not even referring to you or not meaning anything harmful? You would shoot them if they got too close to you?
In my opinion, neither of these scenarios are clear cut cases but my understanding of the law is that there has to be an emminent threat of grievious bodily harm or death, not just apprehension.
In states like mine, the presumption of innocence is with the victim. Our law states "If you believe." Okay, how would a prosecutor be able to prove what I believed at the time?
So two well built younger guys say "LETS' GET HIM!" and start charging towards me. The first thing I would do is get out of their path. If they altered their course to continue towards me, I pull out my gun. 99 times out of a hundred, the brandishing of a firearm stops most any attack. There are hundreds of local stories just like that if you have the time to fish them out. They seldom make national news.
So now, I tell police why I shot the two guys. It's reasonable to assume they were coming after me since I crossed the street to get away from them. It's clear they had intent on serious harm to me given the fact they continued their attack after I brandished my weapon.
No prosecutor could charge me with a crime because it's reasonable assumption these guys were on dope, or otherwise had some strong issues with me enough to do me harm. After all, whatever they wanted to do was worth risking their lives.
Admit it.......the gun would have made you shoot them.....it would have taken over your soul....forced you to aim it, and forced you to pull the trigger, even if they ran away...in fact, the gun would force you to hunt them down, and then kill them.....then, after the gun was finished, it would make you believe you had to do it......
Those guns...can't trust em for anything.....
They actually believe it too. I always ask them what if we took an upper-middle-class area of white people, created a law all homes must have a gun, what kind of difference it would make in crime? That usually shuts them up. Only then do they come to the realization it's not the gun--it's the people.
Yes....research shows more whites own guns but commit little crime.....fewer Blacks own guns, but commit more gun crime......Whites commit more suicide with guns though.......
It isn't race either, it is about fatherless homes.
Bullshit.
In states like mine, the presumption of innocence is with the victim. Our law states "If you believe." Okay, how would a prosecutor be able to prove what I believed at the time?
So two well built younger guys say "LETS' GET HIM!" and start charging towards me. The first thing I would do is get out of their path. If they altered their course to continue towards me, I pull out my gun. 99 times out of a hundred, the brandishing of a firearm stops most any attack. There are hundreds of local stories just like that if you have the time to fish them out. They seldom make national news.
So now, I tell police why I shot the two guys. It's reasonable to assume they were coming after me since I crossed the street to get away from them. It's clear they had intent on serious harm to me given the fact they continued their attack after I brandished my weapon.
No prosecutor could charge me with a crime because it's reasonable assumption these guys were on dope, or otherwise had some strong issues with me enough to do me harm. After all, whatever they wanted to do was worth risking their lives.
Admit it.......the gun would have made you shoot them.....it would have taken over your soul....forced you to aim it, and forced you to pull the trigger, even if they ran away...in fact, the gun would force you to hunt them down, and then kill them.....then, after the gun was finished, it would make you believe you had to do it......
Those guns...can't trust em for anything.....
They actually believe it too. I always ask them what if we took an upper-middle-class area of white people, created a law all homes must have a gun, what kind of difference it would make in crime? That usually shuts them up. Only then do they come to the realization it's not the gun--it's the people.
Yes....research shows more whites own guns but commit little crime.....fewer Blacks own guns, but commit more gun crime......Whites commit more suicide with guns though.......
It isn't race either, it is about fatherless homes.
Bullshit.
The internet calls, and raises your bullshit.....notice the letters are "CNN," not "NRA...." you doofus........
Gun deaths study points to state and racial differences - CNN
The research, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine on Monday, measures drastic differences in how black and white men experience fatal gun violence in the United States.
Between 2008 and 2016, black men were more likely to die by guns in homicides, whereas white men were more likely to die by guns in suicides, and for both groups, the rates of those types of death varied widely by state, according to the study.
---------
A Pew Research Center report published last year found that 48% of white men say they currently own a gun, compared with 24% each of white women and non-white men, and only 16% of non-white women.
Hey Ray, first of all I want to thank you for acknowledging that Zimmerman was in the wrong following Martin. You're the first person who supports the Zimmerman verdict I've encountered who can even admit that his hands were not dirty in this incident or like one person here believes "the jury determined him [Zimmerman] to be 100% innocent".
Your scenario, while I understand your point is not similar to what occured in the killing of Martin. Let me try one. If I'm walking to my car and it's dark & rainy out and my situation awareness is zero because I'm talking on my phone and someone jumps out of the bushes and grabs me, then my assumption is that this person not only means me harm but I'm in danger of emminent harm because they have already attacked. I don't think anyone would complain about the use of deadly force in that situation.
On the other hand, if I'm walking but happen to notice someone following me, my thought process will be pretty much the same - that I'm in danger of a possible attack it's just not emminent YET. In the first instance there is no apprehension because I wasn't aware of the person prior to the attack, in the second instance the apprehension begins once I become aware that I'm being stalked.
Now compare my awareness that someone is stalking me or following me if you will with your scenario of two guys saying "let's get him". Would I be within my lawful right to shoot someone because they're following me in a dark parking lot and eventually catch up to me and force a confrontation? What if those guys that you heard "let's get him" were not even referring to you or not meaning anything harmful? You would shoot them if they got too close to you?
In my opinion, neither of these scenarios are clear cut cases but my understanding of the law is that there has to be an emminent threat of grievious bodily harm or death, not just apprehension.
In states like mine, the presumption of innocence is with the victim. Our law states "If you believe." Okay, how would a prosecutor be able to prove what I believed at the time?
So two well built younger guys say "LETS' GET HIM!" and start charging towards me. The first thing I would do is get out of their path. If they altered their course to continue towards me, I pull out my gun. 99 times out of a hundred, the brandishing of a firearm stops most any attack. There are hundreds of local stories just like that if you have the time to fish them out. They seldom make national news.
So now, I tell police why I shot the two guys. It's reasonable to assume they were coming after me since I crossed the street to get away from them. It's clear they had intent on serious harm to me given the fact they continued their attack after I brandished my weapon.
No prosecutor could charge me with a crime because it's reasonable assumption these guys were on dope, or otherwise had some strong issues with me enough to do me harm. After all, whatever they wanted to do was worth risking their lives.
Admit it.......the gun would have made you shoot them.....it would have taken over your soul....forced you to aim it, and forced you to pull the trigger, even if they ran away...in fact, the gun would force you to hunt them down, and then kill them.....then, after the gun was finished, it would make you believe you had to do it......
Those guns...can't trust em for anything.....
They actually believe it too. I always ask them what if we took an upper-middle-class area of white people, created a law all homes must have a gun, what kind of difference it would make in crime? That usually shuts them up. Only then do they come to the realization it's not the gun--it's the people.
Yes....research shows more whites own guns but commit little crime.....fewer Blacks own guns, but commit more gun crime......Whites commit more suicide with guns though.......
It isn't race either, it is about fatherless homes.
Bullshit. If only your genocidal slave trading founders had been up to the task of performing their own labor. But they considered labor beneath them, much like your current grifter aristocracy.
Admit it.......the gun would have made you shoot them.....it would have taken over your soul....forced you to aim it, and forced you to pull the trigger, even if they ran away...in fact, the gun would force you to hunt them down, and then kill them.....then, after the gun was finished, it would make you believe you had to do it......
Those guns...can't trust em for anything.....
They actually believe it too. I always ask them what if we took an upper-middle-class area of white people, created a law all homes must have a gun, what kind of difference it would make in crime? That usually shuts them up. Only then do they come to the realization it's not the gun--it's the people.
Yes....research shows more whites own guns but commit little crime.....fewer Blacks own guns, but commit more gun crime......Whites commit more suicide with guns though.......
It isn't race either, it is about fatherless homes.
Bullshit.
The internet calls, and raises your bullshit.....notice the letters are "CNN," not "NRA...." you doofus........
Gun deaths study points to state and racial differences - CNN
The research, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine on Monday, measures drastic differences in how black and white men experience fatal gun violence in the United States.
Between 2008 and 2016, black men were more likely to die by guns in homicides, whereas white men were more likely to die by guns in suicides, and for both groups, the rates of those types of death varied widely by state, according to the study.
---------
A Pew Research Center report published last year found that 48% of white men say they currently own a gun, compared with 24% each of white women and non-white men, and only 16% of non-white women.
You want me to take the word of the fake news MSM? Schizophrenic. I used to be a member of the NRA, once they became a partisanshithead political PAC I quit them.
They actually believe it too. I always ask them what if we took an upper-middle-class area of white people, created a law all homes must have a gun, what kind of difference it would make in crime? That usually shuts them up. Only then do they come to the realization it's not the gun--it's the people.
Yes....research shows more whites own guns but commit little crime.....fewer Blacks own guns, but commit more gun crime......Whites commit more suicide with guns though.......
It isn't race either, it is about fatherless homes.
Bullshit.
The internet calls, and raises your bullshit.....notice the letters are "CNN," not "NRA...." you doofus........
Gun deaths study points to state and racial differences - CNN
The research, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine on Monday, measures drastic differences in how black and white men experience fatal gun violence in the United States.
Between 2008 and 2016, black men were more likely to die by guns in homicides, whereas white men were more likely to die by guns in suicides, and for both groups, the rates of those types of death varied widely by state, according to the study.
---------
A Pew Research Center report published last year found that 48% of white men say they currently own a gun, compared with 24% each of white women and non-white men, and only 16% of non-white women.
You want me to take the word of the fake news MSM? Schizophrenic. I used to be a member of the NRA, once they became a partisanshithead political PAC I quit them.
More......you really are stupid, and should think before you post....
Guns and race: The different worlds of black and white Americans
Gun deaths also vary dramatically by type. The vast majority (77 percent) of white gun deaths are suicides; less than one in five (19 percent) is a homicide. These figures are nearly opposite in the black population, where only 14 percent of gun deaths are suicides but 82 percent are homicides:
Yes....research shows more whites own guns but commit little crime.....fewer Blacks own guns, but commit more gun crime......Whites commit more suicide with guns though.......
It isn't race either, it is about fatherless homes.
Bullshit.
The internet calls, and raises your bullshit.....notice the letters are "CNN," not "NRA...." you doofus........
Gun deaths study points to state and racial differences - CNN
The research, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine on Monday, measures drastic differences in how black and white men experience fatal gun violence in the United States.
Between 2008 and 2016, black men were more likely to die by guns in homicides, whereas white men were more likely to die by guns in suicides, and for both groups, the rates of those types of death varied widely by state, according to the study.
---------
A Pew Research Center report published last year found that 48% of white men say they currently own a gun, compared with 24% each of white women and non-white men, and only 16% of non-white women.
You want me to take the word of the fake news MSM? Schizophrenic. I used to be a member of the NRA, once they became a partisanshithead political PAC I quit them.
More......you really are stupid, and should think before you post....
Guns and race: The different worlds of black and white Americans
Gun deaths also vary dramatically by type. The vast majority (77 percent) of white gun deaths are suicides; less than one in five (19 percent) is a homicide. These figures are nearly opposite in the black population, where only 14 percent of gun deaths are suicides but 82 percent are homicides:
Gun deaths in America will go right on as they have. Watch.
Hey Ray, first of all I want to thank you for acknowledging that Zimmerman was in the wrong following Martin. You're the first person who supports the Zimmerman verdict I've encountered who can even admit that his hands were not dirty in this incident or like one person here believes "the jury determined him [Zimmerman] to be 100% innocent".Our law (as in most other states) permits the victim to use deadly force if it's believed that they (or others) are in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. That's the law.
Also in our state, you cannot initiate the confrontation. While armed, you must retreat from any possible situation where such violence may occur.
In the Zimmerman situation, he was wrong by following Martin. He was not actually chasing him. Martin ran first and Zimmerman had to exit his vehicle and run to keep up with him. After Martin easily outran Zimmerman, that ended that episode. Zimmerman stayed on the phone with dispatch for nearly another minute. It is clear on the recording of the call that Zimmerman stopped running when the dispatcher told him it was not necessary. Martin hid from Zimmerman until he was off the phone. It's unclear if Martin suspected he was on the phone with police. In any case, Martin came back to Zimmerman and attacked him. That started the confrontation.
Now, if Zimmerman attacked Martin first, Martin would have reserved the right to defend himself, but again, Martin was long gone and clearly out of danger if that's what he was actually thinking.
To put it another way, let's say I'm at the doughnut shop at the counter. The guy next to me drops his doughnut and it lands on my pants leaving chocolate on it. I get pissed off at the guy and tell him off because he didn't even apologize. He gets pissed off and leaves the doughnut shop. When I leave the doughnut shop 20 minutes later, he is eating for me outside in the parking lot and attacks me. It's irrelevant what took place in the doughnut shop. All that counts is that I am being attacked which if overpowered, allows me to use deadly force.
Your scenario, while I understand your point is not similar to what occured in the killing of Martin. Let me try one. If I'm walking to my car and it's dark & rainy out and my situation awareness is zero because I'm talking on my phone and someone jumps out of the bushes and grabs me, then my assumption is that this person not only means me harm but I'm in danger of emminent harm because they have already attacked. I don't think anyone would complain about the use of deadly force in that situation.
On the other hand, if I'm walking but happen to notice someone following me, my thought process will be pretty much the same - that I'm in danger of a possible attack it's just not emminent YET. In the first instance there is no apprehension because I wasn't aware of the person prior to the attack, in the second instance the apprehension begins once I become aware that I'm being stalked.
Now compare my awareness that someone is stalking me or following me if you will with your scenario of two guys saying "let's get him". Would I be within my lawful right to shoot someone because they're following me in a dark parking lot and eventually catch up to me and force a confrontation? What if those guys that you heard "let's get him" were not even referring to you or not meaning anything harmful? You would shoot them if they got too close to you?
In my opinion, neither of these scenarios are clear cut cases but my understanding of the law is that there has to be an emminent threat of grievious bodily harm or death, not just apprehension.
In states like mine, the presumption of innocence is with the victim. Our law states "If you believe." Okay, how would a prosecutor be able to prove what I believed at the time?
So two well built younger guys say "LETS' GET HIM!" and start charging towards me. The first thing I would do is get out of their path. If they altered their course to continue towards me, I pull out my gun. 99 times out of a hundred, the brandishing of a firearm stops most any attack. There are hundreds of local stories just like that if you have the time to fish them out. They seldom make national news.
So now, I tell police why I shot the two guys. It's reasonable to assume they were coming after me since I crossed the street to get away from them. It's clear they had intent on serious harm to me given the fact they continued their attack after I brandished my weapon.
No prosecutor could charge me with a crime because it's reasonable assumption these guys were on dope, or otherwise had some strong issues with me enough to do me harm. After all, whatever they wanted to do was worth risking their lives.
Admit it.......the gun would have made you shoot them.....it would have taken over your soul....forced you to aim it, and forced you to pull the trigger, even if they ran away...in fact, the gun would force you to hunt them down, and then kill them.....then, after the gun was finished, it would make you believe you had to do it......
Those guns...can't trust em for anything.....
They actually believe it too. I always ask them what if we took an upper-middle-class area of white people, created a law all homes must have a gun, what kind of difference it would make in crime? That usually shuts them up. Only then do they come to the realization it's not the gun--it's the people.
Yes, America has always been a very violent nation and it's people are a violent people. Look at our wars, we cannot help ourselves. Our military is in 70% of the nations on the planet supporting 73% of the world's dictatorships. Please name another advanced post-industrial nation with our level of violence in society.
You can still make it about race though can't you.
In states like mine, the presumption of innocence is with the victim. Our law states "If you believe." Okay, how would a prosecutor be able to prove what I believed at the time?
So two well built younger guys say "LETS' GET HIM!" and start charging towards me. The first thing I would do is get out of their path. If they altered their course to continue towards me, I pull out my gun. 99 times out of a hundred, the brandishing of a firearm stops most any attack. There are hundreds of local stories just like that if you have the time to fish them out. They seldom make national news.
So now, I tell police why I shot the two guys. It's reasonable to assume they were coming after me since I crossed the street to get away from them. It's clear they had intent on serious harm to me given the fact they continued their attack after I brandished my weapon.
No prosecutor could charge me with a crime because it's reasonable assumption these guys were on dope, or otherwise had some strong issues with me enough to do me harm. After all, whatever they wanted to do was worth risking their lives.
Admit it.......the gun would have made you shoot them.....it would have taken over your soul....forced you to aim it, and forced you to pull the trigger, even if they ran away...in fact, the gun would force you to hunt them down, and then kill them.....then, after the gun was finished, it would make you believe you had to do it......
Those guns...can't trust em for anything.....
They actually believe it too. I always ask them what if we took an upper-middle-class area of white people, created a law all homes must have a gun, what kind of difference it would make in crime? That usually shuts them up. Only then do they come to the realization it's not the gun--it's the people.
Yes....research shows more whites own guns but commit little crime.....fewer Blacks own guns, but commit more gun crime......Whites commit more suicide with guns though.......
It isn't race either, it is about fatherless homes.
Bullshit. If only your genocidal slave trading founders had been up to the task of performing their own labor. But they considered labor beneath them, much like your current grifter aristocracy.
Hey, shitstain.......my ancestors didn't get here till after the Civil War...you dumb ass.......and before you criticize Americans....blame the Africans for the slave trade, and the Europeans for the slave trade.......and the majority of the slaves went to central and south America....blame them too....you are a really stupid human....
Hey Ray, first of all I want to thank you for acknowledging that Zimmerman was in the wrong following Martin. You're the first person who supports the Zimmerman verdict I've encountered who can even admit that his hands were not dirty in this incident or like one person here believes "the jury determined him [Zimmerman] to be 100% innocent".
Your scenario, while I understand your point is not similar to what occured in the killing of Martin. Let me try one. If I'm walking to my car and it's dark & rainy out and my situation awareness is zero because I'm talking on my phone and someone jumps out of the bushes and grabs me, then my assumption is that this person not only means me harm but I'm in danger of emminent harm because they have already attacked. I don't think anyone would complain about the use of deadly force in that situation.
On the other hand, if I'm walking but happen to notice someone following me, my thought process will be pretty much the same - that I'm in danger of a possible attack it's just not emminent YET. In the first instance there is no apprehension because I wasn't aware of the person prior to the attack, in the second instance the apprehension begins once I become aware that I'm being stalked.
Now compare my awareness that someone is stalking me or following me if you will with your scenario of two guys saying "let's get him". Would I be within my lawful right to shoot someone because they're following me in a dark parking lot and eventually catch up to me and force a confrontation? What if those guys that you heard "let's get him" were not even referring to you or not meaning anything harmful? You would shoot them if they got too close to you?
In my opinion, neither of these scenarios are clear cut cases but my understanding of the law is that there has to be an emminent threat of grievious bodily harm or death, not just apprehension.
In states like mine, the presumption of innocence is with the victim. Our law states "If you believe." Okay, how would a prosecutor be able to prove what I believed at the time?
So two well built younger guys say "LETS' GET HIM!" and start charging towards me. The first thing I would do is get out of their path. If they altered their course to continue towards me, I pull out my gun. 99 times out of a hundred, the brandishing of a firearm stops most any attack. There are hundreds of local stories just like that if you have the time to fish them out. They seldom make national news.
So now, I tell police why I shot the two guys. It's reasonable to assume they were coming after me since I crossed the street to get away from them. It's clear they had intent on serious harm to me given the fact they continued their attack after I brandished my weapon.
No prosecutor could charge me with a crime because it's reasonable assumption these guys were on dope, or otherwise had some strong issues with me enough to do me harm. After all, whatever they wanted to do was worth risking their lives.
Admit it.......the gun would have made you shoot them.....it would have taken over your soul....forced you to aim it, and forced you to pull the trigger, even if they ran away...in fact, the gun would force you to hunt them down, and then kill them.....then, after the gun was finished, it would make you believe you had to do it......
Those guns...can't trust em for anything.....
They actually believe it too. I always ask them what if we took an upper-middle-class area of white people, created a law all homes must have a gun, what kind of difference it would make in crime? That usually shuts them up. Only then do they come to the realization it's not the gun--it's the people.
Yes, America has always been a very violent nation and it's people are a violent people. Look at our wars, we cannot help ourselves. Our military is in 70% of the nations on the planet supporting 73% of the world's dictatorships. Please name another advanced post-industrial nation with our level of violence in society.
You can still make it about race though can't you.
Well just look at statistics to answer your question. I would hardly call us a violent country. We are the worlds police. It's not something we created, it pretty much formed all on it's own. Now if we don't want to be the worlds police, think of what countries have similar power to take our place.
Admit it.......the gun would have made you shoot them.....it would have taken over your soul....forced you to aim it, and forced you to pull the trigger, even if they ran away...in fact, the gun would force you to hunt them down, and then kill them.....then, after the gun was finished, it would make you believe you had to do it......
Those guns...can't trust em for anything.....
They actually believe it too. I always ask them what if we took an upper-middle-class area of white people, created a law all homes must have a gun, what kind of difference it would make in crime? That usually shuts them up. Only then do they come to the realization it's not the gun--it's the people.
Yes....research shows more whites own guns but commit little crime.....fewer Blacks own guns, but commit more gun crime......Whites commit more suicide with guns though.......
It isn't race either, it is about fatherless homes.
Bullshit. If only your genocidal slave trading founders had been up to the task of performing their own labor. But they considered labor beneath them, much like your current grifter aristocracy.
Hey, shitstain.......my ancestors didn't get here till after the Civil War...you dumb ass.......and before you criticize Americans....blame the Africans for the slave trade, and the Europeans for the slave trade.......and the majority of the slaves went to central and south America....blame them too....you are a really stupid human....
Not quite true.
While sugar plantations did use slaved in the Caribbean, slavery was not very profitable to not in great demand until the invention of the cotton gin made cotton so profitable in the US.
And the Civil War did not at all end slavery in the US, but only switched it to economic force instead of the whip.
Essentially economic slavery is still quite popular in the US, with massive tax breaks for "landlords", but none for poor renters. Everyone should be embarrassed that renters can not write off rent payments as a cost of doing business.
And no, Africans were not much involved in the slave trade. The closest you could get to that is to say Arabs from the Mideast.
Hey Ray, first of all I want to thank you for acknowledging that Zimmerman was in the wrong following Martin. You're the first person who supports the Zimmerman verdict I've encountered who can even admit that his hands were not dirty in this incident or like one person here believes "the jury determined him [Zimmerman] to be 100% innocent".Hey Ray, sorry I misspoke in my last comment. I was thinking of one thing and writing another.I couldn't disagree more with your statement but it has not escaped my attention how you crafted this scenario in a manner which justifies in your mind that you would have the right to use deadly force against these two individuals even without knowing what was meant by "let's get him" yet when it comes to Martin who knew he was being followed by Zimmerman and was eventually confronted by him, I've yet to hear any of you mention that Martin had cause for concern or the right to attempt to defend his life even if he was not armed. And you've apparently have forgotten the elements required in order to prevail in a self-defense claim, those being
(1) an unprovoked attack,
(2) which threatens imminent injury or death, and
(3) an objectively reasonable degree of force, used in response to
(4) an objectively reasonable fear of injury or death.
There is a theory in law that's called but-for. In other words, but for the actions of the defendant (Zimmerman), the resultant harm would have never occurred (death of Martin) especially since ALL of his assumptions about Martin were incorrect.
I hope the defendants countersue his ass and win and then attach everything he owns and/or acquires in the future to pay off the judgment. And that he and his attorney are sanctioned for filing such a frivilous series of lawsuits.
This is what I was referring to - Ability, Opportunity & Jeopardy. Some include also Preclusion
Step One—The Central Ideas: Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy, and Preclusion
The use of lethal force that can end in homicide is justified in the situation of immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent. — Massad Ayoob
That statement by Mr. Ayoob, one of the premier authorities on these matters, is a succinct summary of the basic elements of any justifiable use of force in self-defense. Essentially, it is very simple: In order to determine justifiability, the courts want to know that you had to do what you did. Since “had to” is a pretty subjective judgment, it is legally defined, usually in the following way:
Ability
Your attacker must have the ability—the physical, practical ability—to cause you harm. Common sense applies here, as does context. A gun gives your attacker ability (lethal ability, in fact); a knife gives ability as well. Indeed, most weapons qualify, all the way down to glass bottles, baseball bats, and screwdrivers. While the latter are not designed as weapons, if they are applied as such, they can certainly kill you just as dead.
Other “ability” considerations include disparity in size or physical power between you and your attacker—a very large man versus a very small man, a strong man versus a cripple, a trained fighter versus a bookworm, a man versus a woman, all can apply. And don’t forget disparity in numbers—four men attacking one can very easily kill or cripple, unless that one is a Hollywood action hero.
Most of the above are valid lethal force scenarios, but non-lethal force uses the same standard. Just about anyone can punch you and break your nose, or break your arm, or bruise your stomach.
In short, common sense is a more or less effective guide on this point. The important question is simply whether, as far as you know, the attacker has the ability to harm you—kill or maim you, if you respond with lethal force, or lesser degrees of danger for equivalently lesser uses of force.
Opportunity
Although opportunity can be viewed as a subset of ability, it is an equally important criterion. Basically, while your attacker may very well have the ability to cause you harm, it means nothing unless he also has the opportunity to do so—right here and right now. After all, there are probably countless criminals in the world who “could” kill you and might do so, given the chance; but they aren’t standing in front of you at this moment, so they don’t have that opportunity.
The biggest consideration here is range or proximity. Although a man with a gun is considered dangerous at any reasonable distance, a man with a knife standing 300 feet away is not, simply because he cannot stab you from that far away. Yet there is another factor, as well. If he were standing mere yards away, he still probably couldn’t reach you with his knife, but because it would only take him moments to approach you and change that, he would still be considered dangerous. A common police standard is to assume that a knife-wielding assailant is capable of covering 21 feet and striking with the blade in 1.5 seconds. Mull on that time span.
Some other considerations may apply when it comes to Opportunity. For instance, is a knife-wielding assailant behind a locked door a threat? Probably not. Therefore, if you were to shoot him through the door, that would not be justifiable. On the other hand, if he started—successfully—breaking the door down, then he would promptly become dangerous again. Again, use common sense.
Jeopardy
The most subjective factor of the AOJP analysis is the jeopardy requirement, sometimes called “imminent jeopardy.” This criterion requires that, in your specific situation, a “reasonable and prudent” person would have believed himself to be in immediate danger.
In other words, jeopardy is what distinguishes between a potentially dangerous situation and one that is actually dangerous. Hundreds of times every day, you walk by people who could punch or stab or shoot you. The reason you aren’t “defending” yourself against them is because you have no reason to think that they are actually about to attack you. (Why would they?)
On the other hand, if someone screams a threat and points a gun at you, any sane person would expect that behavior to indicate an intent to cause you harm.
It’s important to recognize that you cannot actually know this person’s intent; you are not a mind reader. All you can judge is his outward appearance and demeanor, which, in that case, are consistent with harmful intent. If it turns out that he was joking, or lying, or the gun was fake, or he wouldn’t actually have pulled the trigger, nothing changes, because you could not have known those things.
The other important qualifier to remember is that the jeopardy must be immediate. A general threat to your well-being in the distant future is meaningless, but “I’m gonna kill you right now!” is meaningful.
Finally, it’s essential to understand that the “immediate jeopardy” condition can go away at the drop of a hat. On the one hand, if you are attacked, beaten, and left lying in an alley, you are not justified in shooting your attacker in the back as he walks away, because he will have ceased to be a threat. On the other hand, if he turns around and comes back for more, then the immediate jeopardy resumes. Jeopardy can cease suddenly and unexpectedly if your attacker surrenders or clearly ceases to be a threat (if you knock him unconscious, for instance, or he tries to run), and continuing to use force in such situations can change your action from legal self-defense to illegal battery in moments.
Preclusion
Preclusion is not so much an individual consideration as it is an all-encompassing lens through which to view your actions. More complex than the others, it is nevertheless just as important. It is the idea that, whatever the situation, you are expected to use force only as a last resort—that is, only when the circumstances preclude all other options.
In other words, even when the ability, opportunity, and jeopardy criteria are satisfied, and knowing that you must clearly do something to protect yourself, the use of force, particularly lethal force, may only be that “something” if you have no other safe options.
The word “safe” is key there, because at no time does the law ever require you to choose an action that endangers yourself. If you can run away or retreat, you should, but if doing so would put you in harm’s way, you are not required to do so.
Preclusion is the factor that is missing in most self-defense arguments, and thus the reason most fail. You must remember that you bear the burden of proof; until you prove otherwise, the law merely sees two equal citizens in a dispute. You can say, “He tried to hit me,” but then the police and the courts will ask, “Why didn’t you _____?” You must have no options to offer to fill in that blank—there must have been no other courses of action you could have taken to maintain your safety except the use of force. Otherwise, you’re just fighting because you want to, and that’s a crime.
Does the Preclusion standard mean that an ultimatum like “give me your money or I’ll hurt you” requires you to, well, give him your money? Unless you honestly believe that he may hurt you anyway, yes. The law values “life and limb” above property. Or you can refuse, but you may not respond with a fist. He’s giving you a choice, which, by definition, means that you still have options other than force.
The point is simply that you must exercise self-restraint to the greatest extent possible. One vital aspect of this requirement concerns the appropriateness or degree of the force you employ, or how well suited your response is to the threat itself. If a man punches you, you probably cannot justifiably shoot him, because that’s a lethal response to a non-lethal attack. If a three-year-old punches you, you probably cannot do anything at all. If, on the other hand, a 300-pound
boxer punches you, you may be justified in responding with deadly force, because his fists can be deadly as well.
Always remember:
- The threat must be current, immediate, and unavoidable.
- Your level of force must be appropriate to the threat.
- Your use of force must stop when the threat ceases.
If at any point you smudge the first, exceed the second, or forget the third, you are running the risk of a criminal indictment—and if the results are glaring (e.g., you killed him), it’s nearly certain.
Knock your attacker over—then keep stomping on him while he’s down and not moving? Bad. Pull a knife and slash—and keep slashing when your assailant pulls away? Uh-oh; now you’re not only breaking the rules, you’re leaving “defensive wounds,” a signature of cuts and marks which forensics experts will use to prove that he was an unwilling victim.
UseofForce.us: AOJP
Our law (as in most other states) permits the victim to use deadly force if it's believed that they (or others) are in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. That's the law.
Also in our state, you cannot initiate the confrontation. While armed, you must retreat from any possible situation where such violence may occur.
In the Zimmerman situation, he was wrong by following Martin. He was not actually chasing him. Martin ran first and Zimmerman had to exit his vehicle and run to keep up with him. After Martin easily outran Zimmerman, that ended that episode. Zimmerman stayed on the phone with dispatch for nearly another minute. It is clear on the recording of the call that Zimmerman stopped running when the dispatcher told him it was not necessary. Martin hid from Zimmerman until he was off the phone. It's unclear if Martin suspected he was on the phone with police. In any case, Martin came back to Zimmerman and attacked him. That started the confrontation.
Now, if Zimmerman attacked Martin first, Martin would have reserved the right to defend himself, but again, Martin was long gone and clearly out of danger if that's what he was actually thinking.
To put it another way, let's say I'm at the doughnut shop at the counter. The guy next to me drops his doughnut and it lands on my pants leaving chocolate on it. I get pissed off at the guy and tell him off because he didn't even apologize. He gets pissed off and leaves the doughnut shop. When I leave the doughnut shop 20 minutes later, he is eating for me outside in the parking lot and attacks me. It's irrelevant what took place in the doughnut shop. All that counts is that I am being attacked which if overpowered, allows me to use deadly force.
Your scenario, while I understand your point is not similar to what occured in the killing of Martin. Let me try one. If I'm walking to my car and it's dark & rainy out and my situation awareness is zero because I'm talking on my phone and someone jumps out of the bushes and grabs me, then my assumption is that this person not only means me harm but I'm in danger of emminent harm because they have already attacked. I don't think anyone would complain about the use of deadly force in that situation.
On the other hand, if I'm walking but happen to notice someone following me, my thought process will be pretty much the same - that I'm in danger of a possible attack it's just not emminent YET. In the first instance there is no apprehension because I wasn't aware of the person prior to the attack, in the second instance the apprehension begins once I become aware that I'm being stalked.
Now compare my awareness that someone is stalking me or following me if you will with your scenario of two guys saying "let's get him". Would I be within my lawful right to shoot someone because they're following me in a dark parking lot and eventually catch up to me and force a confrontation? What if those guys that you heard "let's get him" were not even referring to you or not meaning anything harmful? You would shoot them if they got too close to you?
In my opinion, neither of these scenarios are clear cut cases but my understanding of the law is that there has to be an emminent threat of grievious bodily harm or death, not just apprehension.
In states like mine, the presumption of innocence is with the victim. Our law states "If you believe." Okay, how would a prosecutor be able to prove what I believed at the time?
So two well built younger guys say "LETS' GET HIM!" and start charging towards me. The first thing I would do is get out of their path. If they altered their course to continue towards me, I pull out my gun. 99 times out of a hundred, the brandishing of a firearm stops most any attack. There are hundreds of local stories just like that if you have the time to fish them out. They seldom make national news.
So now, I tell police why I shot the two guys. It's reasonable to assume they were coming after me since I crossed the street to get away from them. It's clear they had intent on serious harm to me given the fact they continued their attack after I brandished my weapon.
No prosecutor could charge me with a crime because it's reasonable assumption these guys were on dope, or otherwise had some strong issues with me enough to do me harm. After all, whatever they wanted to do was worth risking their lives.
If our "legal" system can turn a blind eye to our aristocracy being involved in the patronage of Epstein's and Maxwell's (who is still footloose and fancy free) child sex trafficking operation for decades and the reality that we have not had a constitutional war since WWII, I'm sure things can be massaged "legally" dependent upon who is involved and how they can be painted.
To your point on "if you believe", same for, "but I was scared so I get to murder". Mindreading required by all. Bullshit. If you think you're unprotectable in America you're signaling you're a white guy and your privilege is showing.
Hey Ray, first of all I want to thank you for acknowledging that Zimmerman was in the wrong following Martin. You're the first person who supports the Zimmerman verdict I've encountered who can even admit that his hands were not dirty in this incident or like one person here believes "the jury determined him [Zimmerman] to be 100% innocent".
Your scenario, while I understand your point is not similar to what occured in the killing of Martin. Let me try one. If I'm walking to my car and it's dark & rainy out and my situation awareness is zero because I'm talking on my phone and someone jumps out of the bushes and grabs me, then my assumption is that this person not only means me harm but I'm in danger of emminent harm because they have already attacked. I don't think anyone would complain about the use of deadly force in that situation.
On the other hand, if I'm walking but happen to notice someone following me, my thought process will be pretty much the same - that I'm in danger of a possible attack it's just not emminent YET. In the first instance there is no apprehension because I wasn't aware of the person prior to the attack, in the second instance the apprehension begins once I become aware that I'm being stalked.
Now compare my awareness that someone is stalking me or following me if you will with your scenario of two guys saying "let's get him". Would I be within my lawful right to shoot someone because they're following me in a dark parking lot and eventually catch up to me and force a confrontation? What if those guys that you heard "let's get him" were not even referring to you or not meaning anything harmful? You would shoot them if they got too close to you?
In my opinion, neither of these scenarios are clear cut cases but my understanding of the law is that there has to be an emminent threat of grievious bodily harm or death, not just apprehension.
In states like mine, the presumption of innocence is with the victim. Our law states "If you believe." Okay, how would a prosecutor be able to prove what I believed at the time?
So two well built younger guys say "LETS' GET HIM!" and start charging towards me. The first thing I would do is get out of their path. If they altered their course to continue towards me, I pull out my gun. 99 times out of a hundred, the brandishing of a firearm stops most any attack. There are hundreds of local stories just like that if you have the time to fish them out. They seldom make national news.
So now, I tell police why I shot the two guys. It's reasonable to assume they were coming after me since I crossed the street to get away from them. It's clear they had intent on serious harm to me given the fact they continued their attack after I brandished my weapon.
No prosecutor could charge me with a crime because it's reasonable assumption these guys were on dope, or otherwise had some strong issues with me enough to do me harm. After all, whatever they wanted to do was worth risking their lives.
Admit it.......the gun would have made you shoot them.....it would have taken over your soul....forced you to aim it, and forced you to pull the trigger, even if they ran away...in fact, the gun would force you to hunt them down, and then kill them.....then, after the gun was finished, it would make you believe you had to do it......
Those guns...can't trust em for anything.....
They actually believe it too. I always ask them what if we took an upper-middle-class area of white people, created a law all homes must have a gun, what kind of difference it would make in crime? That usually shuts them up. Only then do they come to the realization it's not the gun--it's the people.
Yes, America has always been a very violent nation and it's people are a violent people. Look at our wars, we cannot help ourselves. Our military is in 70% of the nations on the planet supporting 73% of the world's dictatorships. Please name another advanced post-industrial nation with our level of violence in society.
You can still make it about race though can't you.
Well just look at statistics to answer your question. I would hardly call us a violent country. We are the worlds police. It's not something we created, it pretty much formed all on it's own. Now if we don't want to be the worlds police, think of what countries have similar power to take our place.
Admit it.......the gun would have made you shoot them.....it would have taken over your soul....forced you to aim it, and forced you to pull the trigger, even if they ran away...in fact, the gun would force you to hunt them down, and then kill them.....then, after the gun was finished, it would make you believe you had to do it......
Those guns...can't trust em for anything.....
They actually believe it too. I always ask them what if we took an upper-middle-class area of white people, created a law all homes must have a gun, what kind of difference it would make in crime? That usually shuts them up. Only then do they come to the realization it's not the gun--it's the people.
Yes....research shows more whites own guns but commit little crime.....fewer Blacks own guns, but commit more gun crime......Whites commit more suicide with guns though.......
It isn't race either, it is about fatherless homes.
Bullshit. If only your genocidal slave trading founders had been up to the task of performing their own labor. But they considered labor beneath them, much like your current grifter aristocracy.
Hey, shitstain.......my ancestors didn't get here till after the Civil War...you dumb ass.......and before you criticize Americans....blame the Africans for the slave trade, and the Europeans for the slave trade.......and the majority of the slaves went to central and south America....blame them too....you are a really stupid human....
Not quite true.
While sugar plantations did use slaved in the Caribbean, slavery was not very profitable to not in great demand until the invention of the cotton gin made cotton so profitable in the US.
And the Civil War did not at all end slavery in the US, but only switched it to economic force instead of the whip.
Essentially economic slavery is still quite popular in the US, with massive tax breaks for "landlords", but none for poor renters. Everyone should be embarrassed that renters can not write off rent payments as a cost of doing business.
And no, Africans were not much involved in the slave trade. The closest you could get to that is to say Arabs from the Mideast.
They actually believe it too. I always ask them what if we took an upper-middle-class area of white people, created a law all homes must have a gun, what kind of difference it would make in crime? That usually shuts them up. Only then do they come to the realization it's not the gun--it's the people.
Yes....research shows more whites own guns but commit little crime.....fewer Blacks own guns, but commit more gun crime......Whites commit more suicide with guns though.......
It isn't race either, it is about fatherless homes.
Bullshit. If only your genocidal slave trading founders had been up to the task of performing their own labor. But they considered labor beneath them, much like your current grifter aristocracy.
Hey, shitstain.......my ancestors didn't get here till after the Civil War...you dumb ass.......and before you criticize Americans....blame the Africans for the slave trade, and the Europeans for the slave trade.......and the majority of the slaves went to central and south America....blame them too....you are a really stupid human....
Not quite true.
While sugar plantations did use slaved in the Caribbean, slavery was not very profitable to not in great demand until the invention of the cotton gin made cotton so profitable in the US.
And the Civil War did not at all end slavery in the US, but only switched it to economic force instead of the whip.
Essentially economic slavery is still quite popular in the US, with massive tax breaks for "landlords", but none for poor renters. Everyone should be embarrassed that renters can not write off rent payments as a cost of doing business.
And no, Africans were not much involved in the slave trade. The closest you could get to that is to say Arabs from the Mideast.
Wow...another dumb person posting....
More Slaves were shipped to south America and the caribbean...that is a fact.
Slavery ended.......when the Republicans killed enough democrats to make them give up their slaves....
Economic slavery is a joke that you guys keep telling yourselves because you have reality dyslexia.
Moron...Africans drove the slave Trade.......... and the Europeans bought the slaves and sent them to the new world....
Moron....
Slavery in the Americas | Slavery and Remembrance
Only about 6 percent of all Africans shipped across the Atlantic were taken to North America. The largest numbers went to Brazil and to the Caribbean.
-------
The newly founded United States was home to 700,000 enslaved people (one million lived and toiled in Brazil at the same time).
------------
But wherever sugar dominated, enslaved populations tended to increase only from the importations of Africans. As planters converted more land to sugar cultivation, they sought more African laborers. Yet the higher proportion of Africans, the worse the levels of sickness and death (a clear link to the trauma of enslavement and the Middle Passage). In addition, work in the sugar fields, where men tended to outnumber women, was severely taxing and general health was worse than in other slave work.
Yes....research shows more whites own guns but commit little crime.....fewer Blacks own guns, but commit more gun crime......Whites commit more suicide with guns though.......
It isn't race either, it is about fatherless homes.
Bullshit.
The internet calls, and raises your bullshit.....notice the letters are "CNN," not "NRA...." you doofus........
Gun deaths study points to state and racial differences - CNN
The research, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine on Monday, measures drastic differences in how black and white men experience fatal gun violence in the United States.
Between 2008 and 2016, black men were more likely to die by guns in homicides, whereas white men were more likely to die by guns in suicides, and for both groups, the rates of those types of death varied widely by state, according to the study.
---------
A Pew Research Center report published last year found that 48% of white men say they currently own a gun, compared with 24% each of white women and non-white men, and only 16% of non-white women.
You want me to take the word of the fake news MSM? Schizophrenic. I used to be a member of the NRA, once they became a partisanshithead political PAC I quit them.
More......you really are stupid, and should think before you post....
Guns and race: The different worlds of black and white Americans
Gun deaths also vary dramatically by type. The vast majority (77 percent) of white gun deaths are suicides; less than one in five (19 percent) is a homicide. These figures are nearly opposite in the black population, where only 14 percent of gun deaths are suicides but 82 percent are homicides:
Gun deaths in America will go right on as they have. Watch.
They actually believe it too. I always ask them what if we took an upper-middle-class area of white people, created a law all homes must have a gun, what kind of difference it would make in crime? That usually shuts them up. Only then do they come to the realization it's not the gun--it's the people.
Yes....research shows more whites own guns but commit little crime.....fewer Blacks own guns, but commit more gun crime......Whites commit more suicide with guns though.......
It isn't race either, it is about fatherless homes.
Bullshit. If only your genocidal slave trading founders had been up to the task of performing their own labor. But they considered labor beneath them, much like your current grifter aristocracy.
Hey, shitstain.......my ancestors didn't get here till after the Civil War...you dumb ass.......and before you criticize Americans....blame the Africans for the slave trade, and the Europeans for the slave trade.......and the majority of the slaves went to central and south America....blame them too....you are a really stupid human....
Not quite true.
While sugar plantations did use slaved in the Caribbean, slavery was not very profitable to not in great demand until the invention of the cotton gin made cotton so profitable in the US.
And the Civil War did not at all end slavery in the US, but only switched it to economic force instead of the whip.
Essentially economic slavery is still quite popular in the US, with massive tax breaks for "landlords", but none for poor renters. Everyone should be embarrassed that renters can not write off rent payments as a cost of doing business.
And no, Africans were not much involved in the slave trade. The closest you could get to that is to say Arabs from the Mideast.
As a landlord myself, could you tell me about all these tax breaks I'm supposed to be getting? Because apparently the CPA that does my taxes can't seem to find them.
Bullshit.
The internet calls, and raises your bullshit.....notice the letters are "CNN," not "NRA...." you doofus........
Gun deaths study points to state and racial differences - CNN
The research, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine on Monday, measures drastic differences in how black and white men experience fatal gun violence in the United States.
Between 2008 and 2016, black men were more likely to die by guns in homicides, whereas white men were more likely to die by guns in suicides, and for both groups, the rates of those types of death varied widely by state, according to the study.
---------
A Pew Research Center report published last year found that 48% of white men say they currently own a gun, compared with 24% each of white women and non-white men, and only 16% of non-white women.
You want me to take the word of the fake news MSM? Schizophrenic. I used to be a member of the NRA, once they became a partisanshithead political PAC I quit them.
More......you really are stupid, and should think before you post....
Guns and race: The different worlds of black and white Americans
Gun deaths also vary dramatically by type. The vast majority (77 percent) of white gun deaths are suicides; less than one in five (19 percent) is a homicide. These figures are nearly opposite in the black population, where only 14 percent of gun deaths are suicides but 82 percent are homicides:
Gun deaths in America will go right on as they have. Watch.
Gun deaths have been on a steady decline since Prohibition was ended.
Hey Ray, first of all I want to thank you for acknowledging that Zimmerman was in the wrong following Martin. You're the first person who supports the Zimmerman verdict I've encountered who can even admit that his hands were not dirty in this incident or like one person here believes "the jury determined him [Zimmerman] to be 100% innocent".
Your scenario, while I understand your point is not similar to what occured in the killing of Martin. Let me try one. If I'm walking to my car and it's dark & rainy out and my situation awareness is zero because I'm talking on my phone and someone jumps out of the bushes and grabs me, then my assumption is that this person not only means me harm but I'm in danger of emminent harm because they have already attacked. I don't think anyone would complain about the use of deadly force in that situation.
On the other hand, if I'm walking but happen to notice someone following me, my thought process will be pretty much the same - that I'm in danger of a possible attack it's just not emminent YET. In the first instance there is no apprehension because I wasn't aware of the person prior to the attack, in the second instance the apprehension begins once I become aware that I'm being stalked.
Now compare my awareness that someone is stalking me or following me if you will with your scenario of two guys saying "let's get him". Would I be within my lawful right to shoot someone because they're following me in a dark parking lot and eventually catch up to me and force a confrontation? What if those guys that you heard "let's get him" were not even referring to you or not meaning anything harmful? You would shoot them if they got too close to you?
In my opinion, neither of these scenarios are clear cut cases but my understanding of the law is that there has to be an emminent threat of grievious bodily harm or death, not just apprehension.
In states like mine, the presumption of innocence is with the victim. Our law states "If you believe." Okay, how would a prosecutor be able to prove what I believed at the time?
So two well built younger guys say "LETS' GET HIM!" and start charging towards me. The first thing I would do is get out of their path. If they altered their course to continue towards me, I pull out my gun. 99 times out of a hundred, the brandishing of a firearm stops most any attack. There are hundreds of local stories just like that if you have the time to fish them out. They seldom make national news.
So now, I tell police why I shot the two guys. It's reasonable to assume they were coming after me since I crossed the street to get away from them. It's clear they had intent on serious harm to me given the fact they continued their attack after I brandished my weapon.
No prosecutor could charge me with a crime because it's reasonable assumption these guys were on dope, or otherwise had some strong issues with me enough to do me harm. After all, whatever they wanted to do was worth risking their lives.
Admit it.......the gun would have made you shoot them.....it would have taken over your soul....forced you to aim it, and forced you to pull the trigger, even if they ran away...in fact, the gun would force you to hunt them down, and then kill them.....then, after the gun was finished, it would make you believe you had to do it......
Those guns...can't trust em for anything.....
They actually believe it too. I always ask them what if we took an upper-middle-class area of white people, created a law all homes must have a gun, what kind of difference it would make in crime? That usually shuts them up. Only then do they come to the realization it's not the gun--it's the people.
Negroes should fall down on their knees and thanik God they were brought to America where they led long lives, had lots of children, were well housed, had good food and enjoyed a good life.
Contrast that to what they had in the hell hole called friggin afreeeka. where they had very short lives beset with disease, attacks by wild animals and constant warfare and eventual capture by african chiefs who sold them into slavery.
Plantatations of that day requred a lot of cheap labor.....similar to whats happening now with illegal mexicans who have replaced the lazy negroes as our new servant class. Yes rich people like to have servants...one of the rewards of bering rich. Always been like that. Get over it, get off welfare and get a job. Or.....if you hate America so much take a trip to africa and see if you like it better over dere.......bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa such morons we see on this thread.
Yes....research shows more whites own guns but commit little crime.....fewer Blacks own guns, but commit more gun crime......Whites commit more suicide with guns though.......
It isn't race either, it is about fatherless homes.
Bullshit. If only your genocidal slave trading founders had been up to the task of performing their own labor. But they considered labor beneath them, much like your current grifter aristocracy.
Yes....research shows more whites own guns but commit little crime.....fewer Blacks own guns, but commit more gun crime......Whites commit more suicide with guns though.......
It isn't race either, it is about fatherless homes.
Bullshit. If only your genocidal slave trading founders had been up to the task of performing their own labor. But they considered labor beneath them, much like your current grifter aristocracy.
Hey, shitstain.......my ancestors didn't get here till after the Civil War...you dumb ass.......and before you criticize Americans....blame the Africans for the slave trade, and the Europeans for the slave trade.......and the majority of the slaves went to central and south America....blame them too....you are a really stupid human....
Not quite true.
While sugar plantations did use slaved in the Caribbean, slavery was not very profitable to not in great demand until the invention of the cotton gin made cotton so profitable in the US.
And the Civil War did not at all end slavery in the US, but only switched it to economic force instead of the whip.
Essentially economic slavery is still quite popular in the US, with massive tax breaks for "landlords", but none for poor renters. Everyone should be embarrassed that renters can not write off rent payments as a cost of doing business.
And no, Africans were not much involved in the slave trade. The closest you could get to that is to say Arabs from the Mideast.
Wow...another dumb person posting....
More Slaves were shipped to south America and the caribbean...that is a fact.
Slavery ended.......when the Republicans killed enough democrats to make them give up their slaves....
Economic slavery is a joke that you guys keep telling yourselves because you have reality dyslexia.
Moron...Africans drove the slave Trade.......... and the Europeans bought the slaves and sent them to the new world....
Moron....
Slavery in the Americas | Slavery and Remembrance
Only about 6 percent of all Africans shipped across the Atlantic were taken to North America. The largest numbers went to Brazil and to the Caribbean.
-------
The newly founded United States was home to 700,000 enslaved people (one million lived and toiled in Brazil at the same time).
------------
But wherever sugar dominated, enslaved populations tended to increase only from the importations of Africans. As planters converted more land to sugar cultivation, they sought more African laborers. Yet the higher proportion of Africans, the worse the levels of sickness and death (a clear link to the trauma of enslavement and the Middle Passage). In addition, work in the sugar fields, where men tended to outnumber women, was severely taxing and general health was worse than in other slave work.
Wrong.
The slave section of the US was very small in area, so then the concentration of slaves was huge, and therefore very abusive.
The slavery in the Caribbean and South America was over 10 times the area, with only about the same number of slaves, so was entirely different and much less abusive.
You can also tell there was a difference in levels of abuse because slavery was voluntarily ended in South America and the Caribbean, decades before it took a war to end it in the US.
And your figures are skewed because they only talk about numbers of slaves shipped, while slavery in the US increased by over a factor of 10, decades after shipping slaves to the US was outlawed.
US slaves were multiplied descendants, not imported.
{... Congress first regulated against the trade in the Slave Trade Act of 1794. The 1794 Act ended the legality of American ships participating in the trade. The 1807 law did not change that—it made all importation from abroad, even on foreign ships, a federal crime. The United Kingdom, the major power involved in the Atlantic slave trade, had passed the comparable Abolition of the Slave Trade Act, on February 23, 1807 (achieving royal assent on March 25, 1807). ...}
