I don't think it's coincidental at all, because you're told to tell the police that if you discharge your weapon anywhere other than a shooting range when you take your CWL course.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Another Shooting
- Thread starter Dr. Cheese
- Start date
- Status
I don't think it's coincidental at all, because you're told to tell the police that if you discharge your weapon anywhere other than a shooting range when you take your CWL course.
Oh, yes, that old argument.
In the early 90's, when the State of Fl starting issuing CCW permits, various government types, including a few police chiefs, predicted that "blood will run in the streets." Here we sit, almost 25 years later, and that prediction has yet to play out. Certainly, will be instances like this that seem questionable, but the predictions of wide spread violence haven't played out yet.
I suspect it's taught as the statement that gives the shooter the least amount of liability in a shooting incident.
wink, wink, nod, nod, say no more!
It is taught because it is drilled into student's heads that they should only use their weapons in self defense, therefore its a true statement.
No law is perfect, but given the fallibility of people, I prefer a law that enforces a higher bar for deadly force.
I hold a Concealed Handgun Permit issued by the state of Virginia, and my permit is recognized by the state of Florida.
I would like to address some of these points from my own perspective, experience, and instruction.
"Deadly force" isn't defined simply whether someone is armed or unarmed.
Whether that's just an assumption, a misunderstanding mostly attributed by the media, or romanticizing an old cowboy code, judicially it's just not true.
"Deadly force" is governed almost solely by the "reasonable man (person)" doctrine.
For example, in Virginia, "deadly force" is justified not only to protect ones self, but can be applied to protect ANOTHER person IF that person is in a situation that is potentially life threatening.
Some examples of an application of deadly force against an "unarmed" threat would be if an assailant had another individual in a chokehold, or was kicking a prone individual in the head, or even giving the posture or indication of about to kick a person in the head.
Pummeling an individual about the head with fists could also be interpreted as "life threatening", as real life is very unlike hollywood films, many persons die each year from simple fistfights, even an alarming number from just one hit to the head.
Practically every state in the union requires in some wording or another that an individual is to "believe" their life is in imminent threat in order to justify lethal force.
In many states it is also stipulated that they must BOTH "believe" their life is in imminent danger AND that they must exhaust all avenues of escape before resorting to lethal force.
"Castle doctrine" states remove the latter requirement about exhausting all avenues of escape, thus the "stand your ground" wording.
This coupled with the principle of innocent until proven guilty, then yes, pretty much you just have to "feel" your life is in jeopardy to use lethal force.
"Murder" however, implies much more than merely self defense, and I wouldn't want to paint all self defense encounters with such a broad brush.
But I do believe in this case, Zimmerman's actions do suggest enough probable negligence, escalation, and even foreplanning to warrant charges.
And personally speaking, as a concealed handgun permit holder myself, I have zero interest in any vigilante or hothead or nutcase behaving in a reckless and dangerous manner under the banner of a CCW permit holder.
I hold myself to much, MUCH, higher standards, and expect other CCW permit holders to as well.
It is true that in my CHP class, taught by members of local law enforcement and a former local commonwealth attorney by the way, it was stressed over and over about the liability and responsibility and legality of lethal force, and a weapon is to be brought to bear ONLY when all other options are exhausted (Virginia has no "castle doctrine" but legal precedence in the form of a grand jury inquiry has historically aligned categorically with castle doctrine interpretation).
Someone going through such a course, who was bent on lying and trying to justify a bad decision and application of lethal force, particularly with no witness, could easily know EXACTLY what to say to minimize suspicion and liability.
I would like to address some of these points from my own perspective, experience, and instruction.
"Deadly force" isn't defined simply whether someone is armed or unarmed.
Whether that's just an assumption, a misunderstanding mostly attributed by the media, or romanticizing an old cowboy code, judicially it's just not true.
"Deadly force" is governed almost solely by the "reasonable man (person)" doctrine.
For example, in Virginia, "deadly force" is justified not only to protect ones self, but can be applied to protect ANOTHER person IF that person is in a situation that is potentially life threatening.
Some examples of an application of deadly force against an "unarmed" threat would be if an assailant had another individual in a chokehold, or was kicking a prone individual in the head, or even giving the posture or indication of about to kick a person in the head.
Pummeling an individual about the head with fists could also be interpreted as "life threatening", as real life is very unlike hollywood films, many persons die each year from simple fistfights, even an alarming number from just one hit to the head.
Practically every state in the union requires in some wording or another that an individual is to "believe" their life is in imminent threat in order to justify lethal force.
In many states it is also stipulated that they must BOTH "believe" their life is in imminent danger AND that they must exhaust all avenues of escape before resorting to lethal force.
"Castle doctrine" states remove the latter requirement about exhausting all avenues of escape, thus the "stand your ground" wording.
This coupled with the principle of innocent until proven guilty, then yes, pretty much you just have to "feel" your life is in jeopardy to use lethal force.
"Murder" however, implies much more than merely self defense, and I wouldn't want to paint all self defense encounters with such a broad brush.
But I do believe in this case, Zimmerman's actions do suggest enough probable negligence, escalation, and even foreplanning to warrant charges.
And personally speaking, as a concealed handgun permit holder myself, I have zero interest in any vigilante or hothead or nutcase behaving in a reckless and dangerous manner under the banner of a CCW permit holder.
I hold myself to much, MUCH, higher standards, and expect other CCW permit holders to as well.
It is true that in my CHP class, taught by members of local law enforcement and a former local commonwealth attorney by the way, it was stressed over and over about the liability and responsibility and legality of lethal force, and a weapon is to be brought to bear ONLY when all other options are exhausted (Virginia has no "castle doctrine" but legal precedence in the form of a grand jury inquiry has historically aligned categorically with castle doctrine interpretation).
Someone going through such a course, who was bent on lying and trying to justify a bad decision and application of lethal force, particularly with no witness, could easily know EXACTLY what to say to minimize suspicion and liability.
Dr. Cheese said:
With all due respect, I don't think you comprehend the theory behind a stand your ground law.
I do understand the theory. More importantly, I understand that the idea behind a law and how it plays out can be very different. I think that the way the law is written, it can be easily abused, and it needs to be amended. From what I can see, incidents like the Martin killing happen too often for this law to be acceptable.
Since I can imagine more than a few decent kids who are guilty of no looking the "wrong" way being seen as a threat and being killed by paranoid people with itchy trigger fingers, I feel the law should have a higher bar for deadly force.
I own guns, I have gun training. I have been a state licensed security guard. I believe in the right to self defense. I think the stand your ground premise sounds good, but its current implementation is dengerously flawed.
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
Here is some more background information on both Martin and Zimmerman. Martin had been suspended from school for excessive tardiness, something that is not unusual for teenagers.
Here is some more background information on both Martin and Zimmerman. Martin had been suspended from school for excessive tardiness, something that is not unusual for teenagers.
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
Here is a bit on the stand your ground Florida self defense law.
Here is a bit on the stand your ground Florida self defense law.
Opinion piece.
It's interesting that they mention the number of self-defense shooting for the state, yet fail to mention how many were ultimately found guilty.
I should add: Don't take my posts as being approving of Zimmerman's actions. I simply oppose the thought of taking away the rights of all citizens simply because one person makes the wrong choice and others choose to overreact.
...Like you are doing anything but giving your opinion too!
BTW, if you really want to debate stand your ground, I think you should start a thread yourself because this thread is first and and foremost about the Martin shooting.
I don't favor the current law, and I think it is too abuse as construed, you don't, fine. If you want to get deep into that debate, you need to sart a separate thread.
Those statistics mean nothing even if there was one killing that was questionable. If Zimmerman gets away with this becasue of that law .. in this case as well it would indeed be a license to kill.
So because there wasn't a wild west style shoot out on every corner you are saying this law is a success? I bet both of you would feel differently if it was YOUR son or YOUR nephew or any loved one or friend who was killed in a case where this law came into play. It needs to be more clearly defined and more training and accountability needs to be implemented. There will always be those who will be intimidated by their own preconceived notions more so than the facts..
Dr. Cheese said:
You brought that conversation into this thread, I am merely responding to it. I would suggest that, if you didn't want to discuss that sub-topic, you shouldn't have addressed it.
guy n. cognito said:
OK, you are right. I do think this law makes it much too easy for people with bad agendas to hide behind self defense. I do think that the particular rationale used to covet up what I believe is murder would not be available if this law were not written the way it is.
I do not think that changing this law will cure all problems anymore than changing any law will cure all problems, but I think the stand your ground premise is problematic as currently written and practiced.
From what I see it is just too easy to profile someone and feign fear to cover murder.
Dr. Cheese said:
Now you're calling it a cover up. Hmmm..... Have the police or DA stated that Zimmerman will not be charged? Maybe, just maybe, the q&a you posted contains some rationale behind the delay.
- Status
