Zimmerman Verdict

[screwtape]

However, you ignore the fact that legally and ethically a gun user is obligated to use deadly force only in the face of deadly force.

While I agree that is how it should be, that is not so in all states.  In several states now you may shoot or otherwise kill someone to protect yourself from any force or to protect your property.  Prime example is Texas:
http://www.uslawshield.com/texas/texas-gun-law/

In Texas, there are several situations where a person is justified in using force or deadly force.

A person may use force against another to the degree the person believes that it is reasonably necessary to protect themselves or a third person from another’s unlawful use of force.
...
Texas law allows a person to use force in the protection of property to prevent or terminate another’s trespass or other unlawful interference with the possession of real or personal property. Deadly force can be used in Texas when the crime against property is classified as arson, burglary, robbery, criminal mischief at night or theft at night. Deadly force may also be used to prevent a person from fleeing with property immediately after the commission of a burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime if the actor believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means or the use of force other than deadly force would expose the person to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

bold mine.  I read an article recently where a man chased and killed another man over a stolen radio.  The killer was not even charged.  Does it seem to you that a radio is worth taking another person's life?

[Nick]

Only if it played country music 24/7.

[Ambassador Pony]

The killer was not even charged.  Does it seem to you that a radio is worth taking another person's life?

Lately? Short answer: Yes.

[Quesi]

This beautiful piece is making the rounds on Facebook today.  It is not specifically about Trayvon Martin.  But it is about the problem.

Today, on the 50th anniversary of the world changing "I have a dream" speech, we have much to be proud of as a nation.   And much to be ashamed of.

This is so worth watching. 

[epidemic]

According to the EMS, "Pt has abrasion to his forehead, + bleeding and tenderness to his nose and a small laceration to the back of his head." 

The treatment he received when the EMS arrived consisted of cleaning the wounds, and handing him back to the police.  No medication.  No xrays.  No concerns about a potential concussion.  It doesn't even sound like they gave him ice, which is what I do when my daughter gets a bump on her nose or head. 

I still vote for tragedy not criminal. 

Let me bang your head against the concrete and tell me how you feel about the situation?  If you had a knife, gun or other would you use it to stop me? If not when would you choose to use deadly force?

May I turn the question around?  If I were stalking you, and you knew it -  you told your friend on the phone that you were being stalked, and I then jumped out of the car brandishing a gun, might you have taken a swing at me?   

Where do you get jumping out of a car brandishing a weapon from?  Zimmerman broke into a jog for about 5 to 8 seconds according to the audio tape, he was walking aroung talking on a phone in a calm cool voice.  All injuries beyond the gunshot were defensive on the part of Zimmerman and Offensive on Martin.  The most plausible scenario for those injuries are associated with Treyvon jumping zimmerman. 

I also love when people cite the little booboos on zimmerman, his head was lacerated and his nose was broken.  wittnesses put TM on top of GZ ground and pounding him.  At what point do you feel one should feel their life is in jeopardy? 

I don't say you are even wrong, but the evidence left behind after this event leaves a clear and reasonable verdict of not guilty.  There is absolutely reasonable doubt as to GZ attacking TM, there is reason to believe that GZ could conclude his life was in danger.  Done, not guilty.

Innocent???  don't know but Not guilty was the only possible verdict and based on the evidence there is no logical reason to have even arrested him because all the evidence pointed that way from the beginning.

this is not a black white thing either.  both innocent and guilty African americans get off on lack of evidence as well in a situation like this.

[epidemic]

In Texas, there are several situations where a person is justified in using force or deadly force.

A person may use force against another to the degree the person believes that it is reasonably necessary to protect themselves or a third person from another’s unlawful use of force.
...
Texas law allows a person to use force in the protection of property to prevent or terminate another’s trespass or other unlawful interference with the possession of real or personal property. Deadly force can be used in Texas when the crime against property is classified as arson, burglary, robbery, criminal mischief at night or theft at night. Deadly force may also be used to prevent a person from fleeing with property immediately after the commission of a burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime if the actor believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means or the use of force other than deadly force would expose the person to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

bold mine.  I read an article recently where a man chased and killed another man over a stolen radio.  The killer was not even charged.  Does it seem to you that a radio is worth taking another person's life?

Sounds like you could say this another way.  The law is what it is.  Do you think stealing someones elses hard earned property is worth your life?  I have an idea don't steal peoples shit:)

Personally I would not shoot someone unless I felt my life was in danger.  Fleeing thief I might send a few rounds into the ground to insure he stopped running but if that did not work I would not train my weapon on him unless he was attacking. 

I may have the right to shoot him but I probably would not exercise it.  In texas you forfit your right to life when you rob someone it is the law so you should probably avoid breaking that law.

[epidemic]

I know young guys would never play a game that made them feel bad for shooting people. I know that games with morals don't sell-- I wasn't expecting to be taken seriously about that.

But the result of playing shooting games hour after hour has to have some effect in an environment where real guns are widely available[1] and young people aren't taught real ways to deal with conflict non-violently.

They have very violent video games in Japan, but they don't have real guns in over half the households, or a cultural tradition of solving interpersonal problems with violence, either.

1.	I personally know lots of people who have guns in their homes. I am sure every US person on this site knows where they could get a gun within a day or two if they wanted one, either from someone else or from a store or pawn shop.

Take a look at gun violence statistics.  since the advent of first person shooters the amount of gun violence has decreased.   I don't say that this is because of the first person shooters,   however, with virtually every kid on the street exposed to Grand Theft Auto and Call to Duty.  I would say that the link between Video game violence and real world gun violence is pretty thin.   during same time period from 1996 to 2012, Gun ownership as well as video game violence has been rising all the while that gun violence is down.

[jaimehlers]

Let me put the question of "is it worth killing someone over property" a different way.  Is it worth dying because you want your property back?

And no, it is not worth killing someone over a possession.  Not ever, under any circumstances.  You can buy a radio, but you can't bring someone back to life.  Life is literally priceless.

[Dante]

Let me put the question of "is it worth killing someone over property" a different way.  Is it worth dying because you want your property back?

I think that would depend on the property, and be entirely subjective. Is there nothing you can think of that's worth dying to try to retrieve?

And no, it is not worth killing someone over a possession.  Not ever, under any circumstances. 

See above. 

[neopagan]

jaimehlers...
If someone is breaking into my home, I have no way of knowing if he or she shares the conviction that killing someone over a piece of property is a bad idea. Most folks who rob, steal and burgle spend precious little time considering the ethical implications of their actions on others.  Ergo, he or she is likely to get shot... sadly, not over fear about my dvd player getting swiped, but my life being threatened.

[jaimehlers]

Is there nothing you can think of that's worth dying to try to retrieve?

Not a single possession is worth dying for.  I mean, it's just stuff, when it comes right down to it.  I can always get more of it.  But if I die, that's it.  And the same goes for everyone else.  If you die to retrieve something of yours, what good's it going to do you?

If someone is breaking into my home, I have no way of knowing if he or she shares the conviction that killing someone over a piece of property is a bad idea. Most folks who rob, steal and burgle spend precious little time considering the ethical implications of their actions on others.  Ergo, he or she is likely to get shot... sadly, not over fear about my dvd player getting swiped, but my life being threatened.

And thus the difference.  You're not fighting to defend your property, you're fighting to protect your life.  Not only that, but most thieves have no interest in getting into a fight over the stuff they steal - most actual thefts happen when residents aren't at home, or else are subtle things that are easily missed for a time.  That means someone who's trying to break into your house, while you're there, probably does mean you harm.

[screwtape]

Sounds like you could say this another way.  The law is what it is.

The law is what it is?  No.  The law is what we decide it is.  The law of gravity is what it is.  The law in Texas of when you are legally allowed to kill another person is decided by legislators.  And that is the whole point of what we are getting at here. These are terrible laws.

Do you think stealing someones elses hard earned property is worth your life?  I have an idea don't steal peoples shit

Of course it is not worth dying over and of course you shouldn't steal.  But it is a question of justice and sound public policy.  Do people deserve to die for stealing a radio?  Is that justice?  Is it really a good idea to give citizens the right to shoot other people over stolen property.  You may have missed it, but in another thread here a link was posted to a news story about a man in texas murdering an escort and getting away with it because he was trying to recover $150.
http://gawker.com/texas-says-its-ok-to-shoot-an-escort-if-she-wont-have-511636423

This is a result of the law.  Are these the results we want?

In texas you forfit your right to life when you rob someone it is the law so you should probably avoid breaking that law.

We are discussing the wisdom and morality of that law.  Your commentary has added little.

[jaimehlers]

That example of a man shooting a Craigslist escort over $150 and getting away with it because "he didn't mean to do it" is sickening.

[Nam]

jaimehlers,

I disagree with what you say to neopagan if what you're saying applies to everyone.

Take me for an example: I don't care about me at all. Don't care if I live or die. I see that it's just the way things are. However, if I lived with someone, then I'd protect them as much as I could with my life. If I didn't live with anybody then I would attempt to protect my stuff. Whether I could replace it or not is irrelevant. It's like a fire. If a fire started in my home unknowingly, I would try to save as much of my property as I could. Why wouldn't I toward an intruder? My life (whether I cared or not about it) would still be at stake.

-Nam

[Azdgari]

Nam, if you would, could you clarify which of your possessions you would be willing to kill another person in order to retain, in a situation where not killing them meant you would lose those possessions?

[DVZ3]

When the home is invloved...

The one big variables with a break-in, home intruder, robbery, <insert whatever you want to call a person or people who don't give a shit about you or your possessions here> is the fact that you don't know or hear about their motive after the fact. Only the ones who are brutally murdered in their home during a burglary etc... make the news.

Knowing that my life, my wife's life and/or my children's life may or may not be robbed from them is the risk and variable I'm willing to take into my own hands if someone invades my home.  That being said, I don't pretend it's obvious to prove or know firsthand if the would be robber was out for my DVD collection or out for anything along with whoever get in their way...

It's not an easy decision especially when you may be presented in the future with something that may or may not threaten you or families life.  In the end, the former or latter is never known for sure.

[Azdgari]

Indeed, as jaimehlers acknowledged above, a home break-in while you're there is a threat[1] not just to property, but also to the lives of the home's inhabitants.

What about cases where it's just property?  Like the case with the radio?

1.	I'd say "potential threat" but given the unknown, from the home-owner's perspective, it's simply a "threat".

[Nam]

Nam, if you would, could you clarify which of your possessions you would be willing to kill another person in order to retain, in a situation where not killing them meant you would lose those possessions?

My DVD's. I am very obsessive over them. I'd tell you to ask anyone I know in person but I can't. I have 98% of them in storage right now, I check on them 4 times a week on average. Just to give you perspective, they are 12 miles away from where I live (not the nearest storage unit to where I live but the closest with AC).

I could live without almost all other possessions I have but not my movies. I'd explain why but you probably wouldn't understand, and if a thief came into my future home where I'd have them there, I would hurt that person might even kill them, or die trying to protect them. I know it sounds a little crazy or a lot crazy but I can't help that, nor do I care to.

-Nam

[jetson]

GZ is 100% guilty because he got out of his car.  TM's death is 100% GZ's fault.  No doubts in my mind.  If GZ had stayed in his car, and simply allowed real police to take over, TM would be alive.

[LoriPinkAngel]

What about cases where it's just property?  Like the case with the radio?

Maybe it isn't just property.  Maybe it is the principle of someone taking something that belongs to you.  Someone with no entitlement to your possessions deciding they can take them from you.  Things you paid for.  Someone who decides not to work but to steal the things you worked for.

[nogodsforme]

^^^^That is why stealing is wrong! But so is parking in front of a fire hydrant and running through a shopping mall naked. The question is, which crimes are so bad that the perp deserves to die. If someone breaks into an occupied home, I can understand shooting them or whacking them into center field with a baseball bat.

But if you catch someone sneaking out of your house with some of your property, and you personally are not in danger-- they just want to run away-- are you justified in using deadly force on them to get your sh!t? Like, shooting them in the back?

Things that are not replaceable--rare books, family photos, souvenirs from trips, etc-- are not the things most thieves are after. Things that thieves want-- money, credit cards, TV's, cameras, cellphones, radios, laptops, guns, leather jackets, jewelry--are usually replaceable. It takes time and is a hassle, but you can get them again.  I've been robbed of some very valuable jewelry and I was quite upset, but I have other jewelry.

The only things in my house I would risk my life to protect are my daughter, my husband and my doggies. If everything else was lost in a flood, theft or fire, I would be very sad, but if I lost my family, I would never recover.

[screwtape]

What about cases where it's just property?  Like the case with the radio?

Maybe it isn't just property.  Maybe it is the principle of someone taking something that belongs to you.

That is, by definition, just property.  If you are talking about the principle of it, then you are justifying the death penalty for even the most petty theft.  When my sister was about 6 she swipped a few rubber balls from the local department store.  Would the owner have been in the right if he'd shot her?

Someone with no entitlement to your possessions deciding they can take them from you.  Things you paid for.  Someone who decides not to work but to steal the things you worked for.

Are you saying that death is a reasonable punishment for theft of "something that belongs to you"?  I understand that having something stolen can make someone feel personally violated.  But that is the emotional reaction.  Take your emotion out of it.  Is killing someone who has stolen a radio out of your car while you were someplace else justice? Is this how you want our society to function?  If so, it seems to me a regression to less civilized times, not progress.

[Azdgari]

What about cases where it's just property?  Like the case with the radio?

Maybe it isn't just property.  Maybe it is the principle of someone taking something that belongs to you.  Someone with no entitlement to your possessions deciding they can take them from you.  Things you paid for.  Someone who decides not to work but to steal the things you worked for.

To clarify, then, the rationale you offered is what makes it morally okay to kill someone in order to get your stuff back?

[Graybeard]

Try this: In a country where it is known that theft of property is punishable by death at the hands of the owner, is it reasonable for your relatives to complain that you are dead at the hands of the owner after you tried to steal/stole a radio?

It is probably illegal to climb up to power lines. The penalty is probably a fine. However, the ultimate penalty is death. Does the power company get sued? No. Because everyone knows that the real punishment can be death.

The next problem comes with “Everyone has a gun and everyone can shoot to defend almost anything.” This means that the perps go armed. This means that the thief is probably armed. This means that he is willing to use a gun on anyone who tries to stop him. That means he can be shot.

[LoriPinkAngel]

This means that he is willing to use a gun on anyone who tries to stop him. That means he can be shot.

To be brutally honest I'm not sure how much I value the life of someone who would prefer to get a gun a hold it on me and rob me of my possessions over getting a job and earning the money to buy himself possessions.  In in court I would not advocate for penalties that are more severe than the crime or the monetary value of what was stolen.  I don't even believe in the death penalty.  I think sitting in prison is a worse punishment.  But in the heat of the moment I can understand the outrage of finding a perp violating your home and your things.  I have no money right now but I have no intention of stealing from anyone.  I humiliate myself going through legal means trying to get assistance for myself and my kid.  I don't go around holding a gun to people and demanding what is not rightfully mine.

[Nam]

I think "in the moment" rationale is hardly ever rational. What one believes now may not be the outcome in-the-moment.

You won't really know until you're in the moment. Therefore one is just playing in hypotheticals in this moment.

-Nam

[nogodsforme]

Hypotheticals are what the law is based on. "If this situation happens, that law applies." We can't make law over every heat of the moment situation as they actually occur.

[LoriPinkAngel]

I think "in the moment" rationale is hardly ever rational. What one believes now may not be the outcome in-the-moment.

You won't really know until you're in the moment. Therefore one is just playing in hypotheticals in this moment.

-Nam

It is true that you don't know what you'll do until you're in the moment.  Once my son & I were playing at the computer when my son said "Mom, someone is coming in our house"  Now, the smart thing to do, especially in my neighborhood, would have been to call 911 & take my son & run out the back door.  But apparently my fight or flight mechanism is seriously impaired because I went stomping up to the intruder with my hands on my hips and said "Excuse me, what the f*ck do you think you are doing?" He froze and said "I think I have the wrong house" and turned around and left.  I said "You're goddamn right you have the wrong house!" and slammed the door behind him.  Well, it turned out he really did have the wrong house, as my neighbor explained when he came over and apologized for his cousin...  Lucky for me he was not an armed creep.

[screwtape]

Hi Lori.  I think you missed my post.  http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,25192.msg568039.html#msg568039

Could you please respond?  In the case I was talking about a man took the radio out of a parked car with no one in it.  The owner chased the thief and stabbed him to death. 
http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_133

Do you think that is justice?  Is this what you want society to look like?