ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 25th July 2018, 03:01 PM   #321
gregthehammer
Muse
 
gregthehammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 543
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
It is a direct inference from the video.
No. Not once. Not ever.
gregthehammer is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2018, 03:19 PM   #322
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,343
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Because some of us think it is funny when people try to deliberately mislead by taking a clause out of context.

WorldStar style stomping was stopped by a guy with a gun
This is speculation, but assuming it is true, drawing the gun sufficed. Firing it was unnecessary. You have never addressed this.

You are losing this one, TBD.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2018, 03:23 PM   #323
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,802
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post

This is speculation, but assuming it is true, drawing the gun sufficed. Firing it was unnecessary. You have never addressed this.

You are losing this one, TBD.
You do realize that basically all you are saying is that your opinion differs from my analysis and the Sheriff's analysis. I get that people can differ, i assume you do too.

The only ones "losing" anything are the ones whose 'analysis" seems to be little more than conclusions wrapped up in false claims.
__________________
Very legal and very cool!
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2018, 03:23 PM   #324
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 41,718
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
ST, we know full well that you are happy to see a black person shot dead. In many other instances this would be an unfair strawman, but in your case it is not.

There is no worthwhile discussion to be had here with you.
Except for the gallows humor that might be had from their sheer craziness. that can be said of all Neo Nazis.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2018, 03:25 PM   #325
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 41,718
Originally Posted by gregthehammer View Post
No. Not once. Not ever.
This.
I am a lot more willing then many here to give the benefit of the doubt to somebody acting in self defense,but no way was this shooting justified.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2018, 03:28 PM   #326
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 18,353
I was going to reply, but decided it wasn't worth it to actually try to win the argument.

I believe the State's Attorney's office is going to prosecute the case. When that happens, the knee jerk right wing will cry foul. At that point, let's see where the radio yappers jump in. If they don't carry the torch for Drejka, like they did for Zimmerman, you'll know that he doesn't have a legal prayer.

So far, I haven't heard any of them taking his side, but until charges are filed, that's understandable.

Last edited by Meadmaker; 25th July 2018 at 03:40 PM.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2018, 03:39 PM   #327
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 41,718
it is interesting that two of the guys here who are trying to justify the shooting are also our biggest "Trump can do now wrong" club members.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2018, 03:39 PM   #328
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,343
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
You do realize that basically all you are saying is that your opinion differs from my analysis and the Sheriff's analysis. I get that people can differ, i assume you do too.

The only ones "losing" anything are the ones whose 'analysis" seems to be little more than conclusions wrapped up in false claims.
No, TBD, I am saying more than that. Your argument does not address a critical point I have brought up. And the Sheriff is an idiot. See my links from early in the thread for why.

The fact that some of your opponents are also wrong doesn't make you right.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2018, 03:45 PM   #329
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,802
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No, TBD, I am saying more than that. Your argument does not address a critical point I have brought up. And the Sheriff is an idiot. See my links from early in the thread for why.

The fact that some of your opponents are also wrong doesn't make you right.
All your critical point is doing is parsing out the video and coming to an opinion that firing it was not necessary. Again, you are welcome to your opinion, but given the fact that we have just seen the victim laid out on the concrete all that is Monday Morning Quarterbacking.
__________________
Very legal and very cool!
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2018, 04:31 PM   #330
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,343
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
All your critical point is doing is parsing out the video and coming to an opinion that firing it was not necessary. Again, you are welcome to your opinion, but given the fact that we have just seen the victim laid out on the concrete all that is Monday Morning Quarterbacking.
Let's look at this from the moment the gun was drawn. Where was the target? What was the target doing? The target was some distance away, and retreating. Do you dispute this?

Now, what did the shooter do? Did he fire right away? No, he did not. He paused. Within the time of that pause, he could have assessed that the target was not advancing. He could have recognized that the drawn gun was sufficient to protect him. He could have refrained from firing, because it wasn't necessary in order to protect himself. He SHOULD HAVE done all of this. It would have been neither difficult nor risky to do so.

But he didn't, and now a man is dead, and the shooter may well end up in prison for a long time.

As for Monday morning quarterbacking, we are supposed to do that. We are supposed to evaluate his actions, and determine whether they were reasonable. And based on the available evidence, they were not.

I'm not like Mumbles. I don't see every shooting of an unarmed black man as a racist murder. I think the Zimmerman verdict was correct, and I think the Micheal Brown shooting was justified. But you're being just as reflexively defensive about the issue as Mumbles is being reflexively critical. It's not a good look.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2018, 05:13 PM   #331
Reactor drone
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,161
Originally Posted by The Greater Fool View Post
The shooting victim parked illegally in a handicapped space. To say this 'started' the episode is beyond ridiculous. The shooter had no legal authority to take any action against illegal parking. None. The MOST he should have done is call the police NON-EMERGENCY number to report it. That's it. Any confrontation was [what turned out to be] an armed man stewing for a fight.

Then, the shooter starts yelling at the PASSENGER in the car. What control did she have over the choice of parking space? Why yell at a passenger that had no choice or control over where the car was parked? It is irrational on the face of it. The shooter began this by acting irrationally.

The victim came out of the store seeing an irrationally angry man yelling at his spousal unit. In such a highly charged state I can see how he may have pushed the shooter harder than intended when trying to push the shooter away from his spousal unit.

Then irrationally angry man gets angrier and pulls a gun and commits, minimally, manslaughter.
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
wrong.

Start from the beginning.
The Greater fool was indeed wrong. The shooting victim did not park the car in a disabled spot. The woman was not the passenger.

Also, where are we getting the audio from as to who was shouting at who?
Reactor drone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2018, 05:49 PM   #332
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,802
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Now, what did the shooter do? Did he fire right away? No, he did not. He paused. Within the time of that pause, he could have assessed that the target was not advancing. He could have recognized that the drawn gun was sufficient to protect him. He could have refrained from firing, because it wasn't necessary in order to protect himself. He SHOULD HAVE done all of this. It would have been neither difficult nor risky to do so.
You did not mention anything about the attack while concluding what he "could" have done and "should" have done.
__________________
Very legal and very cool!
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2018, 06:12 PM   #333
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,343
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
You did not mention anything about the attack while concluding what he "could" have done and "should" have done.
I have before, but you ignored my previous posts. The attack was over after he pulled the gun. No matter what the target had previously done, after the gun was drawn he presented no continuing threat sufficient to justify the shooting. You can't use deadly force for revenge. Speculation that he might have continued to attack if there was no gun don't matter, because there was. The drawn gun sufficed to end the conflict. Shooting was disproportionate and unjustified.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2018, 06:32 PM   #334
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 23,965
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
You do realize that basically all you are saying is that your opinion differs from my analysis and the Sheriff's analysis. I get that people can differ, i assume you do too.

The only ones "losing" anything are the ones whose 'analysis" seems to be little more than conclusions wrapped up in false claims.
No, your opinion is in conflict with your own analysis. You are of the opinion that shooting was necessary even though your own analysis concluded that the attack stopped the moment the gun was drawn. Your opinion makes no sense and appears to be the result of motivated reasoning. You think the guy got what he deserved because he was parked in a handicapped zone and because he “blindsided” the shooter. But it is not justified purely on your antipathy to the victim. It can only be justified on self-defense grounds according to the relevant law and you have negated the self-defense grounds by saying the attack had stopped.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2018, 06:56 PM   #335
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17,741
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
You did not mention anything about the attack while concluding what he "could" have done and "should" have done.
Because at the end of the day the attack is irrelevant to if pulling the trigger was justified.

Again, if I walk up behind you and whack you with a baseball bat, then drop the bat disengage, you aren't justified in shooting me.

Even if I walk up behind you and whack you with a baseball bat and then only drop the bat and back up when you go for a gun, you still aren't justified in shooting me.

You are only justified in shooting me if after you draw the gun, I take another swing at you.

If I am unarmed and backing up, it's called Murder 2. Maybe, if you get a nice prosecutor or Jury, Manslaughter.

Deal with it.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)


Last edited by PhantomWolf; 25th July 2018 at 06:57 PM.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2018, 07:14 PM   #336
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,802
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Because at the end of the day the attack is irrelevant to if pulling the trigger was justified.

Again, if I walk up behind you and whack you with a baseball bat, then drop the bat disengage, you aren't justified in shooting me.

Even if I walk up behind you and whack you with a baseball bat and then only drop the bat and back up when you go for a gun, you still aren't justified in shooting me.

You are only justified in shooting me if after you draw the gun, I take another swing at you.

If I am unarmed and backing up, it's called Murder 2. Maybe, if you get a nice prosecutor or Jury, Manslaughter.

Deal with it.
Wrong.

Deal with it.
__________________
Very legal and very cool!
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2018, 07:18 PM   #337
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,343
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Wrong.

Deal with it.
No, TBD, he's not wrong. And you seem to be the one not dealing with it.

I don't know why you're so invested in this case, but you aren't approaching this rationally.
Edited by kmortis:  Removed to comply with Rule 12
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

Last edited by kmortis; 26th July 2018 at 08:57 AM.
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2018, 07:26 PM   #338
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,802
I do not recall a thread where people are so enamoured with their opinions based on after the fact speculation that completely ignores the dominant issue here, which was the unprovoked attack on the victim.

Not a good look for most here.
__________________
Very legal and very cool!
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2018, 07:29 PM   #339
sir drinks-a-lot
Illuminator
 
sir drinks-a-lot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Cole Valley, CA
Posts: 3,485
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
I do not recall a thread where people are so enamoured with their opinions based on after the fact speculation that completely ignores the dominant issue here, which was the unprovoked attack on the victim.
I'd agree that the attack was (mostly) unprovoked. But I don't think that is the dominant issue.
__________________
I drink to the general joy o' th' whole table. --William Shakespeare
sir drinks-a-lot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2018, 07:42 PM   #340
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 23,965
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
I do not recall a thread where people are so enamoured with their opinions based on after the fact speculation that completely ignores the dominant issue here, which was the unprovoked attack on the victim.

Not a good look for most here.
Let's assume that the attack was unprovoked.

Then let's add to that your conclusion that the attack was stopped.

What justification remains for the shooting?
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2018, 07:46 PM   #341
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,343
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
I do not recall a thread where people are so enamoured with their opinions based on after the fact speculation that completely ignores the dominant issue here, which was the unprovoked attack on the victim.

Not a good look for most here.
Yes, it was an unprovoked attack. So what? That doesn't suffice. Seriously, that's not how legal self-defense works. There are multiple requirements, and this only provides one of them.

And given the absence of time travel or prescience, we're all stuck with after-the-fact analysis.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2018, 07:54 PM   #342
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NJ USA. We Don't Like You Either
Posts: 5,483
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
I do not recall a thread where people are so enamoured with their opinions based on after the fact speculation that completely ignores the dominant issue here, which was the unprovoked attack on the victim.

Not a good look for most here.
That's...that's, uh...not the dominant issue here. The dominant issue is the shooting. You know, the murder of the shover. Getting shot and killed kind of eclipses that.

Or do you mean that there is some...trait...about McGlocklin that you find so reprehensible, that you find murder a fair retribution for shoving?
__________________
I am looking for other websites; you suck. -banned buttercake aficionado yuno44907
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2018, 08:02 PM   #343
This is The End
 
This is The End's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,483
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
S/he is saying spouse as a covienient shorthand for 'domestic/romantic partner and mother of his children'. Why would you feel the need to correct this inconsequential detail?

The religious right does not like the term spouse being used on people who are not religious (and not white for that matter).
__________________
________________________
This is The End is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2018, 08:04 PM   #344
This is The End
 
This is The End's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,483
Originally Posted by kedo1981 View Post
I hope they check her cel phone records, I would not be surprised if she called boyfriend to come out and do a beat down on this annoying MF.

Worst logic fail of the year.
__________________
________________________
This is The End is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2018, 08:04 PM   #345
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,802
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
That's...that's, uh...not the dominant issue here. The dominant issue is the shooting. You know, the murder of the shover. Getting shot and killed kind of eclipses that.

Or do you mean that there is some...trait...about McGlocklin that you find so reprehensible, that you find murder a fair retribution for shoving?
He’s a bully that blindsides people?

Good point
__________________
Very legal and very cool!
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2018, 08:10 PM   #346
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 23,965
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
He’s a bully that blindsides people?

Good point
Yes, that's say he is. Now, how do you justify shooting him?
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2018, 08:11 PM   #347
This is The End
 
This is The End's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,483
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Within the time of that pause,

Keeping in mind it is about the same amount of time that the man had between when he was told someone was outside verbally attacking his spouse and him pushing the shooter away. For some reason TBD does not give that man the same benefit of "no time to think" as the shooter.

Also, Ziggurat, I sincerely apologize for earlier in the thread. I want everyone to know that I know Ziggurat is not racist I was just pissed off about the nightly Trump news on top of this case breaking. (Though dammit Ziggurat it's a fine line between defending Trump for... well pretty much anything the guy does, and being part and partial.)

Again, I'm sorry Ziggurat for earlier in the thread.
__________________
________________________
This is The End is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2018, 08:12 PM   #348
This is The End
 
This is The End's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,483
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I'm not like Mumbles. I don't see every shooting of an unarmed black man as a racist murder.

To be fair, it so often is that someone could be excused for being wrong the few times it isn't. (Zimmerman case not being one of the isn'ts BTW. )
__________________
________________________
This is The End is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2018, 08:16 PM   #349
This is The End
 
This is The End's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,483
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
I do not recall a thread where people are so enamoured with their opinions based on after the fact speculation that completely ignores the dominant issue here, which was the unprovoked attack on the victim.

There you are with those two words again. Both wrong.

Defending his spouse was provoked by him being told a man was outside verbally attacking her.

It was one push to separate the attacker from his spouse.

Therefore you have both words completely ass backwards. We know why you do it, but I'm still going to point it out every time you do it.
__________________
________________________
This is The End is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2018, 08:18 PM   #350
This is The End
 
This is The End's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,483
Remember, the push can be both provoked and a misdemeanor. Just because it is possibly not legal does not magically make it unprovoked.
__________________
________________________
This is The End is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2018, 08:49 PM   #351
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,802
Originally Posted by This is The End View Post
There you are with those two words again. Both wrong.

Defending his spouse was provoked by him being told a man was outside verbally attacking her.

It was one push to separate the attacker from his spouse.

Therefore you have both words completely ass backwards. We know why you do it, but I'm still going to point it out every time you do it.
This is precisely the type of misrepresentations, diminishing the attack, and just plain victim blaming that I was talking about earlier.

Curious that the defense of initial attacker is based on a complete fairy tale, ain’t it.

Gaze upon it, and come to the correct explanation which I have provided.
__________________
Very legal and very cool!
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2018, 09:02 PM   #352
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17,741
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
This is precisely the type of misrepresentations, diminishing the attack
The attack is really irrelevant. I know you seem to believe that revenge is a perfectly acceptable reason to shoot someone, it's not.

If this thread was "Black Man arrested for pushing someone" then you might have a case to make if people were defending him, but it's not because instead of [the shooter] calling for help and getting someone to ring the police while he held the attacker at bay with the gun, he shoot the guy while he was no longer an imminent threat.

Do you understand what "Imminent Threat" means?

Quote:
and just plain victim blaming that I was talking about earlier.
The victim of the attack needs to be blamed for how he reacted to it. In a civilised society we don't shoot people that have disengaged and are retreating. That's called Murder.

Quote:
Gaze upon it, and come to the correct explanation which I have provided.
No, you are indulging yourself in a revenge shooting because rather than wanting to understand the Law, you think it should be an eye for an eye. That's not how the real world works.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)


Last edited by PhantomWolf; 25th July 2018 at 09:25 PM. Reason: realised I was playing the bad pronoun game in that sentence
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2018, 09:18 PM   #353
This is The End
 
This is The End's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,483
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
The attack is really irrelevant. I know you seem to believe that revenge is a perfectly acceptable reason to shoot someone, it's not.
But he only thinks that for the white shooter. He doesn't think that revenge is a perfectly acceptable reason for a black man to push someone.
__________________
________________________
This is The End is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2018, 10:21 PM   #354
This is The End
 
This is The End's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,483
Originally Posted by This is The End View Post
part and partial

Ugh. This time voice to text got me. That should be, obviously, "part and parcel".
__________________
________________________
This is The End is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2018, 11:04 PM   #355
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17,741
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No, TBD, he's not wrong. And you seem to be the one not dealing with it.

I don't know why you're so invested in this case, but you aren't approaching this rationally. You've become the mirror image of Mumbles. It's not a good look.
You know, when Ziggurat and I are in agreement on something, you know that the Devil is looking for a scarf and mittens.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2018, 12:12 AM   #356
Planigale
Master Poster
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,937
It seems to me a fatal shooting should always be subject to a court hearing. I think that the killing of a person should be subject to an open and impartial review. Decisions behind closed doors e.g. the Sherif deciding to take no action, or the prosecutor deciding not to prosecute have the danger of being seen as corrupt.

I think the shooter should have been promptly arrested and interviewed to get an immediate record of what happened (with counsel if desired). The shooter needs to be breathalysed and checked for drugs (the shooting victim will be). The gun needs to be checked (just in case there is a claim it fired itself), the gun license needs to be confirmed, any training by the shooter recorded. The shooter does not necessarily need to be detained if he is not thought to be a danger to others.

If the shooter was intoxicated and judgement impaired this would be an important issue. If the shooter was diabetic and their glucose was low and judgement impaired this would be an important issue.

If knowing that you will have to go through a court process if you kill someone acts as a deterrent for shooting then I do not think this is a bad thing.

Yes I think this should include fatal shooting by cops. In simple cases the court hearing might be fairly brief, the bad guy had his gun out, he was shooting into the crowd I issued a verbal warning and then shot him. Case dismissed.

The point is a killing should be openly and publicly justified. (grand juries as I understand are not open and one sided so would not count). In England any death such as this would alwaysgo before a coroner's court* for an inquiry (not a criminal court), evidence is given, witnesses can be questioned, a jury gives a verdict. (There are many verdicts possible including narrative verdicts, but common ones are suicide, misadventure, justifiable homicide, murder). Even a verdict of murder by a coroners court does not result in automatic criminal proceedings, the burden of proof differs, but would be likely to be followed by prosecution authorities, even if a previous decision not to bring a criminal case had been made.

* If there is a criminal court case this can also function as the coroner's court inquiry but not vice versa.
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2018, 02:51 AM   #357
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 42,603
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
You do realize that basically all you are saying is that your opinion differs from my analysis and the Sheriff's analysis. I get that people can differ, i assume you do too.

The only ones "losing" anything are the ones whose 'analysis" seems to be little more than conclusions wrapped up in false claims.
Others' opinions, your analysis???

Being a partner but not a spouse is somehow relevant.

This thread is surreal, and very entertaining.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2018, 03:26 AM   #358
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,343
Originally Posted by This is The End View Post
Also, Ziggurat, I sincerely apologize for earlier in the thread. I want everyone to know that I know Ziggurat is not racist I was just pissed off about the nightly Trump news on top of this case breaking. .
Things got a little out of hand. It's just this war and that lying son of a bitch Johnson Trump.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2018, 04:59 AM   #359
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,598
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
That is not the relevant legal standard.
Yeah, it seems that it is the relevant legal standard:
Quote:
the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence is on the party seeking to overcome the immunity from criminal prosecution provided in subsection (1)
In other words, if someone claims SYG, the prosecutor needs clear and convincing evidence to overcome that.

Note: I'm not saying this person doesn't deserve to be prosecuted, i'm just pointing out that the sheriff's office probably is handcuffed by the statute. I would not be surprised if the DA decides to prosecute. After the Trayvon case, I'm sure every cop was trained in how to deal with these cases. I would also not be surprised if the cops were trained to pass this on to the DA, and let them do a thorough investigation instead of the cop making the determination.

I would also point out that we have no idea what the McGlockton guy or his Girlfriend was saying after the violent shove. This could play a significant role in determining if the shooter was in fear of his life. If he said 'I'm going to get my gun out of the glovebox and kill you', would the shooter now be legitimately in fear of his life?
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2018, 05:02 AM   #360
P.J. Denyer
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,718
Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot View Post
I'd agree that the attack was (mostly) unprovoked. But I don't think that is the dominant issue.
I agree, I've given my opinion earlier in the thread, no-one seemed particularky interested but for the record it was that the shooter should be charged with voluntary manslaughter.

But I am surprised how many people are handwaving away the fact that the victim initiated a violent physical confrontation. You could count the number of times that I've agreed with TBD on the fingers of a bandsaw operator with myopia and ADD, but he is right to refer to it as an assault, he's right that being pushed like that could cause serious injuries or death, and referring to it in terms like 'schoolyard shove' trivialises it unfairly.

Now personally I can't stand people who park like inconsiderate ********, my experience is that if someone parks with no consideration for the rules or other people, they drive with no consideration for the rules or other people. I have no problem with someone saying "You're parked in a disabled spot, don't be a dick, move", I'd applaud someone for doing it, but then I do live in a country where the vast majority of us aren't walking around with lethal weapons. An argument about parking (which obviously wasn't scarey enough for the driver to lock her doors, roll up her window, or you know, stay in the car) doesn't justify assaulting someone.

The shooting was absolutely wrong, but all three people involved contributed to the situation and it's escalation.
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion
P.J. Denyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:18 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.