main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

Senate [American Just Us] white man convicted of attempted murder after successfully murdering black teen

Discussion in 'Community' started by Rogue_Ten, Feb 16, 2014.

  1. I Are The Internets

    I Are The Internets Shelf of Shame Host star 9 VIP - Game Host

    Registered:
    Nov 20, 2012
    He's Idris Elba. He could just like conjure a gun using his charisma alone.
     
    Jedi Merkurian likes this.
  2. Darth Guy

    Darth Guy Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Aug 16, 2002
    WATCH TRUE DETECTIVE
     
    Ender Sai likes this.
  3. yankee8255

    yankee8255 Force Ghost star 6

    Registered:
    May 31, 2005

    If you pull your gun, knowing it's loaded, and fire it at someone, your intent to kill him is given. It's more a question of the "level" of intent -- malice aforethought (1st degree), more "heat of the moment" (2nd degree), or self defense. Manslaughter or negligent homicide would come into play if you made some kind of error (didn't think gun was loaded, or your belief that your life was threatened was unreasonable).
     
    Jedi Merkurian likes this.
  4. Kimball_Kinnison

    Kimball_Kinnison Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 28, 2001
    Which shows that you haven't listened to what I've said.

    Did you read what I wrote earlier about why Dunn was convicted of attempted 2nd degree murder, even though the jury couldn't agree on whether to convict for Davis' death? The key part there is that self defense applies to imminent threats, and the moment that the threat ceases, the justification for self-defense ceases as well. Dunn kept shooting at the Durango after the immediate threat had ended (as it was driving away).

    You can draw your firearm with the intent to shoot, but still not shoot because circumstances change in that brief time between starting to draw and being able to pull the trigger. Drawing and shooting a firearm is not an instantaneous thing, after all.

    In the same way, as a threat escalates, it's not uncommon for people to take a more defensive posture (such as actions that would make it easier to draw their gun without actually drawing it), or even alert the threat to the fact that they are armed (either verbally or by making the holster/gun visible without drawing it).

    Essentially, self-defense is not a form of static thinking. You have to be constantly re-evaluating the situation and adjusting your actions moment-by-moment to match the threat presented. There is usually some leeway given from a legal perspective to allow for reaction times (i.e., you draw and he starts to drop the knife, but you don't have time to react to his change), but the general idea is that as soon as a reasonable person would recognize that the threat has ended, you need to actively stand down as much as possible.

    If you are justified in using lethal force, then you use lethal force, and you keep using lethal force until you are either unable to or no longer justified to use it. That's also known as "shooting to stop the threat", and that is the standard generally taught for self-defense. How far you have to take it is usually dependent upon how the threat reacts to your justified use of force. In some cases, it's necessary to shoot, but in others it isn't, but none of that changes the legal requirements that apply to any use of lethal force.
     
  5. dp4m

    dp4m Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Nov 8, 2001
    Right, on this point -- this is why you hear stories about the police shooting like 12-17 bullets at a suspect and when they may turn out to be unarmed, it causes outrage. Except it shouldn't, because the point if you are trained to generally -- if you feel like you are going to be in a position to fire your weapon -- keep firing until either your clip is empty or you are absolutely sure there is no further danger.

    Most of the general public doesn't think like this, so outrage ensues.
     
  6. I Are The Internets

    I Are The Internets Shelf of Shame Host star 9 VIP - Game Host

    Registered:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Why not just make the switch to rubber bullets or something else non-lethal then?
     
  7. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    Because of the misconceptions about such devices.

    Rubber bullets aren't "non-lethal." If fired at close range or directly at someone, they are just as lethal as regular bullets. The proper way to use rubber bullets is to aim at the ground, and "skip" the bullets up into a target so the ground scrubs away much of the velocity of the rubber bullet. In this sense, they are categorized as "less lethal." But as such, you can't really aim a rubber bullet per se, they are used for large scale crowd dispersal. I would really hate to be confronted by a emotionally disturbed person who was just engaged in domestic violence against their spouse and is now charging with a 6" kitchen knife and have to fire rubber bullets at the ground just to see if they could be skipped up onto the charging person.

    It's the same with all less lethal alternatives. Bean bag rounds operate at a range between about 20ft and 75ft. Any closer and they become lethal. Any further and they fly all over the place and loose accuracy. That is, assuming one is carrying the shotgun that fires bean bags with them. Tasers are single shot weapons with a limited duration and are tethered by the wires. (now there are multi-dart Tasers, but still 1-3 shots) Pepper spray works on the principle of pain compliance, and about 10% of the population is immune, as are those whose pain receptors are shut down, such as someone on PCP or extremely intoxicated. And since Pepper spray is an aerosol, it's not effective much farther than reach distance.

    Imagine you are a police officer. You open a door, and from down the hall, a drunk and disturbed man who just lost his job and stabbed his wife (who is currently alive but bleeding to death) comes charging down the hall. You literally have 3 seconds before the man is going to reach you with the knife and stab you to death....... Do you:

    1) Start firing rubber bullets at the floor, hoping that one will skip up and cause the man to trip within that 3 seconds before he plunges the knife into you?
    2) Fog the hallway with pepper spray hoping that the discomfort will cause him to voluntarily drop the knife?
    3)Do you deploy your Taser, hoping that the two prongs make contact even though the man is moving?
    or
    4)Do you draw the pistol at your hip, firing enough bullets into the man's center mass to cause neuro-muscular disruption removing his ability to proceed with any hostile action?

    BTW, depending on one's reading speed, 3 seconds represents the time it takes to read the first 3 options. Hope you made the right choice, because whatever choice you make, it will be endlessly dissected by the media, and lawyers, and judges, and the public.....all of which have all the time in the world to think about it.

    But the bottom line is that each of the above options have their place and time.
     
  8. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    It appears you are saying police have to make a judgement call and people will question that judgement no matter what? :D
     
  9. I Are The Internets

    I Are The Internets Shelf of Shame Host star 9 VIP - Game Host

    Registered:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Just run the other freaking direction or quit your freaking job.
     
  10. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    I question the judgment behind that question....

    Seriously, it was more of an expansion of what has come before and what was hinted at above.. There is simply a lot of misinformation that people (not even purposefully or consciously) use to look for alternatives. For example, within all of the threads on this subject, someone always says "why don't you just shoot the weapon out of the bad guy's hand instead of shooting them to kill?" Except that's an impossible feat that is only carried out in the movies, along with bending bullets around corners. It's the equivalent of calling for seat belts to be removed from cars, and then suggesting that everyone just flip their cars up on two wheels to avoid any crash.....Easy right?

    Until phasers are developed that have an effective stun setting, current technology is going to have to grapple with this very issue for the foreseeable future.

    EDIT: Just run the other freaking direction or quit your freaking job.

    So you'd let the innocent victim bleed to death? Leave the knife wielding subject on his own-no harm, no foul? I don't think anyone within society would accept either of those options.
     
  11. Sith-I-5

    Sith-I-5 Force Ghost star 6

    Registered:
    Aug 14, 2002
    British police regularly disarm the knife-wielding assailant without the use of guns.

    These days, they have the Cobra, basically a hilt that like a lightsabre, telescopes to a reasonable length, that can be used to subdue, and disarm.

    From friends in the police, I'm told that pepper spray and CS gas can affect the officers just as much as the criminal, so that has to be taken into consideration too.

    Outside of tv, and RL airport security, I can't really see any situations that would be defused by the presence of a gun. In brawls and arguuments, it seems unfortunate that the participants will tend to escalate to whatever they have to hand.

    Denied weapons, they will argue verbally, trading insults, and if they have to escalate, it'll be to fists and feet, maybe the handy beer glass, bottle, whatever.

    Once knives are easily available, they'll be brought into the mix, making fights more lethal.

    In the US, or any nation where civilians are allowed to carry guns (probably not Austria or Switzerland because their deal is rifles or shotguns, less easy to bring to the pub), arguments escalate to drawing weapons.

    Sure, we are dependent on the bias of media, but so far, in my decades of life, reports of best friends killing the other over simple Elvis or Sports arguments, have only been in the US. No-one is suggesting such arguments between friends does not happen in other first world countries, but the absence of guns from the mix means both participants are less likely to end up in an autopsy.
     
    Drac39 and Jedi Merkurian like this.
  12. Jabba-wocky

    Jabba-wocky Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    May 4, 2003
    I wasn't quoting you as part of some point about Davis's murder. That's why my last post never mentioned the case at all.

    It was, as I said, about the rhetorical gap in pro-gun arguments. You said that actions like "warning shots" or pulling out a weapon to merely display it are dangerous and inadvisable. Yet, when arguing for the utility of guns, these are precisely the sort of uses Mr44 praises as being most frequent and most helpful. So what are we to make of these actions? Are they dangerous and unhelpful, inflaming the attacker, potentially injuring bystanders, and putting yourself in legal jeopardy? Or are they meaningful, graded responses that prove the utility of guns? I would tend to argue that a tool whose most common use is also one of its most dangerous and ill-advisable is probably not a good tool in the first place. It ought to be replaced with something that can do the same task more safely and effectively.
     
  13. Kimball_Kinnison

    Kimball_Kinnison Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 28, 2001
    I referenced what I wrote about the Davis case (which is something that I've said before as well) to show that it's not as simple as "If you draw then you should be shooting". The key is that you don't draw your gun with the intent to simply scare off the attacker. You only draw it if you reasonably believe that your life is in imminent danger, but you have to keep evaluating the situation even as and after you draw, and adapt your response as needed.

    It was Davis' failure to do so that got him the attempted murder convictions. It's the same principle that once the threat is on the ground and incapacitated, you don't keep shooting to "finish him off". You are justified in shooting only when the threat is imminent, and once it is no longer imminent, you are obligated to stand down (with some allowance for human reaction times).

    What Mr44 is pointing out is that statistically, the act of presenting the gun tends to change the attacker's behavior, and wind up reducing the threat level. In many cases, it is merely the fact of the assailant discovering that their victim is armed (either through the presenting of the holstered gun, a verbal warning, or the act of starting to draw the gun) that cases the assailant to de-escalate the situation.

    There's no contradiction between the two positions that Mr44 and I have described. I have been pointing out what people are trained and instructed to do, and Mr44 is pointing out the real-world effects of it.
     
  14. Rogue_Ten

    Rogue_Ten Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Aug 18, 2002
    i need an ambulance!

    dunn: ill call ya a hearse. *bang*
     
  15. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    Yeah JW, I'd say there isn't much of a rhetorical gap if one simply views the use of a firearm from an informed position. (Note-I'm not saying your position is uninformed)

    The common legal framework for every state as well as federal civil rights law is that a firearm (ie any deadly force) can be used to a counter potential deadly threat ( or one which would cause great harm). This is regardless of GYG, duty to retreat or simply common law self defense. The vast majority of such threats are countered by the display of a firearm which is used to control the situation. The gun is never fired. In a small fraction of instances, the firearm is used. If the situation warrants deadly force, then it's almost immaterial if the gun is fired or not. I completely agree that is a huge responsibility to even own, let alone carry one. But it is worth it if training and knowledge is involved. KK covered the rest for this example.

    I think the differences in perception are coming from how one views the debate. You're looking at how a gun was used improperly, and then extrapolating the improper use into all uses. But that's not accurate. As a result, let's review some statistics, which admittedly are presented in isolation, and I'm not looking to prove any specific claim:

    -With Illinois becoming the last state to enact such a law, all 50 states have some sort of carry allowance.
    -Based on which states report the information, there are about 10 million active carry permits issued in the US, not including a few states which don't require permits or report the information. (the real figure is estimated to be closer to 18 million)
    -Out of the documented permit holders, 117 have been reported to have killed someone with a gun without justification, both related to and unrelated to the permit itself. That's a tiny amount of the total.
    Data collection rates vary, but those instances of "defensive gun uses" where a gun was reported to have been used but not fired range from approximately 110,000 per year up to about 800,000 per year.

    So to combine all of the above---> Every state in the US allows people to carry some form of gun, and about 18 million people do so legally at any given time. Out of that approximate 18 million, 117 have used their gun illegally. A gun was displayed/used to stop a crime but not fired on average of 450,000 times per year.

    Despite the sensational media accounts which cover the anomolies, I'd say, if the above doesn't prove, it at least illustrates that guns are used quite responsibly in the US. Now there are other factors that come into play here, but they deserve their own examination.
     
  16. yankee8255

    yankee8255 Force Ghost star 6

    Registered:
    May 31, 2005
  17. yankee8255

    yankee8255 Force Ghost star 6

    Registered:
    May 31, 2005
    Emperor, I think this is the thread you were looking for.

    So yeah, Dunn was convicted of 1st degree murder for shooting Jordan Davis. It took the jury less than 6 hours to reach a decision.
     
    Juliet316 likes this.
  18. Rogue_Ten

    Rogue_Ten Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Aug 18, 2002
  19. Obi-Zahn Kenobi

    Obi-Zahn Kenobi Force Ghost star 7

    Registered:
    Aug 23, 1999
    Glad to see justice was served. It still won't bring back Jordan Davis, though. Senseless killing.
     
  20. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    Too bad no discussion/s about firearms will take place.
     
  21. yankee8255

    yankee8255 Force Ghost star 6

    Registered:
    May 31, 2005
    At this point, I'm not sure anything will be discussed, most media outlets have the story buried.

    As I've said going back to the early days of the Zimmerman-Martin discussion, the real story has always been far more about gun control than about "stand your ground".
     
  22. Kiki-Gonn

    Kiki-Gonn Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Feb 26, 2001
    Unlike with the TM shooting, there was no wiggle room here legally.

    Remember, if you want to shoot a minority make sure no one is around to counter your story afterwards.
     
  23. Jabbadabbado

    Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 1999
    as Homer says, every American has the right keep a gun handy for those situations when they are very, very angry.

    Gun ownership has become our substitute for democracy. As the bottom 90% of income earners become increasingly disenfranchised from political influence and economic resources, guns are becoming an important symbol of control next to their remote control. How can I really be a second class citizen when I can open carry? That's why the level of gun violence is perfectly acceptable and is no longer capable of creating change. Guns are a new opiate of the masses in addition to Monday Night Football, Fox News and religion.

    The more income inequality grows, the more shiny things will have to be thrown onto the pile to keep us distracted.
     
  24. Jedi Merkurian

    Jedi Merkurian Future Films Rumor Naysayer star 7 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    May 25, 2000
    Interesting line of thought. I find myself in agreement.
     
    Drac39 likes this.
  25. Jabba-wocky

    Jabba-wocky Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    May 4, 2003
    Maybe we've all just concluded, as you've loudly proclaimed about race--even in references to instances like this one--that the best way to make progress on the issue of gun control is never to bring it up at all.
     
    The Shadow Emperor and Ender Sai like this.