Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumCan we pease stop advocating murder in the gungeon?
This is disgusting.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172166018
We don't need more dead bodies.
We are telling people to murder anybody who assaults them in any way, and using DU as the platform for doing so.
I've been assaulted many times in my life.
If I followed the advice given in that OP, there'd be lots of dead people around, including dead cops who have assaulted me.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Nobody is advocating murder.
Krispos42 needs to lock this disgusting thread.
stone space
(6,498 posts)You think that your guns give you the right to murder people.
They don't.
TerrapinFlyer
(277 posts)in other words, if you can legally get away with it, go ahead... kill someone.
Pointing blame is reserved for those still standing.
sarisataka
(18,498 posts)Are you advocating that elderly people just "man up" and take their beating from a younger person who attacks without provocation?
sarisataka
(18,498 posts)just "man up" and take their beating from a younger person who attacks without provocation?
stone space
(6,498 posts)I don't.
And people are alive today because I don't.
sarisataka
(18,498 posts)I have successfully de-escalated all situations that I have been in so far. In no case have I resorted to drawing a weapon or even making them aware that I was armed at the time. Confident attitude and a calm voice are often all that is needed.
Some day that may change. Though trained in self-defense I have to acknowledge I am getting older and there is potential that a younger, stronger attacker could be superior to my skills. Also a surprise attack from behind would eliminate the potential to de-escalate or use less lethal defense methods making use of lethal force much more likely.
stone space
(6,498 posts)blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)Stop telling lies.
stone space
(6,498 posts)blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)It posits justifiable self defense. That is not murder.
stone space
(6,498 posts)Ready to murder your fellow human beings at a moment's notice, in situations that most of us would simply shrug off, and then turn around and explain away the murder with cries of "self defense".
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)Might I suggest you purchase a dictionary and look up "Murder" and "Self Defense". And you still think "gunz" is a word.
tridim
(45,358 posts)
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)Self defense is not murder.
Puha Ekapi
(594 posts)...you are simply telling lies.
sarisataka
(18,498 posts)he acknowledges, correctly, Mr. Daniels would be justified in defending himself.
Given that Mr. Daniels' attack was younger, stronger and had the advantage of surprise the use of lethal force would be justified. per the definition:
Lethal force, or deadly force, is force that is likely to cause death or great bodily harm. Lethal force includes use of firearms and certain strikes to the head, eyes, neck or throat with or without intermediate weapons.
Death is not the certain outcome of such defense but it is a likely possibility.
Were I in that same situation I would not try to use the firearm but one of several strike to the head and throat which will cause enough distraction to make the attacker release me. Unfortunately such strike may cause permanent injury or be lethal but they would be justified.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)it's unethical for a person of your.......
beevul
(12,194 posts)Calculuz clearly has nothing to do with ethics.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)or even responding to direct questions
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)I know what he's trying to do, he's trying to get a post hidden.
He does sound very familiar though.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)Of course given how often he makes things up, one has to wonder if anything he has said about himself is true.
ileus
(15,396 posts)stone space
(6,498 posts)ileus
(15,396 posts)stone space
(6,498 posts)ileus
(15,396 posts)Like me.
I did get bit by a dog once...don't know what his beef was with me. Ruined a pair of jeans.
stone space
(6,498 posts)ileus
(15,396 posts)Don't murder people is my recommendation....Murder is bad.
stone space
(6,498 posts)Notes: words and music by Malvina Reynolds; copyright 1964 Schroder Music Company, renewed 1993. This original version of the song was banned from the radio in Japan--in Japanese, but not in English!
It isn't nice to block the doorway,
It isn't nice to go to jail,
There are nicer ways to do it,
But the nice ways always fail.
It isn't nice, it isn't nice,
You told us once, you told us twice,
But if that is Freedom's price,
We don't mind.
It isn't nice to carry banners
Or to sit in on the floor,
Or to shout our cry of Freedom
At the hotel and the store.
It isn't nice, it isn't nice,
You told us once, you told us twice,
But if that is Freedom's price,
We don't mind.
We have tried negotiations
And the three-man picket line,1
Mr. Charlie2 didn't see us
And he might as well be blind.
Now our new ways aren't nice
When we deal with men of ice,
But if that is Freedom's price,
We don't mind.
How about those years of lynchings
And the shot in Evers' back?
Did you say it wasn't proper,
Did you stand upon the track?
You were quiet just like mice,
Now you say we aren't nice,
And if that is Freedom's price,
We don't mind.
It isn't nice to block the doorway,
It isn't nice to go to jail,
There are nicer ways to do it
But the nice ways always fail.
It isn't nice, it isn't nice,
But thanks for your advice,
Cause if that is Freedom's price,
We don't mind.
Puha Ekapi
(594 posts)...asshole?
Puha Ekapi
(594 posts)...if it has something to do with his mouth...
spin
(17,493 posts)in legitimate self defense.
If a person attacks me with the intention of seriously injuring or killing me and has the ability and the means to do so, I legally can use lethal force to stop the attack. It is possible that I may kill him but my real intention is to stop his attack.
Let's say I am out of my home and I use my legally concealed .38 to stop the attacker. He falls to the ground and obviously is no longer a danger to me. I walk over to him and shoot him in the head. That's murder.
What I would do in that situation is to call 911 and attempt to do whatever I could safely to aid my attacker until the EMTs or the police arrive. Hopefully he will survive without permanent disabling injuries. There is an excellent chance that will happen.
Of course when I draw my weapon, he may turn and run. If so, I would never shoot him in the back as that would be murder.
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)Can you engage in a discussion about firearm without resorting to falsehoods?
stone space
(6,498 posts)blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)stone space
(6,498 posts)blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)You might consider not posting lies about what other people have posted as it is readily checked for accuracy. I can only hope your math work is not as shoddy.
Puha Ekapi
(594 posts)...Sherlock.
ileus
(15,396 posts)You wouldn't ask an ambulance worker not to save lives. Why would you ask your fellow citizen to agree to a good beat down maybe even death?
Fighting back against an attacker doesn't mean murder. As everyone knows handguns are lousy at killing threats, but somewhat good at stopping attacks. The conceal carrier isn't out to harm anyone...ever, but they've taken the necessary steps to assure they're not easy victims for those that wish to do them harm.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,476 posts)Murder:
the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=murder+definition
I've seen no such advocacy here. 
Someone, a while ago advocating assaulting gun owners; is that what you mean?
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)You will also need to learn the legal definitions of the following: justifiable self defense, disparity of force and reasonable fear of death or grave bodily harm.
Until you learn the legal definitions maybe you should stop making things up, mis-representing what others say or even outright lying about what other posters have said.
dumbcat
(2,120 posts)That might tell you something.
But, then again, you probably won't get it.
stone space
(6,498 posts)Are you arguing against non-violence?
dumbcat
(2,120 posts)just more evidence.
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)not just the sentiment but my god, you are justified to shoot and kill someone who tackled you?
jesus, we are so fucking lost as a society
oops, just realized where I was posting
never mind, ignore me
i have no opinion
not here. not this forum
life is too god damn short to argue with gun folks
sarisataka
(18,498 posts)Are you advocating that elderly people just "man up" and take their beating from a younger person who attacks without provocation?
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,476 posts)Some think it's okay to burn down a senior center. 
sarisataka
(18,498 posts)what is and is not acceptable...
In one location burning down affordable housing is acceptable collateral damage in the quest for justice for a black man
In a different location an unprovoked assault on a black man in broad daylight is acceptable because he "might" be a "bad guy"- and if the black man defends himself it is murder
Flexible ethics are confusing. I like to keep it simple- assaulting a person shopping at Walmart is wrong, burning down homes is wrong, police using excessive force is wrong, death resulting from excessive force is murder.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,476 posts)What next; lies from and bribes to politicians are wrong as well?
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)The author of the other OP noted that the individual who committed the unprovoked assault was lucky to be alive as the victim was justified in defending himself from an unprovoked attack. As the victim was armed the defense could possibly have included the use of deadly force. Someone else picked up on that and attempted to categorize the behavior as "murder".
DonP
(6,185 posts)I'm sure every black man in the South that's suddenly attacked by a younger white man knows he doesn't really mean him any harm and should just sit back and take the beating, right? 
That is such a dumb fucking concept I don't even know where to start with the weasels suggesting that he didn't have the right or need to defend himself. After all he was just tackled, right? No biggie.
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)You've seen through my clever disguise! 
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)blueridge: No one has advocated shooting and killing someone who has tackled another.
GGjohn said it would be justified, if daniels had pulled out his gun & shot: (GGJohn): I thought that those with CHL's were just itching to pull their gun and shoot someone. Guess Clarence Daniels didn't get the memo. This moron is lucky to be alive, Clarence Daniels would've been fully justified in defending himself.
blueridge: The author of the other OP {GGJohn} noted that the individual who committed the unprovoked assault was lucky to be alive as the victim was justified in defending himself from an unprovoked attack. As the victim was armed the defense could possibly have included the use of deadly force. Someone else picked up on that and attempted to categorize the behavior as "murder".
A lot of this argument hinges on where & when the assault occurred, & how the assailant appeared.
White assailant attacked black victim daniels in the lobby of a walmart, I believe in daylight(?), in full view of dozens of walmart shoppers, with the fairly obvious belief he thought he was preventing a crime in the making, as assailant had seen black man daniels earlier with a concealed pistol (legal, unbeknownst to assailant). Misguided assailant did not appear to have a gun.
In light of the circumstances, it's hard to justify daniels pulling out his gun to defend himself, thus overreacting to a physical assault as well as endangering bystanders with his gun, or possibly having assailant grab gun & shoot, someone. Daniels likely thought he was safe enough in the walmart lobby, had no desire to draw his firearm, likely far from his mind.
Had the assault taken place in an isolated area, with none to few witnesses, victim daniels could more likely claim self defense, for obvious reasons. But then, more likely to be in a damned if he draws, damned if he doesn't, scenario. (good argument against carrying concealed).
So GGJohn is wrong to contend daniels would've been 'fully justified in defending himself', as 'deadly force' was not really justified to avoid assailant's punches. GGJohn has overreacted, tho I can't fully agree that he's advocating murder, except in an offhand way.
donP: I'm sure every black man in the South that's suddenly attacked by a younger white man knows he doesn't really mean him any harm and should just sit back and take the beating, right? {sarcasm tag}
That is such a dumb fucking concept I don't even know where to start with the weasels suggesting that he didn't have the right or need to defend himself. After all he was just tackled, right? No biggie.
So then was trayvon martin justified in assaulting Zimmerman? trayvon's stalker? Was zimm justified in shooting martin? or is it just another 'no biggie'.
Daniels indeed had every right to defend himself. It's with what & how much, that is the concern.
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)Uh, no, here's what he said: "Clarence Daniels would've been fully justified in defending himself" Defense may take a number of forms up to and including deadly force.
Daniels was the victim of an unprovoked assault and was entitled to defend himself. Daniels was armed and his defense may have included the use of deadly force if, as an elderly man being tackled by a younger assailant, he could articulate a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm. Age disparity is one of a number of factors when determining if self defense is justified.
There is no evidence Zimmerman "stalked" Martin; there is substantial evidence that Martin was on top of Zimmerman pounding his head into the ground while Zimmerman was screaming for help.
GGJohn's comment was that Daniels' assailant is fortunate that he is still alive to be prosecuted. A number of people who have advocated accosting those who carry firearms in public would be wise to note what happens to those who commit unprovoked assaults of others.
stone space
(6,498 posts)
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)Just someone who appreciates the facts of the case in lieu of internet memes that are not fact based. Something I would think a STEM major could appreciate. YMMV.
stone space
(6,498 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172164331
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)He broke no laws, Florida laws related to any of his actions need no changes. Regarding reasonableness of his actions; Zimmerman saw someone who appeared to be casing houses in a subdivision plagued by burglaries; he called the police and attempted to see which way the person went. He was later accosted and was being assaulted when he fired one round in self defense. Based on what he knew at the time his actions were reasonable. Hindsight, of course, is 20/20.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)As we've seen in this and other threads, the important bits are 1) how the advocate FEEELS,
and b) repeating something ad nauseum, as if repetition were a marker for truth...
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)blueridge: Uh, no, here's what he said: "Clarence Daniels would've been fully justified in defending himself" Defense may take a number of forms up to and including deadly force.
You took it out of context; in context, GGJohn wrote it this way, implying daniels would have been justified in pulling his gun & shooting, by noting that assailant, in the same sentence, 'is lucky to be alive':
(GGJohn): I thought that those {Daniels included} with CHL's were just itching to pull their gun and shoot someone. Guess Clarence Daniels didn't get the memo. This moron is lucky to be alive, Clarence Daniels would've been fully justified in defending himself.
blueR: Daniels was the victim of an unprovoked assault and was entitled to defend himself. Daniels was armed and his defense may have included the use of deadly force if, as an elderly man being tackled by a younger assailant, he could articulate a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm.
He was inside a walmart store surrounded by dozens of people, with cameras whirring away, & being punched & detained on the floor by one or two men at some point (iirc); I doubt drawing his gun, even for self defense, ever entered daniels mind in that short time period. And daniels did the right thing by NOT trying to use his gun.
You might mean elderly people with some disability, but daniels appears to have been ambulatory & in fair to good shape.
BR: There is no evidence Zimmerman "stalked" Martin; there is substantial evidence that Martin was on top of Zimmerman pounding his head into the ground while Zimmerman was screaming for help.
I believe there was evidence zimm stalked martin, some phone call to the cops, wasn't it? (edit) and the cops told him not to pursue martin, something like that? Would that have made martin's attack a retaliation? a preemptive?
And Zimmerman's been such a fine character since his acquittal, hasn't he? so proud of his RKBA, he's demonstrated it on a few occasions.....
cbs, then: a portion of the Feb. 29 interview tape in court, in which Zimmerman says, "They told me not to follow him. I wasn't following him, I was just going in the same direction." "That's following," Serino said on the tape. O'Mara asked whether Serino had any evidence that Zimmerman continued to follow Trayvon Martin after a non-emergency dispatcher told him not to. "I would answer I have information, yes," "Just based on where we located Trayvon and the fact that the altercation happened after the confrontation. That's my interpretation. There was some following."
police played back a portion of Zimmerman's non-emergency call, prosecutor asked whether referring to someone as "---ing punks" demonstrates "ill will" or spite," elements of the second-degree murder charge the state is seeking to prove. Zimmerman used the phrases "f---ing punks" and "these (a-holes) always get away" on the call with dispatchers.
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)You're reading what you want to see in the statement.
I mean that age disparity is one of a number of factors when self defense claims are judged. That would be you taking my statement out of context.
No, there is no evidence that Zimmerman stalked Martin. Calling the police on a person one believes to be suspicious is not "stalking" under any reasonable interpretation of the word. Regarding Zimmerman's post trial issues; they have no bearing on the facts regarding the shooting of Martin.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)blueridge: I didn't take anything out of context. You're reading what you want to see in the statement.
You certainly did take ggjohn out of context:
I wrote: GGjohn said it would be justified, if daniels had pulled out his gun & shot:"
blueridge wrote: Uh, no, here's what he said: "Clarence Daniels would've been fully justified in defending himself" Defense may take a number of forms up to and including deadly force.
You clearly disregarded ggjohn's first clause (below), what he had written just prior to your excerpt, which altered the meaning of ggjohn's tailing. It's obvious ggjohn is referring to daniel's concealed pistol, when he says 'this moron {assailant} is lucky to be alive'
Another way of putting it is, had Clarence daniels 'gotten' the memo, assailant would have been shot.
ggjohn: I thought that those with CHL's were just itching to pull their gun and shoot someone. Guess Clarence Daniels didn't get the memo. This moron is lucky to be alive, Clarence Daniels would've been fully justified in defending himself.
blueridge: I mean that age disparity is one of a number of factors when self defense claims are judged. That would be you taking my statement out of context.
Uh, that doesn't really qualify as ooc, I presented your version quite honestly; ooc doesn't infer one must cite the entire quote, just not to distort or misrepresent thinigs. And I only said you 'might'....:
blueridge wrote: as an elderly man being tackled by a younger assailant, he could articulate a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm.
I wrote: You might mean elderly people with some disability, but daniels appears to have been ambulatory & in fair to good shape.
blueridge's 'elderly' quote in relevant entirety: .. an elderly man being tackled by a younger assailant, he could articulate a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm. Age disparity is one of a number of factors when determining if self defense is justified.
'Age disparity' as being one of a number of factors, had nowt to do with my rejoinder. Being elderly in itself doesn't justify use of excessive force. Bizarre coinky dinky, the 73 yr old confusing taser with pistol, tho quite dissimilar from this one.
BR: ... there is no evidence that Zimmerman stalked Martin. Calling the police on a person one believes to be suspicious is not "stalking" under any reasonable interpretation of the word. Regarding Zimmerman's post trial issues; they have no bearing on the facts regarding the shooting of Martin.
Addendum on edit: I edited my post 55, perhaps you missed it; cbs, then: a portion of the Feb. 29 interview tape in court, in which Zimmerman says, "They told me not to follow him. I wasn't following him, I was just going in the same direction." "That's following," Serino said on the tape. O'Mara asked whether Serino had any evidence that Zimmerman continued to follow Trayvon Martin after a non-emergency dispatcher told him not to. "I would answer I have information, yes," "Just based on where we located Trayvon and the fact that the altercation happened after the confrontation. That's my interpretation. There was some following."
police played back a portion of Zimmerman's non-emergency call, prosecutor asked whether referring to someone as "---ing punks" demonstrates "ill will" or spite," elements of the second-degree murder charge the state is seeking to prove. Zimmerman used the phrases "f---ing punks" and "these (a-holes) always get away" on the call with dispatchers.
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)The moron that assaulted Daniels is lucky to be alive; he committed an unprovoked assault on an older victim who was armed. Whether or not Daniels had "gotten the memo" is irrelevant. Dead is still dead regardless of the appropriateness of the level of force used in self-defense. Daniels was justified to act in self defense; it is quite possible he could have justified use of deadly force regardless of the number of bystanders.
By purposefully omitting a key part of my statement "a number of factors" you did, literally take my comment out of context. I never said being elderly justified use of excessive force. If the force is excessive, age has no bearing on the matter.
The issue of the 73 year old volunteer deputy has nothing to do with this issue; he clearly drew the firearm in error. That is an issue of training regarding where to wear the taser in respect to the issue duty weapon; best practices currently say to wear the taser on the reaction side of the body. It also point up the absurdity of having any volunteer, especially one that old, conducting a buy/bust operation. I expect a large settlement and numerous unemployed LEO's by the time the dust settles.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)blueridge: Your mass of verbage doesn't make you any more correct.
True, thanks for the admission though.
blueridge: By purposefully omitting a key part of my statement "a number of factors" you did, literally take my comment out of context.
I purposefully omitted a sentence only because it was irrelevant to the point I was making, & its omission didn't alter your point that an elderly man could thereby justify a fear of death or serious bodily harm, from a younger assailant.
blueridge's 'elderly' quote in relevant entirety: .. an elderly man being tackled by a younger assailant, he could articulate a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm. Age disparity is one of a number of factors when determining if self defense is justified.
I wasn't concerned about 'a number of' other factors becoming involved, I was only concerned with your specific & relevant contention that an elderly man could articulate a reasonable fear of death & thus justify self defense, esp with a firearm.
You split hairs & fabricate a red herring, to counterpunch my valid 'out of context' charge against you. Ignoble.
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)What's ignoble in this entire thread is the OP trying to conflate self defense to an accusation of justifying murder.
My comment regarding age being one of a number of factors was central to the point that self-defense claims depend on the totality of the circumstances and information available at the time self defense is used. I split no hairs and fabricated no red herring.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Mr. Daniels would have been fully justified in defending himself against Mr. Foster, up to and including using his legally carried firearm.
Suppose this had been a plainclothes cop? Mr. Foster would probably been shot for assaulting him and then placing him in a choke hold.
Luckily, Mr. Daniels kept a cool head and didn't escalate the situation, instead, he let the judicial system take care of the assault and battery.
I do hope Mr. Daniels sues Mr. Foster into the poor house, that would be a good lesson for Mr. Foster to learn not to jump strangers who are minding their own business.
Amazing how y'all twist words and context to fit your agenda.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)sarisataka
(18,498 posts)
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,476 posts)...of peas. 
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)Yes, it is disgusting to lie about what others say, in effect putting words in their mouths. Words which they never uttered.
Shame on you.
I don't believe it.
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)But taking a gun into WalMart is so important to these crazies.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)You see some of us choose to actually educate ourselves by reading the DOJ statistics which show that gun deaths have consistently been DECREASING for decades.
This is why gun control is failing, their adherents are either unaware of the actual facts or they are aware and choosing to lie in their futile efforts to promote gun control.
DonP
(6,185 posts)That whole "more guns = more deaths/crime" just isn't working out the way you'd hoped, is it?
According to the FBI (NRA right wing shills that they are under Holder/Lynch), we have a much lower violent crime rate than 30+ years ago, with far more legal guns owned by citizens.
But, who am I to argue with someone's obvious religious belief system?
Pay no attention to those inconvenient facts, just follow your feelings and "I think" on everything,
That always makes for good laws ... until somebody you don't agree with is following their feelings.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)The hatred for, and fear of, gun owners has certain controllers twisting logic (and flat-out
prevaricating) in order to demonize the victim of a violent crime and to try and
delegitimize self-defense.
Some people just don't give a shit about whose actions they defend, so long as that
person is anti-gun...
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)This thread will turn out "eventful" !!
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Oh, and as far as this statement is concerned:
"I've been assaulted many times in my life.
If I followed the advice given in that OP, there'd be lots of dead people around, including dead cops who have assaulted me."
Cool story, bro
stone space
(6,498 posts)And should I murder all those who have ever assaulted me, including police officers?
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Here's one I pulled from a quick Google search:
"the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another"
The phrase in question:
This moron is lucky to be alive, Clarence Daniels would've been fully justified in defending himself.
Please explain where the premeditation exists in this statement.
Considering the jurisdiction where the assault occurred, had Daniels used lethal force against his assailant I think it highly likely it would have been ruled legally justifiable.
We're down to killing, and unless we strike "unlawful" & "premeditated" from the example definition, not all killing is murder.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Well, if your attitude IRL is like it is here, I can understand why you get assaulted a lot.
BTW, it wouldn't be dead cops, it would be one dead alleged calculus teacher.
stone space
(6,498 posts)
Your support for assaults on unarmed people is noted.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Judging by your attitude and mis-truths here, I can understand why you get assaulted a lot.
stone space
(6,498 posts)What did I ever do to you to deserve being assaulted?
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)
This is exactly why you probably get assaulted frequently.
Do you have this same attitude towards your alleged students?
stone space
(6,498 posts)Typical.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)I hardly think you're the victim.
As I said, judging by your attitude here, I'll be willing to bet my pension that you're the aggressor.
stone space
(6,498 posts)Murder is your style.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Last edited Thu Apr 30, 2015, 09:49 AM - Edit history (1)
Why would I want to shoot you? You're funny and entertaining to read.
And, you're absolutely no threat to me, unless you want to count me laughing to death reading your posts here.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Just trying to abide by your wishes.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...you evince a remarkably poor grasp of high-school level English grammar and spelling.
Nothing wrong with fantasizing, we've seen the type here before:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117279271#post6
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117287865#post45
BTW, mikeb30200 quit posting at DU shortly after being outed...
stone space
(6,498 posts)What does that mean?
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)and no being outed has NOTHING to do with sexual preference in regards to the links since it is readily apparent that is what you were thinking.
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)to be exposed to actual facts; something to which he demonstrates a visible phobia.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)gun control extremists look worse.
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)He's trolling trying to provoke people into making posts that can be hidden and result in a time out or PPR.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)which is just as well, someone so incapable of understanding the law and concepts such as due process, a fair trial, reasonable doubt and the right to protect oneself, really has no business teaching any subject to anyone.
DonP
(6,185 posts)Not to mention the blot on real "Calculuz" instructors.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)stone space
(6,498 posts)Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)Can't say I miss the pimping of his blog.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)admit your stance on a woman's right to self defense against a rapist.
DonP
(6,185 posts)
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Saying that self defense is justified is hardly advocating murder.
ileus
(15,396 posts)Why should the victim be the only one risking their life in an attack???
stone space
(6,498 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)plz, just stop.
Yer killing me with laughter.
stone space
(6,498 posts)That's the RKBA way on DU, it appears.
Don't worry Mr. Alleged Calculus Teacher, we know what you're attempting to do here and it really is quite hilarious.
Hmmm, you do sound quite familiar though.
ileus
(15,396 posts)3 out of the four were Germans...
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Dear God, you actually do care less about victims of sexual assault than you do about their attackers.
This is beyond sick and disgusting.
sarisataka
(18,498 posts)to have a lot more concern for the welfare of the criminal than the victim.
Not the first time we have seen this phenomenon...
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)And nauseatingly, it won't be the last. From time to time I encounter people (always fellow lefties) who draw no distinction between justifiable homicide and murder. Just unbelievable -- no distinction between innocent victim and vicious criminal. Murder is murder - simple as that.
DonP
(6,185 posts)You lose more credibility with each passing and totally silly post.
And you didn't start out with a real surplus to begin with.
Do alleged Calculuz instructors have to take English courses at some point?
ileus
(15,396 posts)Safety first, death later I always say.
Besides you should have the right to defend yourself....right???
Should my wife just fold up and die, just so a her obit can state she was nice to her attacker.
Should I be an easy victim just to make the pope happy?
Should attackers know there's zero risk in their profession?
You only have one life...use it wisely.
Puha Ekapi
(594 posts)...making shit up.
VScott
(774 posts)[img]
[/img]
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)put it best:
"Though defensive violence will always be 'a sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men."
- St. Augustine
"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
There are two obvious problems with pacifism: It implies that peaceful person should value the life of the attacker above yours or your loved ones. It is also says that you are insisting that someone else should die or be injured for something you believe in.
Then there is Paul Quander, who had the balls to tell a DC resident that, even though he and his family either has their guns or armed guards in addition to his six figure salary.
http://forums.officer.com/t176351/
pacifism is immoral.
http://infidels.org/kiosk/article/a-few-moral-problems-with-pacifism-299.html
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,476 posts)...it only takes 1 to make a murder. 
stone space
(6,498 posts)I'd expect nothing less from you.
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)Your dishonesty in attempting to conflate the two is noted.
I'd expect nothing less than you.
stone space
(6,498 posts)Your opinion is noted.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)Your lack of knowledge on the laws governing self defense and when it can be used is very apparent in your posts.
stone space
(6,498 posts)Is this where the Zimmerman Fan Club on DU likes to hang out?
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)The laws governing self defense and when use of force is legally allowed are quite clear to anyone with an open mind and the ability to do modicum of research.
Your repeated inability to deal with actual law and established facts becomes ever more apparent.
Since you've proved with your comments you did not follow the details of trial, what makes you think your uninformed opinion has even the slightest hint of credibility?
Response to Lurks Often (Reply #121)
Post removed
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)I reside in and US law. Neither of which you have read or seem to understand when it is explained to you.
I see you are also against a fair trial, the concept of reasonable doubt and learning what the law states.
stone space
(6,498 posts)And you aren't alone here on DU.
Some of your Zimmerman supporting friends are right here in this thread with us.
In fact, this group seems to be the main hangout place for the Zimmerman Fan Club here on DU.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)what's your game here?
Like we haven't seen your type before, but others were more sophisticated about it, you're just clumsy.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)when confronted with actual facts you can't dispute.
It was never a good tactic to begin with and you do it worse then most.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Your really making a fool of yourself here.
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)to agree with me on the definitions of words.
Your opinion is noted and summarily ignored. 
stone space
(6,498 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=164331
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)is a lie. A despicable lie. For someone who purports to be a STEM major you cannot handle facts that conflict with your demonstrated prejudices.
stone space
(6,498 posts)blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)I just acknowledge the facts of the case. I don't support murder. That is just another one of the numerous lies you have told.
stone space
(6,498 posts)stone space
(6,498 posts)stone space
(6,498 posts)I call bullshit on your Zimmerman supporting ass.
You support Zimmerman.
You support murder.
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)You appear to be able to read simple sentences.
Yes, Zimmerman broke no laws. Nothing in his case showed a defect in FL regarding self defense. Based on the knowledge available to him at the time and the circumstances present he acted reasonably. I sorry these simple facts conflict with your bigotry and prejudices but facts are facts.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,476 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)It is simply acknowledging facts, reason, logic, and the rule of law. Which degree mill to do teach at?
http://ethicsalarms.com/2015/02/22/pop-ethics-quiz-welcoming-rev-talbert-swan-late-passenger-on-the-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-ethics-train-wreck/
See if you can answer these questions:
1-If someone has been pounding your head in the sidewalk while you have been screaming for help for almost a minute. What would you do after you realize your neighbors Kitty Genovesed you, what do you do?
2-If someone is attacking your SO, her safety or your principles? If principles, why is the attacker's safety more valuable than hers? How are you not partly responsible for her harm by doing nothing?
3-If someone in the Petit family resisted, would that make them a vigilante? If one of them killed Steven Hayes and/or Joshua Komisarjevsky, would he or she be a murderer?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_invasion_murders
stone space
(6,498 posts)...are irreconcilable.
We're just not going to agree on some topics.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Murder is what the law says it is. In ancient Greece, illegally killing a dolphin was also murder.
can you answer the questions? Here is a couple more:
Are you pro choice?
You are saying that Zimmerman should have just let Martin murder him? Martin didn't stop his beating even when yelled at by one of the witnesses, he clearly meant to kill Zimmerman. That is what you are saying? Are you anti Hispanic?
You chose not to answer the questions. Likely because you can't without you questioning your own views, or you don't believe your own bullshit. I think if you were in that situation, you would do anything you could survive, including killing the attacker.
sarisataka
(18,498 posts)do you recall these examples?
Nothing but good could come of this.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=156078
I don't agree with your premise that displaying a firearm is protected.
It is a threat which should be dealt with as such.
Harshly and with extreme prejudice.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=130691
sarisataka
(18,498 posts)
Can't say I'm surprised. Certain murder advocacy is accepable.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)you really didn't expect Mr. Alleged Calculoz Teacher to answer that uncomfortable question did you?
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)is a perfect metaphor for the lack of progress made by the proponents of more gun control over the past two decades. Given their inability to make any point without resorting to lies and ignoring facts it's not really surprising.
sarisataka
(18,498 posts)Righteous indignation is reserved for criminals and twisting words. None left to spare to condemn calls of summary executions.
This thread is showing the worst of the morally bankrupt, extremist side of gun control. Plenty of time to defend a criminal in a racially motivated attack. But is there any concern for the elderly black victim of the attack- silence. Any concern for women who are facing sexual assault- silence. Any concern for victims of other crime- silence. Any concern for victims saved from violence by a DGU- "They are lucky they weren't shot by their savior"
It beginz and endz with gunz- nothing else matters.
Race- yes unless the POC happens to be the one with the gun.
Democrats- as long as they are solidly gun control. Recall the glee expressed by gun control proponents as Bloomberg (successfully) targeted Mark Pryor. He wasn't the type of Democrat we need, they said. So now Tom Cotton- author of the infamous letter of 47- holds that seat.
Victims- HA! in their eyes it is better to be a noble victim as Deputy Mayor Quander described. Give the criminal your money, property, dignity, body, family, life... just don't defend yourself. A gun will just escalate the situation.
The criminal killed in self defense by his victim is "murdered" and has become the victim.
Extremist gun control is a single issue ideology. Everything else is secondary.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)DonP
(6,185 posts)You have to really be an aggressive jerk to get hides down here, especially if you are a control fan.
Well, now he can devote more time to his lesson planz for his Calculuz classes and patting down students for gunz.
he is over at DI comparing warring biker gangs with Open Carry Texas. While I think OCT is counterproductive and foolish, comparing them to bikers is over the top.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)On a time out over there, too...
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Such is the pity.
I can't prove it, but I think he's created a sock here.
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)I wondered what happened to him.... He choked on his own hateful B.S.!
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)for behaving exactly like he does? Rhetorical question, of course.
Couldn't possibly be a more obvious double-standard.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)
kudzu22
(1,273 posts)Or is it always murder?
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Locked out of this thread and on a time-out for five hides.