The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Off Topic Discussions > Finally, a Step in the Right Direction
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 04-13-2012, 05:43 AM
Enterprise Captain's Avatar
Enterprise Captain Enterprise Captain is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Toronto, ON Canada
Posts: 1,066
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
I watched a Democracy Now show two weeks ago, it had some good information about the case. Somehow I don't expect that our Klansman murder apologist watches foreign news shows.
I found this article really interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-13-2012, 06:16 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,257
Default

Thanks for the link, EC. ALEC seems to mainly engage in ordinary corporate lobby work. But the "stand your ground" laws have more in common with stuff like having used Blackwater in New Orleans after the hurricane, i.e. not merely privatizing what is quintessentially public, military, polices and prison services, but in addition to that trying to create a climate in which militias could roam through the streets and spread terror.

"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it comes strong than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism: ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power." -FDR
That's what happened in Italy, that's what happened in Germany and that's what nearly happened in the US under Roosevelt.
Nowadays it happens everywhere but in slow motion.

On a bright side it is nice to hear that several companies quit their membership, that the corporate state is not unscratchable.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-13-2012, 01:31 PM
martok2112's Avatar
martok2112 martok2112 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: River Ridge, LA
Posts: 6,458
Default

Personally, I support "Stand Your Ground", although I'll use more physical prowess to deal with my attacker, unless there's more than one, then I'll go to guns....regardless if my attackers are armed or unarmed.

If someone is attacking me, I never go on the assumption that they're just out to kick my ***. As far as I am concerned, my life is on the line and I will fight for my life (or my loved ones', my friends') with whatever means necessary. This also includes if a friend of mine should decide to attack me...he too will be judged in the same light...out to take my life, not kick my ***.

If someone verbally threatens me, I will give them the chance to stand down, warning them that I do not take such threats lightly. If he goes to physical attack...it's his funeral...or prolonged stay of convalescance and physical therapy.

I may not kill my attacker, but I will certainly make said attacker regret the day they were born...for the rest of his miserable life.
__________________


Last edited by martok2112 : 04-13-2012 at 01:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-13-2012, 05:20 PM
tannerwaterbury's Avatar
tannerwaterbury tannerwaterbury is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 456
Default

I carry a gun myself. I am on the fence on the whole deal myself, it sounded like from the MSM that he was either attacked, or that he was pursuing the kid, which is stupid to do in the first place, and would indeed justify his arrest and prosecution. In Washington State, we have Stand Your Ground, but it specifically states that we cannot use DEADLY force unless the life of myself, my family or someone around me is in immediate Jeopardy, and have their life threatened. I won't simply just go around shooting my gun at Bad guys if they are doing something minor. If there was a robbery going on, and I was in the store, and I wasn't seen, and the robber was pointing a gun at a clerk and was distracted at the time being, I could be justified in using deadly force, but I would also need to make sure I'm not aiming in the direction where some innocent bystander will get hit in the crossfire. With owning a gun and having a permit to carry comes GREAT responsibility, and common sense is a part of that responsibility. Not everyone that carries is going to act all retarded and pretend they are the cops, and those that DO act that way are just making a bad name for Law Abiding gun owners. I need to have more information on this case and ignore the media. I will not judge the man already, because quite frankly he is innocent to me until he is proven guilty. Evidence needs to be forwarded to show whether or not he used justified force, and whether or not he is innocent or guilty of killing Trayvon. I won't play by emotions here, because that will always come out as the man with the gun being automatically guilty, even if he was justified.
__________________
ALL PRAISE TO ZARDOZ!

GREAT SCOTT!!! ANOTHER FRIEND OF ZARDOZ!

Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-13-2012, 07:28 PM
Akula2ssn's Avatar
Akula2ssn Akula2ssn is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,454
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tannerwaterbury View Post
I carry a gun myself. I am on the fence on the whole deal myself, it sounded like from the MSM that he was either attacked, or that he was pursuing the kid, which is stupid to do in the first place, and would indeed justify his arrest and prosecution. In Washington State, we have Stand Your Ground, but it specifically states that we cannot use DEADLY force unless the life of myself, my family or someone around me is in immediate Jeopardy, and have their life threatened. I won't simply just go around shooting my gun at Bad guys if they are doing something minor. If there was a robbery going on, and I was in the store, and I wasn't seen, and the robber was pointing a gun at a clerk and was distracted at the time being, I could be justified in using deadly force, but I would also need to make sure I'm not aiming in the direction where some innocent bystander will get hit in the crossfire. With owning a gun and having a permit to carry comes GREAT responsibility, and common sense is a part of that responsibility. Not everyone that carries is going to act all retarded and pretend they are the cops, and those that DO act that way are just making a bad name for Law Abiding gun owners. I need to have more information on this case and ignore the media. I will not judge the man already, because quite frankly he is innocent to me until he is proven guilty. Evidence needs to be forwarded to show whether or not he used justified force, and whether or not he is innocent or guilty of killing Trayvon. I won't play by emotions here, because that will always come out as the man with the gun being automatically guilty, even if he was justified.
Yeah I'm on the fence with this one. I do feel that Zimmerman made a real boneheaded decision by pursuing Trayvon, and that's putting in politely. Not even sure there's an impolite word out there that even begins to describe how poor the decision was. Anyway, what happened after he gets out of the vehicle and pursues Trayvon is really what the whole thing hangs on. But even there, I still think based on what I've seen already and assuming what I've seen is factual, that at the very least he's going to get hit and should get hit with at least manslaughter. But that opinion may not have any real legal basis. I can't help but look at this in terms of use of force policy and that's not law, that's agency policy. In theory as a member of a law enforcement agency, if you operate within agency policy, then you are also within the rule of law. However, if you just operate in the rule of law, you might not be operating within agency policy. And that's where officers and agents often get in trouble. They might not have done anything illegal as far as the law is concerned, but because what they did was outside agency policy, the agency will not back them.

I'm not opposed to the idea of what the laws are supposed to protect, but I'm not particularly a fan of the way a lot of these Stand Your Ground Laws are written. Technically the level of suspicion required by these laws is rather low as far as my understanding of the legal language used in them goes. My understanding of the laws I have read indicates reasonable suspicion is what is needed. That's not even sufficient for a law enforcement officer to conduct a search of a person. Again I draw attention to my understanding of the language. I'm familiar with reasonable suspicion and probable cause, but most of the laws I've seen use "reasonably believes". Some if not all the laws I've seen do differentiate between using force to defend one's self and using deadly force, and attempt to say that certain circumstances may warrant force but not deadly force. But again, these are laws. They're written in the language of lawmakers and thus can be quite vague. I suppose that shouldn't be surprising. Lawmakers write laws that govern what law enforcement agencies may or may not do and they do so often in very broad language. After that the lawmakers leave it to the actual agencies to figure out the details of how to remain within the rule of law.

I know I sound somewhat dispassionate about this whole deal, but part of it is due to training. The other is (and I think Tanner can back me up on this one) here in Washington State, we don't really have the kind of racial tensions that exist on the east coast or in California. At least it's not nearly as pervasive. Things here are pretty laid back...Provided the WTO doesn't have a conference in Seattle...
__________________

"Don't confuse facts with reality."
-Robert D. Ballard
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-13-2012, 08:08 PM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

Guns are dangerous, I will never own one, and if I can avoid it I will never touch one. It's TOO Easy to end someones life or even your own. Defensively I prefer a stun weapon to subdue or even a good old fashion bat.

Too many people, too many guns, not enough sound judgement.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-13-2012, 08:23 PM
Akula2ssn's Avatar
Akula2ssn Akula2ssn is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,454
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
Guns are dangerous, I will never own one, and if I can avoid it I will never touch one. It's TOO Easy to end someones life or even your own. Defensively I prefer a stun weapon to subdue or even a good old fashion bat.

Too many people, too many guns, not enough sound judgement.
Don't even need those. There's a number of places on a person's body (other than the gonads) that will make a person very responsive given enough direct pressure with the fingers. But yeah, as far as nonlethal weapons I'd would rather use a stun weapon. Pepper spray is way too unpredictable, and it usually just pisses the guy off.

Personally if I were to get into a scuffle where we're actually on the deck going hands on. My gun probably would be the very last thing I would go for, simply because at that point I am just as likely to shoot myself, someone else, or lose my gun to my attacker and get shot by him/her. Better to use one or both my hands to keep the weapon in the holster and call out for help. It's actually how a lot of officers are killed. Subject gets a hold of their gun and shoots the officer.

It also does take a lot of training to become proficient at handling a gun and to be able to function under circumstances where you probably would need to use a gun. And I'm not saying that because it looks like high speed low drag balls to the wall hot s**t. I say it because the reality is that law enforcement and security about 99.9% of the time is BORING as hell. Most of the time you're you're going to be dealing with people who cooperate. Most of the time if you have to do more than verbal communication, you'll be doing things like pressure points or transport holds. Very rarely do you ever do any of the really nasty stuff. So it takes a lot of regular training because you aren't doing it most of the time if ever.

I'm all for people being able to use whatever force is needed in defense of them self or someone else. I'm a little hesitant on property simply because property can be replaced. But I think if you are going to be carrying a weapon to defend yourself, you should get training. And this is even true for pepper spray, because if you use pepper spray, it's very likely you're going to get it on yourself so you need to be able to learn to function while under its effects. Also (depending on the type of spray device you use) you can cause permanent harm to the target. If a law enforcement agent were to do that to a subject, the use of that non-lethal weapon would then (by the book) be classified as deadly force. From a law enforcement use of force perspective deadly force doesn't have to kill the subject. It can also be any force that causes severe and/or permanent disfigurement or disability.
__________________

"Don't confuse facts with reality."
-Robert D. Ballard

Last edited by Akula2ssn : 04-13-2012 at 08:42 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-13-2012, 09:35 PM
Captain Tom Coughlin's Avatar
Captain Tom Coughlin Captain Tom Coughlin is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: USS Meadowlands
Posts: 10,985
Default

I take it you are a cop, or perhaps Coast Guard judging by your pictures?
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-13-2012, 09:44 PM
Akula2ssn's Avatar
Akula2ssn Akula2ssn is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,454
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Tom Coughlin View Post
I take it you are a cop, or perhaps Coast Guard judging by your pictures?
The latter.
__________________

"Don't confuse facts with reality."
-Robert D. Ballard
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-13-2012, 09:46 PM
Captain Tom Coughlin's Avatar
Captain Tom Coughlin Captain Tom Coughlin is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: USS Meadowlands
Posts: 10,985
Default

Cool, I was just curious. I gathered from your responses that you were in something related to law enforcement.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:57 PM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.