Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 19981163)

I really think there's much truth to this. It's compounded by the population explosion.

Originally Posted by sperbonzo (Post 19981115)

What's sad is that the "stand your ground" law is invoked more often by black shooters that shoot other black people.... and yet the OP NEVER posts any of those cases.






"Blacks make up 16.6 percent of Florida's population but account for 31 percent of the defendants invoking the stand your ground defense. Black defendants who invoke this statute are actually acquitted 8 percentage points more frequently than whites who use this very same defense.

Those who conclude the law is racially biased point to data compiled by the Tampa Bay Tribune, which collected 112 cases where people charged with murder relied on Florida's stand your ground law, from the first cases in 2006 to July 24 of this year. The Tribune's "shocking" claim: 72 percent of those who killed a black person faced no penalty compared to 59 percent of those who killed a white.

But this doesn't tell the whole story as blacks are overwhelmingly killed by other blacks. Thus, it is also true that blacks claiming self-defense under the stand your ground law are convicted at a lower rate than are whites. About 69 percent of blacks raising the stand your Ground defense were not convicted compared to 62 percent of whites.

If blacks are supposedly being discriminated against because their killers so often are not facing any penalty, it must also follow that they are being discriminated in favor of when blacks who invoke a stand your ground defense are convicted at a lower rate than are whites. Those who interpret the data as evidence of racism are cherry-picking numbers.

Simple averages also missed important differences in these cases. The Tribune data shows blacks killed in these confrontations were 13 percentage points more likely to be armed than whites. This suggests that those claiming that they were defending themselves often reasonably believed that they had little choice but to kill their attacker.

By a 43 to 16 percent margin, the blacks killed were also more often in the process of committing a crime."


http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...ground-defense



.

Originally Posted by sperbonzo (Post 19981115)

What's sad is that the "stand your ground" law is invoked more often by black shooters that shoot other black people.... and yet the OP NEVER posts any of those cases.






"Blacks make up 16.6 percent of Florida's population but account for 31 percent of the defendants invoking the stand your ground defense. Black defendants who invoke this statute are actually acquitted 8 percentage points more frequently than whites who use this very same defense.

Those who conclude the law is racially biased point to data compiled by the Tampa Bay Tribune, which collected 112 cases where people charged with murder relied on Florida's stand your ground law, from the first cases in 2006 to July 24 of this year. The Tribune's "shocking" claim: 72 percent of those who killed a black person faced no penalty compared to 59 percent of those who killed a white.

But this doesn't tell the whole story as blacks are overwhelmingly killed by other blacks. Thus, it is also true that blacks claiming self-defense under the stand your ground law are convicted at a lower rate than are whites. About 69 percent of blacks raising the stand your Ground defense were not convicted compared to 62 percent of whites.

If blacks are supposedly being discriminated against because their killers so often are not facing any penalty, it must also follow that they are being discriminated in favor of when blacks who invoke a stand your ground defense are convicted at a lower rate than are whites. Those who interpret the data as evidence of racism are cherry-picking numbers.

Simple averages also missed important differences in these cases. The Tribune data shows blacks killed in these confrontations were 13 percentage points more likely to be armed than whites. This suggests that those claiming that they were defending themselves often reasonably believed that they had little choice but to kill their attacker.

By a 43 to 16 percent margin, the blacks killed were also more often in the process of committing a crime."


http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...ground-defense



.

Originally Posted by L-Pink (Post 19981168)

In many cases there is also a "bully" mentality involved. The provoker feels physically superior and continues to provoke until tragic action is taken.

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 19981174)

I remember when LA had all those freeway shootings.

People were actually driving with respect for each other.

I guess that's what happens when you shoot a couple assholes.

Originally Posted by tony286 (Post 19981177)

tell that to the little girl who wont have a father.

Originally Posted by tony286 (Post 19981179)

No I think a gun gives some people the feeling of extra big balls. I also think there are some that think about what it would be like to shoot someone so when the opportunity comes up they jump on it and then yell I felt threatened.

Originally Posted by tony286 (Post 19981179)

No I think a gun gives some people the feeling of extra big balls. I also think there are some that think about what it would be like to shoot someone so when the opportunity comes up they jump on it and then yell I felt threatened.

Originally Posted by L-Pink (Post 19981189)

I know the answer Tony, take personal responsibility, act like a civilized human, don't provoke other citizens into shooting you. Isn't that a little easier?

Originally Posted by L-Pink (Post 19981189)

I know the answer Tony, take personal responsibility, act like a civilized human, don't provoke other citizens into shooting you. Isn't that a little easier?

Originally Posted by tony286 (Post 19981179)

No I think a gun gives some people the feeling of extra big balls. I also think there are some that think about what it would be like to shoot someone so when the opportunity comes up they jump on it and then yell I felt threatened.

Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 19981180)

There's a lot of truth to this, except for the assholes part. the assholes are the shooters.

Well, the bigger assholes I mean. We're all assholes in one way or another,

you know what I'm saying.

just don't shoot me.

:1orglaugh

Originally Posted by DamianJ (Post 19981282)

gun nuts.

apt description.

they are worse than borne again christians for understanding rationality.

Originally Posted by L-Pink (Post 19981241)

And again you overlook the behavior that caused the gun to be used.


.

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 19981286)

Last year, some shit for brains attacked my father right thru the window of his truck. He was punching my father. The guy stopped when my father pointed a S&W 40 at his face. Then he ran off like a little pussy, the guy was 33 years old, my dad is 74. He has a carry permit. Because of his age, the guy is fighting elder abuse now.....

Originally Posted by NewNick (Post 19981290)

The behaviour that caused the gun to be used came solely from the shooter.

Nobody made him do it.

It is not acceptable to murder people because they have bad manners.

I cannot believe that I am actually having to say that.

Who the fuck are you to say that it is ok to shoot people that offend you ?

You are offending me - would it be permissible for me to shoot you in the head ?

Originally Posted by Sly (Post 19981295)

Your dad will be called out before the guy that tried to rob him. How funny is that? By funny, I'm not talking "haha," I'm talking "fucking insane."

Watch. Someone will come along now and say that this was the fault of guys like your dad that want to carry. Your dad was only assaulted because he's carrying.

Originally Posted by NewNick (Post 19981290)

You are offending me - would it be permissible for me to shoot you in the head ?

Originally Posted by NewNick (Post 19981290)

The behaviour that caused the gun to be used came solely from the shooter.

Nobody made him do it.

It is not acceptable to murder people because they have bad manners.

I cannot believe that I am actually having to say that.

Who the fuck are you to say that it is ok to shoot people that offend you ?

You are offending me - would it be permissible for me to shoot you in the head ?

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 19981286)

What's worse than a gun nut? People without a clue about guns that post their opinion about them. Nothing like talking about something you know nothing about!

Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 19981306)

:error

told ya L!

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Originally Posted by DamianJ (Post 19981315)

Really? So me posting an opinion is worse than someone shooting someone for annoying them?

Thanks for proving my point.

Originally Posted by Tom_PM (Post 19981317)

I would agree that the ones who are gun nuts are the inexperienced "off the street" purchasers of legal firearms. They may not have ever held a gun before being allowed to buy one. They are not required to demonstrate any ability whatsoever. They are the problem.

Originally Posted by DamianJ (Post 19981282)

gun nuts.

apt description.

they are worse than borne again christians for understanding rationality.

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 19981331)

illegal gun ownership

Yet the governments idea of solving the problem is more laws, how will this curb illegal gun use when the new laws only target legal gun ownership.

In California, to buy a gun, you have to pass a gun safety course or have a dd214 for being in the military

Originally Posted by Tom_PM (Post 19981357)

No, legal gun owners. They're the ones making these headlines. It's a separate and very real issue.

Illegal gun ownership is already illegal and it always will be. But no need to let Johnny Nutcase and Billy Whackjob walk into G-Mart and walk out with enough guns and ammo to shoot up their classrooms, movie theaters, shopping malls, kids in cars with loud music and whatever else is about to come next.

Originally Posted by L-Pink (Post 19981313)

You are off track of my origional point. I have never said I agreed with the shootings. My ONLY POINT is by behaving like a civilized person in public you can eliminate any risk of being shot for your behavior. It's pretty simple, don't act like an idiot and an idiot with a gun won't shoot you.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Originally Posted by NewNick (Post 19981367)

Originally Posted by L-Pink (Post 19981429)

Oulson was texting his 3-year-old's babysitter. Reeves asked him to stop, the noise and lit screen was bothering him. Oulson refused. Reeves left the theater to look for a manager, and returned to his seat. At that point Oulson berated him for complaining and then the confrontation turned physical.

According to witnesses Oulson started arguing again. Oulson then reached over his seat to a seated Reeves, grabbed Reeves popcorn and threw it in his face. Reeves then shot Oulson.

It's easy to see the numerous times Oulson could have prevented this from escalating. All he had to do was sit down, shut up and watch the movie. If you want to use your phone go to the lobby.

So yea, his behavior lead to his death.

Reeves will spend the rest of his life in prison but that doesn't help Oulson does it. You and I could have been sitting in Oulsons seats and nothing would have happened because we wouldn't have escalated a simple request to not disturb the person behind us.

(And throwing a man's food in his face in front of his wife will bring all sorts of macho out in almost any man)


.

Originally Posted by tony286 (Post 19981451)

actually its seems different from where you are reading it.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/02/07...lice-dont-get/
"He kept saying stuff to my husband," Nicole Oulson said on the recording. "Immediately it didn't even register with me, I just saw a spark and saw him go down."

Originally Posted by tony286 (Post 19981451)

actually its seems different from where you are reading it.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/02/07...lice-dont-get/
"He kept saying stuff to my husband," Nicole Oulson said on the recording. "Immediately it didn't even register with me, I just saw a spark and saw him go down."

Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 19980151)

**********, your views are based primarily, if not entirely, on other's opinions of media reports, usually over-sensationalized.

The fact is all states have stand your ground jury instructions, I'm using the "stand your ground" terminolgy since you've globbed on to the phrase.

For instance, here in California,

California Criminal Law instruction 3470:

"A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand
his or her ground and defend himself or herself and, if reasonably
necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of (death/bodily
injury) has passed."


There is no duty to retreat from an attacker anywhere in the USA.

Originally Posted by Just Alex (Post 19980417)

All jokes aside but how do you keep them black people quiet in the movie theater? Seriously.

Originally Posted by ********** (Post 19981507)

Is this really a thing? I go to the movies at least twice a month and never once have I had any problems with anyone talking in the theatre. Even while people are coming in, sitting down and waiting for the pre-show, anyone who's talking is barely whispering. Everyone else is reading magazines or using their phones.

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 19981286)

The people you have to worry about are not the gun nuts, they have respect for their weapons, the ones you have to worry about are the ones that own one gun and think this is going to be their ticket to a better life.

What's worse than a gun nut? People without a clue about guns that post their opinion about them. Nothing like talking about something you know nothing about!

Originally Posted by DamianJ (Post 19981282)

gun nuts.

apt description.

they are worse than borne again christians for understanding rationality.

Originally Posted by bronco67 (Post 19981466)

Can you imagine what a bar would be like on a Saturday night if most of the patrons were carrying guns? There would be constant news stories about 10 people dying because someone spilled beer on the wrong person.
.

Originally Posted by ********** (Post 19981505)

Hi Dynamo,

Of course my views are based on media reports because of course I wasn't there, and only the courtroom highlights are being shown.

I'm trying to dismiss all the hype and centre around the core basics: 1 Guy shot another guy, claimed self defines, even though no other weapon was found".

No one, not even his fiancé, can confirm his story. After the incident, he ran away and didn't call the police. According to the kids in the car, no one got out of the car.

Was the shooter really afraid? Or was he just full of hate? If he was afraid, what was he afraid of? If the kids said or did nothing except for being black and playing loud music, did he shoot at them because they were black? Is he afraid of people just because they are black? He shot something like 6 or 7 times at the car. He shot 3 or 4 times, then paused, then shot 3 or 4 times more. What state of mind was he in?

If no proof comes up, I really, really hope he goes to jail for this. If there's no gun, and if the kids didn't threaten him etc, and he basically acted out for no reason but still gets away with it thanks to the Stand your Ground Law, it will be a really sick, sad and twisted day, even worse than the day Zimmerman got away with murder.

Originally Posted by L-Pink (Post 19981486)

It was caught on infrared security and Oulson can be seen reaching over his seat to a seated Reeves, taking his popcorn and throwing it in his face.

This all happened 3 miles from my house at local cinema complex and has been replayed 50 times on local news.

Here is the youtube link to video.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=oKE8LN9PP0k


.

Originally Posted by L-Pink (Post 19981486)

It was caught on infrared security and Oulson can be seen reaching over his seat to a seated Reeves, taking his popcorn and throwing it in his face.

This all happened 3 miles from my house at local cinema complex and has been replayed 50 times on local news.

Here is the youtube link to video.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=oKE8LN9PP0k


.

Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 19981559)

wow wow wow.

Originally Posted by NewNick (Post 19981604)

Yes sorry, if I came under attack from a crazed pop corn thrower I would have no choice other than to brutally murder him.

And the rude bastard would have deserved it.

Originally Posted by bronco67 (Post 19981466)

Can you imagine what a bar would be like on a Saturday night if most of the patrons were carrying guns? There would be constant news stories about 10 people dying because someone spilled beer on the wrong person.

.

Originally Posted by ********** (Post 19981512)

A "Gun Nut" isn't someone that owns a single gun, or a couple of guns.

A Gun nut is a person who thinks they should be allowed to own every kind of assault rifle ever made.

A Gun nut is a person who thinks the solution to gun violence is more guns.

A Gun nut is someone who thinks teachers should carry guns to fight off snipers in schools.

A gun nut is someone who cries like a bitch whenever restrictions like magazine size is suggested and screams "Obama's coming for my guns!".

A gun nut is someone who sees empty shelves where bullets used to be at Walmart, and calls it a conspiracy to "take away my 2nd amendment rights".
.

Originally Posted by L-Pink (Post 19981631)

You are really missing the point dyna mo and i have been trying to make about "victims" over the last few days ???


.