Idaho gun bill will only endanger college students

[SecularMotion]

In his Feb. 28 op-ed in The New York Times, Greg Hampikian, a professor of biology and criminal justice at Boise State University, wrote satirically about the recent push in Idaho to allow students on public university campuses to arm themselves. One of the numerous relevant points Hampikian makes concerns the ability of armed individuals to designate certain offenses as “de facto capital crimes.” The proliferation of these kinds of capital “sentences” is one of the most unjust facets of increased gun ownership and use in the United States.

The radical shift in the last few decades has been from duty to retreat laws, which require victims of assault to flee where possible, to expansive Stand Your Ground laws, which allow nearly unrestricted use of lethal force when defending oneself or one’s property. Look no further than the case of Trayvon Martin or the other 1,031 “justifiable” homicides from 2006 to 2010, according to the Violence Policy Center. Unfortunately, where the obligation had once been to use caution where possible and retreat without escalating the confrontation, now gun owners are allowed to arm themselves, becoming judge, jury and executioner in dispensing lethal force.

The problem with allowing college students — or anyone for that matter — to carry weapons to “protect” themselves is that it allows for people who are fearing for their lives to make split-second decisions that normally take years, if not decades, of debate and ruling in the current U.S. penal system. Whether or not individuals are in favor of the death penalty, it is undeniable that under the current justice system, the process through which an accused person would be arrested, tried, convicted, sentenced to death, have the decision appealed and then finally be executed by the state is a years-long process involving numerous lawyers and opportunities for appeal. Ideally, by the time a person convicted of a capital crime is executed, there should be no shred of doubt that that person is guilty. Of course, even now, groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the Innocence Project argue that there can be no certainty in capital cases and such irreversible punishment is too harsh for a certainty-free legal system. These open-carry laws and Stand Your Ground defenses condense that entire legal system of safeguards, designed to protect American liberty, to a split-second decision made by people hyped up on fear and adrenaline.

http://dailytrojan.com/2014/03/03/idaho-gun-bill-will-only-endanger-college-students/#sthash.Hr652yNA.dpuf

[gejohnston]

1. In high school I would have received a D on this.

for being less than factual and using a single, biased and dishonest source. Shall we?

The radical shift in the last few decades has been from duty to retreat laws, which require victims of assault to flee where possible, to expansive Stand Your Ground laws, which allow nearly unrestricted use of lethal force when defending oneself or one’s property.

There isn't a radical shift. Many of the laws that passed SYG laws, were already SYG by common law. There are 33 SYG states and the federal level. Most of them have been SYG for at least 120 years. He is also wrong about "unrestricted" use.

Look no further than the case of Trayvon Martin or the other 1,031 “justifiable” homicides from 2006 to 2010, according to the Violence Policy Center.

The writer obviously didn't watch the trial. Zimmerman was pinned to the ground and had no ability to retreat while he was getting his head pounded in the sidewalk, plus he screamed for help for almost a minute before firing, he would have walked under duty to retreat.

Unfortunately, where the obligation had once been to use caution where possible and retreat without escalating the confrontation, now gun owners are allowed to arm themselves, becoming judge, jury and executioner in dispensing lethal force.

No, not true. You still have the obligation to use caution, whatever that means. Duty to retreat only applies, and only if, you could and if you could do so safely.

The problem with allowing college students — or anyone for that matter — to carry weapons to “protect” themselves is that it allows for people who are fearing for their lives to make split-second decisions that normally take years, if not decades, of debate and ruling in the current U.S. penal system.

That is the stupidest thing I have yet to read. What he is saying is that people should not be able to defend themselves.

Whether or not individuals are in favor of the death penalty, it is undeniable that under the current justice system, the process through which an accused person would be arrested, tried, convicted, sentenced to death, have the decision appealed and then finally be executed by the state is a years-long process involving numerous lawyers and opportunities for appeal. Ideally, by the time a person convicted of a capital crime is executed, there should be no shred of doubt that that person is guilty. Of course, even now, groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the Innocence Project argue that there can be no certainty in capital cases and such irreversible punishment is too harsh for a certainty-free legal system. These open-carry laws and Stand Your Ground defenses condense that entire legal system of safeguards, designed to protect American liberty, to a split-second decision made by people hyped up on fear and adrenaline.

WTF does the death penalty have to do with self defense law? How do you get into college without understanding the difference between vigilantism and self defense? As Kieth Olberman would say, "you sir are an idiot."

While the party platform says there is a need for open and honest discussion, I would also add "intelligent" to that list.

[MO_Moderate]

5. Something tells me

that you are a big reason "Gun Control Reform Activism" was created. That place is nuts, one of the least factual cheerleader boards I've seen.

[SecularMotion]

7. If I were your teacher this response would receive an F.

You've taken words out of context and misconstrued the writer's position so badly I wonder if you read the same opinion piece. If you can't even comprehend the position your attempting to arguing against, I'm afraid you're going to fail this debating course again gejohnston.

[beevul]

8. Yeah, but for the position, not how it is expressed. N/T

[gejohnston]

9. I have done no such thing.

Since you did not bother giving an example, I'll assume can't provide one. The seven people who commented read the same thing I did.
He repeats the same argument here:

Mueller misses the obvious disincentives that the federal and state penal systems offer to discourage wanton violence on campus. Idaho is one of the states in which the death penalty is still legal, which is the harshest punishment available for offenders in the United States. Though Mueller would like students and faculty to take the death penalty into their own hands in miniscule time increments, other penalties would apply to anyone deranged enough to attack people in Idaho. Hampikian is simply referring to the harshest penalty under the university’s system of justice, which should be expulsion and not imprisonment or execution, and which should come from the actual Idaho penal system.

He glosses over Hampikian's very poor attempt at satire. Here again, he equates someone facing imminent death or grave bodily injury and the State executing someone on death row. He is an idiot who has not made a single valid or cogent point.

College students should not be given the ability to expand capital punishment, determine capital offenses or execute possible offenders without due process.

Here he clearly can not, or chooses not to grasp, the difference between someone facing imminent death or grave bodily harm, the standard legally using lethal force, and summery execution. If he lacks the reasoning skills to tell the difference, he has no business being a sophomore in any university.

My High School teacher would have given me a D, even though he was a liberal from NYC. This being a college op ed in a school paper, I would give him an F.

[SecularMotion]

10. You've failed again, gejohnston

-5 for spelling

-50 for insulting your opponent 2 times(-25 per insult)

As your teacher, I'd advise you to drop this debating course now before you receive a negative grade on your permanent record.

[gejohnston]

11. his poor reasoning skills is obvious

and he isn't my opponent. I have not insulted you.

[Eleanors38]

25. Word Salad. I heard that some where.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

2. You know what's galling about you latest offering? (I know you're just aching for me to tell you.)

Lines like this --

The problem with allowing college students — or anyone for that matter — to carry weapons to “protect” themselves is that it allows for people who are fearing for their lives to make split-second decisions that normally take years, if not decades, of debate and ruling in the current U.S. penal system.

And yet, the simpleton that wrote that presumes, from behind the safety of their desk, to know all circumstances in all places for all time as to when a person may or may not feel threatened. And yet we're supposed to blindly accept their statements about people making less-than-diligent decisions. Apparently, a woman attacked by a rapist isn't qualified to determine that she's about to be raped. A homosexual confronted by bigots isn't qualified to know when he's about to be bashed.

And then there is the entire aspect that we have literally millennia of law and case precedent that have established the right to self-defense. He can't even trouble himself to accurately portray the legal requirements behind castle Doctrine and SYG. It's a simpleton writing for simpletons.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

3. Now there's a thread killer

I guess I shouldn't say "killer". That may be offensive.

[sarisataka]

4. Two is better than one

Don't fight back, let yourself be killed.
Then decades later the state will kill your killer for you.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

6. Two wrongs don't make a right...

...but three lefts do.

"Without doubt one is allowed to resist against the unjust aggressor to one's life, one's goods or one's physical integrity; sometimes, even 'til the aggressor’s death.... In fact, this act is aimed at preserving one’s life or one’s goods and to make the aggressor powerless. Thus, it is a good act, which is the right of the victim." - Thomas Aquinas

[SecularMotion]

12. Street justice has no place in a civilized society

Street justice
Punishment or payback rendered at the hands of a vigilante or any other punishments given outside of official channels. Often times the punishment is illegal and excessive for the violation.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=street%20justice

[gejohnston]

13. which has what to do with self defense?

you don't know either. What does "street justice" have to do with someone defending themselves from imminent death or grave bodily injury? Nothing. To claim that is either intellectually dishonest or a profound inability to grasp legal and moral concepts beyond even the most simplistic levels.
Everyone has a moral and legal right to defend themselves. You think that is equal to vigilantism?

[SecularMotion]

15. Carrying a lethal weapon in public gives person the power of judge, jury, and executioner.

In a democratic, civilized society there are procedures we follow to select the most capable people to these positions. Allowing lethal weapons to be carried in public by people who aren't capable of sound judgment is a danger to public safety.

The murders of Trayvon Martin, Jordan Davis, and Chad Oulson were street justice.

[oneshooter]

16. So if I am assaulted by a larger person, who intends to harm me

I need to go find one of these " most capable people "to have that person defend me? Even if it happens in my own home?

[SecularMotion]

19. Do you have an actual comment?

or are you just going to twist and distort my opinions to try to fit your delusions of what liberals actually believe.

[oneshooter]

24. What " twist and distort"?

Apparently you believe that self defense is tantamount to murder. And that the only ones that should be allowed arms are those special people.

Am I wrong?

[gejohnston]

17. No

Martin's death was an act of self preservation while being criminally assaulted by Martin who was pounding his head against the sidewalk in an unprovoked attack. Trayvon Martin was not murdered, he was assaulting and trying to murder Zimmerman. Two eye witnesses and physical evidence proved that fact beyond any doubt in court. Zimmerman fired only, and only after struggling to get free and screaming for help for almost a minute. That has also been proven beyond any doubt in court. Even Trayvon's father said it wasn't Trayvon screaming for help to the cops and the court. The fact that a good Democrat has been smeared by sleazy ambulance chasers like Ben Crump, and anti Semitic race baiters like Al Sharpton for profit does not change that fact. The fact that that racist POS has a show on MSNBC disgusts me.
Remember when I said I detest all racists regardless of their color? I was thinking of Sharpton and Ted Nugent at the time.
The other two were simply murder, which does not fit the definition of "street justice" either.

[SecularMotion]

20. George Zimmerman is a racist vigilante who should not be allowed to carry a gun in public

Trayvon Martin's death was a direct result of bad decisions made by George Zimmerman that night. He thought that a young black male walking alone was "up to no good" and he was driven by the anger that these "assholes always get away." There is no question that Zimmerman's actions that night were street justice.

[gejohnston]

21. sorry,

that is part of the false narrative created by Martin family lawyer Ben Crump and the Orlando PR firm he hired to push the nonsense then repeated by dishonest ideologues and dim bulb bloggers. Martin would not be dead if he didn't attack Zimmerman. Plain and simple. Like I said, Zimmerman's innocence has been proven beyond any doubt. That is why prosecutor John Guy's closing argument included "never mind the evidence, follow your heart."

[SecularMotion]

22. Are you just being obtuse?

The fight between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin would never have happened if George Zimmerman hadn't confronted Trayvon Martin under the racist belief that a young black male walking alone was "up to no good."

[gejohnston]

23. I watched the trial

you have been lied to. TM was casing houses, not just "up to no good".
Zimmerman is mixed race, had a black business partner, his high school girlfriend was black, his black neighbor raved what a great guy he is. There is no evidence that he is racist, in fact the FBI found just the opposite. Only the smears created by said sleazy ambulance chasers and race baiting anti Semites. The made it up for profit. Does falsely accusing someone of racism make the accuser a racist? I think so, that is why I call Sharpton a racist.
Fact is, I actually paid attention to the facts from neutral sources and watched the trial itself. If you want to cling to a false narrative created by sleazy greed heads, that's your business. Don't call me names just because I know better than to buy into the bullshit.

[sarisataka]

14. I can agree with that

but we are speaking of

self-de·fense [self-di-fens, self-]
noun
1.
the act of defending one's person when physically attacked, as by countering blows or overcoming an assailant
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/self+defense?s=t

[friendly_iconoclast]

18. Your interlocutor believes armed self-defense IS 'street justice'

I offer in evidence their posts in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172137873

It seems to be a common mindset amongst gun prohibitionists:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172137873#post35

Reading through these threads, the disinterested reader will find attacks on people in
wheelchairs, the elderly, and gunshot victims- all because they had the temerity to resist
with force:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117263352

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x460088

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x196856#196923

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=128303

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=275101

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=453338&mesg_id=454170

It seems that these bile-ridden posters would rather lick a New York sidewalk
than admit there could be a legitimate use of guns by non-law enforcement civilians...

[ileus]

26. No it won't...2A regressives need to stop hyperventilating.