Is there a thread where we discuss the Trayvon Martin case? With the information we have it looks like a clear case of a racist police department.

This is more of a "this is what happens when everyone is allowed to have guns" issue than a racial issue, but certainly that comes into play as well.

I searched for a thread on this too. Then I noticed the GUNS ARE GREAT thread at the top of the Politics forum page where people are trying to search for rare AK-47s to add to their collection and I realized that I shouldn't be surprised there isn't a thread.

Yup if only guns were illegal then no one would die.

Theoretical question:

If we could guarantee that 1000 fewer children would die every year if guns were illegal, would it be worth it to you? Obv assume just a simple 1k flat reduction in deaths. Just wondering how important a human life is in your opinion.

Also, because I know you love to assume incorrectly and I love to correct your incorrect assumptions, I do not believe guns should be illegal unless things drastically change with regard to law enforcement.

FYP

Oh my.

Not a chance, because guns are used ~2.5M times a year in self defense.

2.5M>>1k IMO but you're the teacher iirc so you can correct my math if I'm wrong.

the topic is being discussed in "3rd Grader Shoots Another Third Grader, Yay Guns!" and FTR it's at least 99% about racism. It might be 1% about guns, probably less than that.

Where the Trayvon Martin thing is disturbing isn't the gun stuff- it's that they're unable to press charges while the dude's claiming self defense, yet if you listen to the 911 calls you've likely got a crackpot who is freaked out there's a black person on the loose. Combine that with the fact that it seems the like authorities basically coached him and didn't treat him as much of a suspect and it's all very unsavory.

Yeah we have talked about it in the various gun threads. cliffs version is given the evidence that we have the neighborhood watch guy is a minimum a complete idiot and at most a murderer.

Make an OP if you like, I considered making one. But it will likely break down into arguing about racism and claims that the gun jumped out of the guys holster and shot the kid.

The 911 tapes from that unarmed black kid shooting make the people who call 911 seem like idiots. I know that's unfair because some of them are old women and it's stressful but there's a lot of "some guy is yelling for help, I dunno, it's in my backyard so you should send the cops?"

I'd like to think that if somebody on my porch was yelling for help I'd at least go outside to see what's up.

IF you could guarantee that then maybe we would have something to talk about. But since it is a fact that prohibition doesn't work, and the law of large numbers guarantees that some number of kids will die in accidents of some sort this is really a nonstarter. Outside of "Dormroom Bull**** tm" conversations about majic wands that is.

that kind of enforcement would have to be an absolute police state the likes of which the world has never seen, and still likely wouldn't work.

One of the calls you could tell the lady was terrified. She can clearly hear him yelling for help, and says that, but says there is no way she is going out there because she doesn't know what's going on and he sounds so terrified.

The call where you hear him screaming and then hear the gunshot is pretty awful.

Dude is claiming it was him we're hearing screaming for help but I find that hard to believe as it's cut off clearly at the gunshot.

The fact that the 911 operator told the murderer not to go after him and he did so anyway, with a gun, disqualifies him from a self-defense defense imo.

Unfortunately legally it doesn't

This is why I am really against some of the new gun laws proposed in Iowa. One is that you can justifiably kill anyone you *think* is committing or about to commit a 'serious felony' and whether or not you could have retreated can't be taken into account.

"duty to retreat" opens up an even worse can of worms, legally and tactically. This case is insanely bad but is in no way representative of 99.9999% of self defense cases.

No one should have to retreat if they are in a public place, and virtually all self defense laws are written to allow for a reasonable person standard (if a reasonable person would have had cause to believe yada yada). This case is weird because the neighborhood watch dude seems to have instigated the incident, and I've never heard of a stand your ground law allowing a person to instigate a confrontation.

ETA: I did hear or read a report that said the neighborhood watch guy had defensive wounds, that maybe causing the prosecution to take it's time. Still, I don't see how self defense can come into play if the neighborhood watch guy followed the kid, and got out of his vehicle to confront the kid.

I know this case is highly unusual but if you can't take into account whether or not he should have stayed in his house it's an issue IMO.

This, and this is why the vigilante is gonna fry. Once the case gets established properly you will most likely see his self defense claim thrown out on "reasonable person" grounds. He has to show that a reasonable person would be in fear for his life or anothers life and it doesn't look like thats going to happen.

So now he can't walk around his neighborhood? *confused*

He wasn't just going out to walk around his neighborhood so yeah, I can see why you'd be confused thinking that.

rjoe, you've confused me with the house thing? What house are you talking about, and who shouldn't have left their house?

This is the part of the proposed Iowa law I disagree with. It's not about whether you fear for your or someone else's life it's whether you think the person you're about to kill is about to commit a 'serious felony'. Here that can mean assault with injury so in theory I would be able to shoot someone I think is about to punch someone in the face or something like that. It's way too broad IMO.

I don't think it will pass as there and we already have laws set up the way you describe here which I think are adequate.

I thought he was in his house when he called 911. I may have been mistaken and he was outside when he called.

I meant him following the guy after being told specifically not to should be something they can look at that. Forgive me if I had where he was originally wrong.

ETA: in the call he mentions the guy walking towards him or 'checking him out' or something so it would make sense that he wasn't in his house like I thought.