Well, that's good, but firing your gun is not it's only use. I meant how many times did you brandish/aim your gun at a 'suspect' when lesser 'force' would have sufficed? (and how many times did you use it as a club?)

LOL!
Yes, the fact that it won't 'hurt' you is the point, it's only needed to slow you down enough to be controlled. I would think it would work for that purpose FAR better than brandishing a gun, especially since, if it must be used, no one need die with pepper spray, and there's usually backup on that rare occasion that it doesn't do the job (agreed, not always, but usually). It makes sense that less lethal force should be the first thing tried, not an after thought (or not used at all). Cops are paid and trained to face that danger, not to pawn the danger off on the 'suspect' (which often turns out to be an innocent citizen wrongly suspected and feared).

The entire purpose of a police force is to put themselves in harms way to protect the public.

If he had a gun, I would completely agree with you. Hell, if he was rushing at them with the knife brandished, I would completely agree with you. Are you seriously claiming that between two cops one couldn't have tasered him with the other ready to shoot if it didn't work?

This was a clearly mentally disturbed individual and all the cops here did was make the situation worse with by immediately escalating things.

A tazer may have been a option here if they have it handy. These officers had just rolled up. They were a distance away and just initiated the interaction. The man immediately starts coming at them and is brandishing a weapon. This guy called out the cops and had a plan. The cops do not deserve to get knifed here.

No... This definitely continues the point of "We don't need weapons that are easily concealed and readily available for this exact situation to be available at your local Wal Mart."

In terms of Canadian gun laws, could this still happen? Yes. But only after he's taken not one, but two tests, and a psych exam. Other than that, if he were walking around outside with a gun, it would've been something like a hunting rifle, where she could A) have hid, or B) said "He's carrying a gun!"

Lets go back to the whole "What about if he didn't have a handgun" bit, though. Because, honestly, if he didn't have a handgun, the cops would literally have been there within 2 minutes most likely.

You also make the assumption that even if she had a gun, she wouldn't have gotten shot. That would be true if she had been brandishing it when the guy broke in, but unless it was already in her hands, he already would've had her within the first 10 seconds of being in the house.

Once again you personally insult, and ignore most of the facts in order to further your insanity. I'll see your 'child' and raise you to infant.
FAIL
I only read your post because someone else replied quoting you (and I can't fathom why it showed your comment even then, it should have been hidden since you're ignored...@lucky760, what happened?)
You can't parrot what you haven't heard said, and no one else is pointing out that you can't be a patriot if you don't believe in the Fed, which unites the states....at least no one I've heard.
Your misconception based on intentionally misleading, 1/4 true, right wing media BS is obvious...this guy is a violent felon who publicly threatened to use violent force (against law enforcement that was not yet there in force OR heavily armed) to enforce his "right" to continue to break the law, no question, as are all those that brandish weapons at officers of the law, federal or not. It's the law that you can't do that to people not attacking you or breaking into your property (and NEVER to law officials) ...and no one attacked the cowards hiding behind their wall of women and children OR the Bundys, they simply confiscated illegally grazing cattle on FEDERAL land, belonging to all of us.
EDIT: and you ignore that most of these people don't consider themselves citizens, as they don't believe in the fed...without which there is no U in USA. They are citizens of their own states (in their own minds), considering themselves 'sovereign citizens', even though most don't have the balls to actually renounce their citizenship in the USA.
Non- payment of well known, legal state and federal fees for use of state and federal property, and non-payment of taxes are NOT civil matters, they are criminal, as is failure to appear. Many of his supporters guarding the Bundy's from prosecution (hindering prosecution is a felony too) are the same ones that support the fed seizing property of those caught with a joint, so it's not about state rights or 'freedom', it's about standing with idiots that hate what you hate, namely "the negro" (one in particular).

What's the better solution here? The guy was obviously pacing and holding a knife in a severely confined space. The non-lethal option, Tazing, has been a controversy on the sift since I started coming to the site.

Two options remain, allow him to hurt himself or others by allowing him to just stay with the knife, or charge him and risk a wound, or a potential fatal wound on one or more officers.

It's a shitty fucking situation, I don't know why the kid was brandishing a knife in the first place, but he had it drawn for a reason, and it likely wasn't to get the gunk out from under his fingernails.

This one suspect was not a threat to the entire Boston area, and did not make what amounts to Martial law without the declaration right. If you think being scared is the best reason to give up your rights to privacy and freedom from search and seizure, you don't understand the USA and perhaps should move to one of those other countries that agree with you, there are many.
Now, we appear to have a comprehension problem...I said I disagree with those claiming this was some conspiracy or even a compliance test. I did not say, and have not heard anyone else say (besides the suspects father) that this was perpetrated by the government, that's a pretty big jump there. The implication is that the police are using the fear violate people's rights thinking they'll be either be justified in their actions or at least get away with them. Sadly they would likely be right, thanks in large part to people like Fletch that don't understand or agree with the freedom from 'search and seizure'.
As to what they might find that would make it 'justified', nothing in my mind, but in theirs could be a different story. They leave it open for the GBs out there to call this a 'deadly ruse' amongst other things, and to claim it was simply a way to enter and search peoples homes for whatever they might find (remember, that's how many departments fund themselves, with seizures, so there's a great reason for them to want to know if there's something to seize).
I'm of the opinion that the Boston police saw an opportunity to enter at least some homes they knew full well were not in danger but that they were 'suspicious' of under the 'public safety' umbrella, and likely brought charges against some for what they found, but that's just a guess based on past behavior, I have no evidence that this happened.
I believe the police should have narrowed the search area to less than one square block once they knew where he was, not randomly search homes for him when they have no idea whatsoever where he is. There's no danger if he's not there, so no excuse to enter. If they don't know, but search anyway, that's an illegal warrantless search. If they pull their guns on you and train them at you (which they seemed to do in the video) they put your life in danger for no reason and should be prosecuted for brandishing.
No one (after the carjack victim not in a home) was held against their will, no one needed saving. When they don't know where the suspect is, they don't know where to search for him, so should not enter any home uninvited. How do you not get that? If they don't know where he is or what he's doing or even if he's armed (which it turns out he was not) then there's no exigent circumstance. Period. They only exist when there is knowledge of the suspects actual presence and evidence the he's either threatening others or evidence, not the worry that he might be.
Again, you appear to suggest that the police may enter your home to search for dangerous criminals at any time they choose in the name of safety because they are dangerous criminals and MAY be in your home, they are certainly in the area. That's just plain dumb and shows lack of forethought and lack of understanding of the right to be free from search and seizure, especially in your own home.
If you want to give up your rights because your a coward, move. I hear Australia is nice.
Apologies for the long post.

I like the word a lot because here in the states it pisses so many people off differently you never know what to expect when you brandish it....
I was fired once for asking a co-worker (bitch) if in the course of conversation had anyone ever used the word "cunt" before? Straight out of context, the boss was told I called her a cunt, and the silly bitch got me fired. I then described her to my former employer as a "fucking" cunt, using the modifying adjective so as not to cause anymore confusion.

not really because you can't stop second hand smoke with smoking, whereas you can stop home invasions and bad guys with guns, with guns.

The intentions of most legal gun owners are not malicious in nature. Some are just hobbyists, some just have them for protection from those brandishing (most likely) illegal guns looking to do them harm...there's no way of avoiding those situations. If a bad person, such as the coward that took out the children, has horrible intentions, the only thing you can argue is the ease with which he managed to obtain the weapon. It was obviously too easy for a man with mental disabilities to get them. But with the intentions of killing innocent children, there are a hundred ways to do it without a gun. Would he have gone through more trouble had he not had access to guns? Maybe. Maybe not. But he had those horrible intentions and the capacity to carry them out, and that's the horrendous part of this. It's the part that scares every sane person is: how could somebody want to do that?

The reason why the issue has been shifted from "how could somebody do that?" to the means in which he did it, is because humans like to think they have total control of their environment and a wildcard such as mental insanity scares people just as much as our own mortality. Whereas blaming something tangible is easy because we could "technically" stop it. So we end up blaming things like video games and guns.

Sorry I'm trying to avoid other examples (Timothy McVeigh, etc.) because they are hackneyed, but some of them might give an insight as to the cause and the ends being more significant than the means.

Theres only one way to read minds... dissect its brain! Restrain the specimen! *brandishes knife*

>> ^L0cky:
I'm not sure who's disagreeing with who here.
The fact that you can teach a child in order to make their access to guns safer doesn't mean that every child that has access to guns will be taught this in a sufficient way. Besides, how many children had lots of training and still ended up shooting themselves or someone else.
You can get very detailed statistics from the CDC, unfortunately I can't link to them because they are generated by a search and the URLs generated are session specific. The statistics, as detailed as they are, don't state weather the child was educated in the use of firearms, but accidental firearms death in children is quite low. According to the CDC, between 1999 and 2010 the leading cause of accidental deaths to children ages 1-4 is motor vehicle accidents (28.9%), poisoning is 8th (2.4%) and firearms is 12th (1.0%). Going up to the 5-9 age range MVA is still the leading cause of accidental death (46.7%), with poisoning still 8th (1.8%) and firearms still 12th (1.5%). You can look them up yourself at the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention & Control.

>> ^L0cky:
If you don't think having a gun in your home would automatically make it the most dangerous thing in that home then you're either being disingenuous or you have some freaky shit going on in your house.
Having a gun in your home does not make it the most dangerous thing in the house, and the statistics I posted above back me up. There are plenty of things even in a gunless household that are lethal if a child gets its hands on it. I would argue that a gun is far safer because it can be unloaded and therefore be rendered harmless if a kid gets a hold of it. A bottle of drain cleaner, bug spray, bottle of medicine, etc. is always going to be dangerous if a child gets a hold of it. With those items, all you can do is lock them away in a safe place where a child can't get them until they are old enough to understand that they are dangerous. Any responsible gun owner would treat a gun the same as any other dangerous object in the home, by unloading it and/or locking it up until the child is old enough to be taught that it's dangerous and not something to play with.

I don't understand your objection to teaching a kid how to properly operate a firearm when the're old enough. I was taught by my father as his father taught him, and I've never killed anyone on purpose or accident.

>> ^L0cky:
So my question is: despite the fact that some kids can be taught to be careful with a firearm, what is the justification of owning one...
I can't speak for every gun owner, but I have several reasons. I personally own four guns, two rifles and two pistols. It's a hobby, I like to shoot them, but I also own them for self defense. I also like archery and own a bow. A bow is also an instrument of war and designed for the taking of human life as well as hunting, just as a rifle, but how come no one pitches a fit about bows like they do guns? I don't hunt, but I have friends that do, so there's another reason for you.

I also have gone through the steps to acquire a license to carry a concealed firearm in my state. I think of it as insurance. I have car insurance, but I don't intend to get in a wreck, and I also have home owners insurance though I don't intend for my home to get damaged or destroyed. I don't carry a gun intending to kill someone, but just like car and home insurance I have it just in case.

>> ^L0cky:
I'll play devil's advocate and say 5: to defend your property and family against an armed burgler. Yet if you take a look at the rest of the world, at countries where guns are not prolific, gun assisted burglaries are so rare that it doesn't even bear thinking about.

The fact that you need a gun to defend yourself against someone with a gun is because you both have guns. - Captain "Circular" Obvious

From everything you've posted, you seem to be thinking that someone needs a gun to defend oneself from an attacker with a gun. The majority violent of crimes do NOT involve the use of a gun, and up to 2.5 million reported crimes (many are unreported) are prevented by lawful gun owners each year, most of which do not involve discharging the weapon.

Ninety percent of violent crimes are committed by persons not carrying handguns. This is one reason why the mere brandishing of a gun by a potential victim of violence often is a sufficient response to a would-be attacker. In most cases where a gun is used in self-defense, it is not fired." [source]

>> ^L0cky:
I can't really budge on this unless you can somehow convince me that it's not preferable to live in a western society where almost all people have never even seen a real gun, therefore removing all their associated problems.
That's not an idealism, that's pretty much most of Europe.

Personally I would rather live in a society where people are educated and non violent so that we can own guns for sport, collecting, hunting, etc. and not have to deal with people's irrational fear of them. You seem to have some delusional idea that removing guns from society is going stop crime and violence. Removing guns isn't going to magically stop people from being violent and committing crimes. The UK and Australia did ban personal ownership of guns and their crime rates went up because the only ones left with guns were the criminals. [1][2][3][4]

>> ^Yogi:

I hope Obama destroys this country...I really want to help these crazy people feel like they're sane.


I know right? It would be very oddly reassuring to wake up some morning and Obama has a press conference brandishing an AK-47, shooting it into the air and screaming of jihad.

It would be strangly comforting to discover that the world is, in fact, black and white and straight out of a early 1950's serial fiction story.

There would be no consequences, everything would reset back to normal for the next episode.

>> ^kymbos:

@jimnms - link for your last para?
Meanwhile, I think you're missing the point: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/america-is-a-violent-coun
try/
Over to you and your next move: the 'data must be wrong' argument.


Here's your source, and it didn't come out of my ass like Bill's shit.

What point I'm missing? Your linked article doesn't mention guns anywhere, it shows that America is more violent than other advanced countries, which is even more of reason to carry a gun for self defense. I think you're the one missing the point.

Ninety percent of violent crimes are committed by persons not carrying handguns. This is one reason why the mere brandishing of a gun by a potential victim of violence often is a sufficient response to a would-be attacker. In most cases where a gun is used in self-defense, it is not fired. Can the average citizen be trusted to judge accurately when he or she is in jeopardy?...

A nationwide study by Don Kates, the constitutional lawyer and criminologist, found that only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high." [source]

As for the U.S. vs other countries in gun homicides, the U.S. isn't #1:

Of course, it is not surprising that where there are more guns, there tends to be more gun-related deaths, but northern Latin America (Brazil in particular) breaks from this trend in a major way. The area has a massive homicide by firearm rate, with some of the lowest rates of gun ownership in the world and the highest homicides by firearm count...

Brazil, Columbia, Venezuela and Ecuador combine for more homicides by firearm than Mexico, the United States, South Africa, the Philippines, Honduras, Guatemala, India, El Salvador, Dominican Republic, Bangladesh, Argentina and Jamaica put together. That is every other country with over 1,000 homicides by firearm. You would imagine that gun control would be very lax in the area, but as the top chart here illustrates, that is not the case. Brazil, for example, has roughly 255 million fewer guns (and about 115 million fewer people) than the United States and a much more strict and effective set of firearm regulations. So, while it is true that where there are guns, there is gun violence, that is clearly not the only determining factor. [source]

Several other sources [1] [2] show pretty much the same data.

>> ^Darkhand:


Pork that's the problem though even your own article says "I have my doubts, I don't see how" but we don't know all the facts.
This law should not be under scrutiny until it's actually used and if it actually gets zimmerman off.
And the problem with your Theory about Martin being able to continuously pummel Zimmerman while he is on the ground is not true. Once Zimmerman is on his back the "Perceived Threat" is neutralized. It works the same way here in jersey with self defense but I can't use a gun. I answer force with equal force. Once my opponent is disabled I can't keep wailing on them.
Being stalked, in my opinion, does not allow you to feel like your life is in danger. Martin used his cellphone to text his girlfriend, why didn't he call the cops and try to get help?
But then again I'm not a lawyer OR a judge and nobody else is. So everything I say here could be wrong. We don't have all the facts so anyone claiming to know EXACTLY what happened is wrong.
It's just funny because it seems to me that liberals are siding with Martin and Conservatives and siding with Zimmerman. Everyone seems to have their own set of "Facts" and nobody is willing to believe that their own side (Liberal Media or Conservative Media) is injecting facts that may or may not be 100% credible into the case.
Everyone seems to be using this case as a means to push their own policy whether it's gun control reform, minority rights, or personal security. Everyone seems to just be ignoring the tragedy that some kid has had the rest of his life taken from him. Because really that's all we do know!


If you don't have any doubts given that the police didn't tox screen Zimmerman, Zimmerman was told not to follow, they had the wrong detective doing the investigation, and witnesses were coming forward weeks AFTER the incident to try to tell their side of it and saying police never investigated. Then I don't think you can call yourself objective.

I personally try to put myself in either person's shoes and decide if I think I would have acted the same way. I can see Trayvon's point of view more easily than I can Zimmerman. If I were a teenager visiting my father and someone in his neighborhood was following me, I would definitely try to run. And if they kept pursuing and had me trapped, you have the choice of letting them do whatever or fighting back. That part is going to vary on what is being said, but I think Zimmerman acted as aggressor there.

Now in Zimmerman's shoes, I don't own a gun, in fact I've never even held one or fired one. However, if I did have a gun, I certainly would not get so close to someone as for them to take my gun from me or prevent me from using my gun if I felt they were "suspicious". I also would not have gotten out of my vehicle to make that even more likely to occur. As for following a teenager, if they looked like a teen in physical appearance I wouldn't push the issue. If it were an adult acting like that, I might be concerned enough to try to keep them in view from a block away or something. I certainly would never have gotten out of my vehicle in either case of a non-injured teen or adult...they obviously don't want you to be near them if they RUN.

The SYG law, which I have quoted the relevant portions in a previous quote does not say that someone is neutralized when they are on their back. Reposting a portion of it:

2011 Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE[14]

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

If Trayvon could reasonably believe he was in imminent threat of death or great bodily harm the law clearly says he could use lethal force against Zimmerman. Given that Zimmerman was awake throughout and had the ability to draw a gun and shoot, he was not neutralized. Trayvon was within his rights to defend himself by beating Zimmerman to death if he reasonably felt his life was in danger. If Zimmerman said he had a gun, or the gun was detectable through clothing, or brandishing it, that's a clear indicator that Zimmerman had the ability to use lethal force against him.

Martin wasn't texting his girlfriend, he was speaking to her according to her testimony. She says the line went dead after she HEARD them ask questions and then shoving began.

As for stalking, people get restraining orders against stalkers all the time. If it wasn't a presentation of danger, the courts would not hand out these restraining orders against people who do such things.

I don't like labeling myself as liberal or conservative. Perhaps my life experience makes me favor Martin, but I think the presentation of information thus far indicates that in the moment Zimmerman was beyond the "norm" for behavior for an adult non-LEO against another civilian who was young if not underage. That's not even counting the confrontation, he went beyond the scope a normal citizen would prior to it. Whether that was because he "on something", "pissed", "racist", or had some other agenda.....we can't know. I think it's clear evidence of him not thinking acting reasonably or thinking clearly.

And I don't feel that I'm pushing an agenda. I'm applying the language of the law to the scenario, and I feel that Zimmerman violated Martin's rights and was let go because of the law that should have applied first and foremost to Martin who was actively trying to escape Zimmerman by Zimmerman's own admissions on the 911 tapes. The rest of the police screw ups is just fuel to the fire. It doesn't even matter if Zimmerman hated blacks at this point, although it will be important once they finally apply the law in some kind of rational way. To determine if this was a hate crime on his part, which will be left up to a jury.

Again, I can absolutely see why people would be upset on this case for a lot of reasons. But by far the most troubling is that it seems like you can put someone on the defensive, and straight up murder them as soon as they have lost all other options of flight and turn to fight. Not seeing that aspect of it, is by far the most troubling "blindness"/willful ignorance of the people coming out on the side of Zimmerman. Without evidence to show that Trayvon had a chance for escape, Zimmerman is 100% wrong in the wording of the law under 776.041 as the aggressor. If we can't apply the law by it's language, it's a useless law.

Thanks for the thought out response MMD. Actually, my father and grandfather owned guns and kept them in the house. They were former marine and army, and definitely believed in the 2nd amendment. My father even gave me a rifle for a birthday as a child and taught me basic safety and maintenance.

But I never saw them use their guns in an emotional outburst to make some argumentative point. They had too much discipline for behavior like that. The guy in the video is clearly very angry and emotional (from the timbre in his voice) before and while using the gun.

As far as the legality of him doing what he was doing. From my experience, cops can make up a charge if they really want to, and maybe they (and child services) would at least bother the guy enough to make sure he thinks twice before brandishing a gun in this manner and putting it on youtube.

Yeah people shoot at things all the time, but a laptop? I know how they are assembled, and there are several layers of components that make up the machine, including many brittle materials that can easily shatter. Not to mention toxic materials like solder, etc. I doubt this guy has been taking laptops down to the quarry for target practice regularly enough to know how they take a hollow point.>> ^MilkmanDan:

>> ^longde:
Thinking about it more, what really bothers me about this video is the gratuitous use of the gun. To display that level of intimidation and violence in his home is one thing, but to broadcast it to other youth in his community is reckless.
One unintentional lesson that kids will take from this is that it's acceptable to wave a gun around and shoot off a few rounds to vent your anger and resolve a problem.
If I were a parent in this community, I would be making a few calls to the authorities.
And I'm the guy who supported belt whipping guy. I think gun guy is way worse than belt beating guy.
(also, how did this genius know that there would be no flying shrapnel from the components in the laptop?)

I fully understand and appreciate your concerns here, but once again I'm on the other side of the fence. Maybe just because I grew up on a farm in a rural area where a very high percentage of households owned at least one firearm and most kids in those homes were taught how to responsibly use a gun.
A lot of people think that there isn't really any justification for owning a gun outside of being a soldier or policeman, and that therefore the only way to practice being responsible with a gun is to simply never own or fire one. I would disagree, but if that is the mindset I'm not going to be able to convince anyone otherwise.
Anyway, I don't see his use of the gun as displaying any "intimidation" or "violence", so I don't have any problem with his posting the video on his daughter's facebook and/or youtube or whatever. By shooting the laptop, he wasn't telling his daughter "straighten up or next time its YOU!" (intimidation), he was telling her that actions have consequences and since the laptop is his property he can do whatever he wants with it -- including destroying it rather than have her feel like she is entitled to it.
There are plenty of freely available videos on the internet (even here on the sift, say) where people use firearms in genuinely reckless and irresponsible ways orders of magnitude beyond this one. And that is before considering ubiquitous reckless or malevolent use of firearms in fictional media like movies, etc.
If you were a parent in his community, you would be welcome to call and complain to the authorities, but they would tell you that he definitely didn't do anything against the law. So you'd pretty much be wasting your breath.
About the risk of flying shrapnel, I think that he "knows" that there wouldn't be any (or at least that the risk is acceptably minute) because he has used firearms before. Part of learning to use a gun responsibly (at least, how I would define responsibly) is shooting at things and seeing what happens to them. You shoot a BB gun at cans or bottles set up on posts. You shoot a rifle or handgun at targets at a shooting range or in a rural area with nothing in front of you. You shoot a shotgun at an empty 2-liter bottle thrown up in the air, or at clay pigeons.
While doing those things, you notice that whatever you are shooting at generally doesn't explode like it does in the movies. If any fragments fly off (not likely), they won't have much mass, they won't be traveling very fast (vastly slower than the bullet), and they will most likely be traveling in the same general direction as the bullet -- not back towards you. Physics dictates that his shooting the laptop was relatively safe, even at close range like that.