Zimmerman, murderer and plagiarist

[Blind groper]

The difference between you and I, Seth, in relation to self defense, is that you believe in killing a threat instantly. I do not. My belief aligns itself with NZ law, which says you may use "reasonable" force, but only reasonable force. If the force you use is unreasonable, you will be prosecuted.

If I face a man with a knife, and I have a gun, and I shoot him "twice in the chest and once in the head" our law courts would rule that 'unreasonable' and I would end up in prison, for a long, long time. I agree with that stance.

Self defense does not remove from you a duty of restraint. If that restraint adds an element of risk, then so be it. Accepting an element of risk is called courage. Killing another person unnecessarily because you cannot face a little risk is called cowardice.

I have never had to face a man with a gun (or even a knife) and am unlikely to do so, in my more peaceful society. However, I have faced up to a gang of teenage males and used voice only to stop an attack on another person. I have dived into raging surf to rescue a person at risk of drowning. I have proven to myself that I have courage. If I face a man with knife or gun, and had to shoot to save myself, I would accept a risk and apply restraint to avoid killing the criminal, because I have courage.

I do not care a damn what your laws permit you to do. Anyone who kills due to cowardice and a lack of restraint is not a worthy human. I hope you are not the kind of person who kills out of cowardice.

[pErvinalia]

"cowardice", lol. What about protecting the "honour of your fair lady"??

[Seth]

double post

[Seth]

The difference between you and I, Seth, in relation to self defense, is that you believe in killing a threat instantly.

There you go lying again. Or are you really that stupid that you can't understand plain English? If you have determined that you need to kill someone and you're legally justified in doing so, you'd damned well better do it as "instantly" as you can, otherwise you're likely to end up dead yourself.

I do not. My belief aligns itself with NZ law, which says you may use "reasonable" force, but only reasonable force. If the force you use is unreasonable, you will be prosecuted.

We're in complete agreement. What I'm telling you is that here in the US "reasonable and appropriate" force includes deadly force under a specific set of conditions which I have described in detail, using the very language of the law itself...and ONLY under those conditions.

If I face a man with a knife, and I have a gun, and I shoot him "twice in the chest and once in the head" our law courts would rule that 'unreasonable' and I would end up in prison, for a long, long time. I agree with that stance.

Obviously you've never faced a man with a knife who wants to kill you, which again is a manifestation of your ignorance. When I tell you that any police officer in the US, faced with a knife-wielding suspect who is within 21 feet of the officer who refuses to drop the weapon and surrender, and particularly if that person continues to move towards the officer or anyone else, will almost certainly be shot, with AT LEAST two to the chest...from each and every officer present...and those officers will have followed official police use-of-force protocols and will not suffer any discipline you should believe me, because that's the way it is. It's that way because, after decades of research and hundreds if not thousands of dead police officers killed by knife-wielding suspects who went right ahead and killed the officer with the knife AFTER the officer had shot the suspect one or more times police departments concluded that any person showing hostile intent who is armed with a knife and refuses to surrender and/or approaches an officer against commands not to do so has about a 75 percent chance of killing the officer, or doing him great bodily harm in the time it takes the average officer to draw and fire his weapon...even when his first shot is a torso hit.

And I actually doubt you'd go to jail even in NZ, provided that you used a licensed gun, because even NZ police aren't complete rural idiots, they do actually keep up with state-of-the-art police technology and practice. Then again, everybody down there is a blithering idiot from the get-go, so I could be wrong.

Self defense does not remove from you a duty of restraint.

Nobody ever said it did. In fact I've said that each and every time I've debated this matter with you by being very, very specific about exactly what circumstances legally justify the use of deadly force.

If that restraint adds an element of risk, then so be it.

Here's where you go awry with your reasoning. One is required to restrain oneself to using "reasonable and appropriate" physical force in any encounter, and the degree of force that is considered "reasonable and appropriate" varies with the nature and gravity of the threat, the law itself, and the social perceptions of the community when it comes to what a "reasonable man" would have done if faced with identical circumstances.

So if somebody punches you once in the stomach, you're not likely justified in using lethal force. But if he punches you once, knocks you to the ground and begins to kick you in the head repeatedly with his boots, the situation has changed in that instant and you probably ARE justified in using deadly force. Thing is, these sorts of situations are fluid and happen with great rapidity and may BEGIN with a threat sufficient to justify lethal force (armed robbery of any kind, arson of an occupied dwelling, etc.) or may begin with a "simple mugging" that turns into a deadly-force situation in the blink of an eye.

Accepting an element of risk is called courage. Killing another person unnecessarily because you cannot face a little risk is called cowardice.

Depends on the risk. And that's why I'm careful to state that one is only justified in using deadly force when the situation complies with the letter of the law authorizing the use of deadly force in self-defense. If the situation provides that justification the killing is not "unnecessary" at all.

I have never had to face a man with a gun (or even a knife) and am unlikely to do so, in my more peaceful society. However, I have faced up to a gang of teenage males and used voice only to stop an attack on another person. I have dived into raging surf to rescue a person at risk of drowning. I have proven to myself that I have courage.

Good for you. That's admirable indeed. But that doesn't mean anything because we're not talking about courage, we're talking about self-defense and the specific circumstances under which deadly force is authorized by law, and how one can effectively execute that force in order to terminate the threat that justified the use of deadly force in the first place.

If I face a man with knife or gun, and had to shoot to save myself, I would accept a risk and apply restraint to avoid killing the criminal, because I have courage.

Fine by me. But if the legal standard is met, ipso facto and de jure I'm authorized to use deadly force, which means that it's necessary to do so to avoid death or serious bodily harm on my part, and I'm going to survive the encounter, one way or another.

I do not care a damn what your laws permit you to do.

Nor do I care a damn what your laws do NOT permit you to do. I'm not the sheeple in these parts, pilgrim.

Anyone who kills due to cowardice and a lack of restraint is not a worthy human. I hope you are not the kind of person who kills out of cowardice.

I hope you are not the kind of person who gets killed out of a sense of false bravado. Not to worry, you wouldn't be at all alone, it happens all the time when ignorant pundits who know nothing of the tactics and risks of armed encounters and love to bloviate from behind a keyboard who have never looked down the barrel of a gun in the hands of someone intent on killing them think they know what they are talking about when they don't.

I sincerely hope your ethics are never put to the test, because you're what we in the profession like to call "messy evidence."

"A man's got to know his limitations." "Dirty" Harry Callahan.

[Blind groper]

Seth

I am, indeed, unlikely to be 'put to the test' as you stated it. That is because I live in a sane society with no hand guns in civilian hands. New Zealand is not 100% peaceable, and we do have murders, but a lot fewer than the USA.

But my firm belief is that taking a human life is reprehensible, unless there is absolutely no alternative. That is why I advocate a shot to the belly rather than the chest. And yes, I am well aware that there is a minority of cases when that will not stop aggressive action. As I said, I am prepared to take that risk, if it were necessary to save a human life, even if my own life is at slightly increased risk.

Self defense also needs to follow the principles of restraint and personal responsibility. Just because you might be holding a gun, and have the power to kill, does not mean you should do so, even if the law permits it.

[Seth]

Seth

I am, indeed, unlikely to be 'put to the test' as you stated it. That is because I live in a sane society with no hand guns in civilian hands.

Keep up that fine example of colonic inspection BG, because that's the best way to avoid reality. You know perfectly well there are plenty of handguns in civilian hands in NZ.

New Zealand is not 100% peaceable, and we do have murders, but a lot fewer than the USA.

Yeah, and it's not a problem for anybody until it happens to them, which it does down there. The question is if it happens to you are you going to be able and prepared to prevent it? In my professional opinion you're just completely fucked if it happens to you. It's hard to have much situational awareness and tactical sense when your head is so firmly planted in your colon.

But my firm belief is that taking a human life is reprehensible, unless there is absolutely no alternative.

Couldn't agree more.

That is why I advocate a shot to the belly rather than the chest. And yes, I am well aware that there is a minority of cases when that will not stop aggressive action. As I said, I am prepared to take that risk, if it were necessary to save a human life, even if my own life is at slightly increased risk.

Fine by me. Do as you please, it's your life...or your daughter's life, or your wife's life. But I rather suspect, based on many, many years of talking to people who have had it happen to them or someone they love that if it does happen to you, you'll change your tune rather quickly. Still, it's your choice. Just don't try to fuck with MY choice.

Self defense also needs to follow the principles of restraint and personal responsibility. Just because you might be holding a gun, and have the power to kill, does not mean you should do so, even if the law permits it.

Of course. That goes without saying...except when it comes to those who are blind to what's been staring them in the face throughout this entire discussion. But thanks for playing.

[Blind groper]

To Seth

Re hand guns in NZ.

No, I do not "know perfectly well that there are plenty of hand guns in civilian hands in NZ."

In fact, I know very well that there are few. There will always be a few such obscenities smuggled in, of course. And there will be a few home made hand guns. But, because you get arrested if found in possession, very few are held by, or carried by, anyone I am likely to meet.

The result of this is seen in the ultra low level of hand gun murders. In the USA, there are around 8,000 hand gun murders per year. In NZ, we might, and I repeat - might, see one per decade.

NZ is a much safer place than the USA as a result of its solid ban on hand guns in civilian hands.

[Seth]

To Seth

Re hand guns in NZ.

No, I do not "know perfectly well that there are plenty of hand guns in civilian hands in NZ."

In fact, I know very well that there are few.

It only takes one to kill you, which is therefore ipso facto "plenty."

There will always be a few such obscenities smuggled in, of course. And there will be a few home made hand guns. But, because you get arrested if found in possession, very few are held by, or carried by, anyone I am likely to meet.

I'm sure that's exactly what every victim of a random gun crime thinks. They were wrong, and you could be too.

The result of this is seen in the ultra low level of hand gun murders. In the USA, there are around 8,000 hand gun murders per year. In NZ, we might, and I repeat - might, see one per decade.

Which is probably very upsetting to the one person murdered and his/her family.

NZ is a much safer place than the USA as a result of its solid ban on hand guns in civilian hands.

You are factually incorrect.

[Blind groper]

Seth

Not quite sure what your reference was intended to prove. What it showed me is that NZ and the USA both have criminals, but the USA results show more serious results from their activities.

NZ has as many criminals per capita, and as many crimes, but fewer deaths. That is pretty much what I have been saying all along. We all have criminals. But the USA has the major death toll from murder, due to its vigilante culture and high level of gun ownership.

[Seth]

Seth

Not quite sure what your reference was intended to prove. What it showed me is that NZ and the USA both have criminals, but the USA results show more serious results from their activities.

NZ has as many criminals per capita, and as many crimes, but fewer deaths. That is pretty much what I have been saying all along. We all have criminals. But the USA has the major death toll from murder, due to its vigilante culture and high level of gun ownership.

NZ is not a "much safer place" because of it's handgun bans. It has a comparable and in several cases a much higher rate of criminal victimization, much of which might be avoided if the victims (of rape in particular) had handguns with which to shoot dead their attackers.

[Blind groper]

My reading suggests that there is no way we can compare levels of violent crime. Homicide yes, because a death is a death and that is unambiguous.

But every nation has different classifications for reporting violent crime. In NZ, we report domestic violence as part of the total violent crime stats. Do you in the USA? I tried to find out, but could not find a suitable reference, but I have a vague memory to suggest that the USA does not count domestic violence as part of its total violent crime statistics.

Since domestic violence is more than half of total violence, it makes a hell of a difference to crime stats.

[Seth]

My reading suggests that there is no way we can compare levels of violent crime. Homicide yes, because a death is a death and that is unambiguous.

But every nation has different classifications for reporting violent crime. In NZ, we report domestic violence as part of the total violent crime stats. Do you in the USA? I tried to find out, but could not find a suitable reference, but I have a vague memory to suggest that the USA does not count domestic violence as part of its total violent crime statistics.

Since domestic violence is more than half of total violence, it makes a hell of a difference to crime stats.

Pettifoggery.

[Blind groper]

Seth
Even for you, that is an unbelievably weak come back.

[Seth]

Seth
Even for you, that is an unbelievably weak come back.

It's an authoritative come back to a weak argument.

[Blind groper]

No. It is a data free comment. To make an argument, you have to present data.

I made the point that comparing homicide rates between nations is relatively simple, but comparing violent crime rates is essentially impossible. You have not refuted this point.