Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Cylinder]

I just wanna know what "DGU" is.

Defensive Gun Use

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/6/15/141756/270

Jeralyn comments on the 2nd discovery list.

 

[Dancing David]

Defensive Gun Use

Thank you!

I could only come up with bad ones:
Dumb Gun User
Darling Glittery Underwear
Dangerous Gorilla Union
Dank Gloomy Underground

 

[Nessie]

A DGU is a defensive gun use. There have been various studies which show that many are dubiously described as defensive

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1730063/pdf/v010p00096.pdf

http://www.stat.duke.edu/~dalene/chance/chanceweb/103.myth0.pdf

http://www.tscm.com/165476.pdf

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/researc...n-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use/index.html

summed up in the last link to the Harvard School of Public Health

"40. Legality of reported self-defense gun use
We analyzed data from two national random-digit-dial surveys conducted under the auspices of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center.
Major findings: Criminal court judges who read the self-reported accounts of the purported self-defense gun use rated a majority as being illegal, even assuming that the respondent had a permit to own and to carry a gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly from his own perspective.
Publication: Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah. "Gun Use in the United States: Results from Two National Surveys." Injury Prevention. 2000; 6:263-267. "

This death of a Scottish man, drunk and lost who was banging on a door looking for assistance shocked the UK

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/scot-is-shot-dead-when-mistaken-for-prowler-1405505.html

as it seems such an excessive reaction by the householder to shoot first and ask questions later.

I do not think that Zimmerman should be able to resort to deadly force to win a fight. I think it is excessive, based on my own prejudices created by our gun laws, culture and legal system.

 

[crimresearch]

A DGU is a defensive gun use. There have been various studies which show that many are dubiously described as defensive

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1730063/pdf/v010p00096.pdf

http://www.stat.duke.edu/~dalene/chance/chanceweb/103.myth0.pdf

http://www.tscm.com/165476.pdf

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/researc...n-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use/index.html

summed up in the last link to the Harvard School of Public Health

"40. Legality of reported self-defense gun use
We analyzed data from two national random-digit-dial surveys conducted under the auspices of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center.
Major findings: Criminal court judges who read the self-reported accounts of the purported self-defense gun use rated a majority as being illegal, even assuming that the respondent had a permit to own and to carry a gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly from his own perspective.
Publication: Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah. "Gun Use in the United States: Results from Two National Surveys." Injury Prevention. 2000; 6:263-267. "

This death of a Scottish man, drunk and lost who was banging on a door looking for assistance shocked the UK

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/scot-is-shot-dead-when-mistaken-for-prowler-1405505.html

as it seems such an excessive reaction by the householder to shoot first and ask questions later.

I do not think that Zimmerman should be able to resort to deadly force to win a fight. I think it is excessive, based on my own prejudices created by our gun laws, culture and legal system.

If this were a gun control thread, prejudices and agit-prop soundbites might be relevant.

This is however, a thread on a death and the ensuing legal/media activities. The issues would be the same had another item been employed.

Do you have anything to offer on whether or not an Hispanic man should be allowed to defend himself the same as anyone else?

 

[Nessie]

.....

Do you have anything to offer on whether or not an Hispanic man should be allowed to defend himself the same as anyone else?

I don't see what you are getting at asking that question. What I would say is self defence should be reasonable and not excessive. The amount of force used will vary depending on a whole host of impact factors (size, health, sex etc)

Then who really gets to claim self defence? Was Martin defending himself or Zimmerman, both, neither?

 

[crimresearch]

I don't see what you are getting at asking that question. What I would say is self defence should be reasonable and not excessive. The amount of force used will vary depending on a whole host of impact factors (size, health, sex etc)

Then who really gets to claim self defence? Was Martin defending himself or Zimmerman, both, neither?

At this point it looks like both.

They were involved in a fistfight,and the only narrative available from the survivor is that the other person escalated that into deadly force, by trying to grab the holstered firearm.

So why the comment that Zimmerman shouldn't have the right to resort to deadly force in return?

 

[Amazer]

If this were a gun control thread, prejudices and agit-prop soundbites might be relevant.

The poster wasn't the one who brought up DGU's... thus it wasn't wholly irrelevant to point out that in a majority of the cases DGU was illegal.

This is however, a thread on a death and the ensuing legal/media activities. The issues would be the same had another item been employed.

True enough. But do you think any other item would have resulted in the same sudden and immediate death of TM?

Do you have anything to offer on whether or not an Hispanic man should be allowed to defend himself the same as anyone else?

I should hope that anyone else (whatever ethinicity) would be prosecuted if the circumstances were the same as GZ was in.

 

[Nessie]

At this point it looks like both.

They were involved in a fistfight,and the only narrative available from the survivor is that the other person escalated that into deadly force, by trying to grab the holstered firearm.

So why the comment that Zimmerman shouldn't have the right to resort to deadly force in return?

If that is true and it became a wrestle over a gun which Zimmerman won, so be it.

 

[crimresearch]

The poster wasn't the one who brought up DGU's... thus it wasn't wholly irrelevant to point out that in a majority of the cases DGU was illegal.


True enough. But do you think any other item would have resulted in the same sudden and immediate death of TM?


I should hope that anyone else (whatever ethinicity) would be prosecuted if the circumstances were the same as GZ was in.

The opinion that *this* DGU was improper was advanced as just that... an opinion.

The assertion that the 'majority of DGUs were illegal' OTOH, is an artifical construct... purely propaganda.
How many of those judges contacted the police and prosecution if they were convinced that all these gun crimes had occured? The reality is that they were 'push polled', and answered in the abstract based on the cherry picked information they were given.

People are welcome to hold opinions based on whatever blows their shirt up... but in my opinion, it doesn't advance the discourse to dress them up as facts.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

I should hope that anyone else (whatever ethinicity) would be prosecuted if the circumstances were the same as GZ was in.

Me too. Especially if the story GZ says is true and TM attacked him, beat him, and was reaching for his gun. In that case we need to make sure no one regardless of ethnicity can defend themselves, and that all do the proper thing, and let the other person kill them.

 

[Amazer]

Me too. Especially if the story GZ says is true and TM attacked him, beat him, and was reaching for his gun. In that case we need to make sure no one regardless of ethnicity can defend themselves, and that all do the proper thing, and let the other person kill them.

You don't seem to believe that the courts are the proper venue for sorting the question of someone being guilty or not. Why is that?

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

You don't seem to believe that the courts are the proper venue for sorting the question of someone being guilty or not. Why is that?

Strawman.

 

[Amazer]

Me too. Especially if the story GZ says is true and TM attacked him, beat him, and was reaching for his gun. In that case we need to make sure no one regardless of ethnicity can defend themselves, and that all do the proper thing, and let the other person kill them.

You don't seem to believe that the courts are the proper venue for sorting the question of someone being guilty or not. Why is that?

Strawman.

Then please explain what you mean with your apparent objection to prosecuting GZ.

 

[a_unique_person]

Me too. Especially if the story GZ says is true and TM attacked him, beat him, and was reaching for his gun. In that case we need to make sure no one regardless of ethnicity can defend themselves, and that all do the proper thing, and let the other person kill them.

If TM knew he had a gun, had been followed by him, TM had reasonable grounds to fear for his life.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

I should hope that anyone else (whatever ethnicity) would be prosecuted if the circumstances were the same as GZ was in.

Your statement above is absolute. You evidently are 100% certain that GZ should be prosecuted. We have not yet seen perhaps the majority of the most important evidence, yet still you are sure that he and anyone in a similar circumstance should be prosecuted.

Me too. Especially if the story GZ says is true and TM attacked him, beat him, and was reaching for his gun. In that case we need to make sure no one regardless of ethnicity can defend themselves, and that all do the proper thing, and let the other person kill them.

Therefore I was merely sarcastically agreeing with your point.

Then please explain what you mean with your apparent objection to prosecuting GZ.

I didn't said I object to GZ being prosecuted. Based on the evidence I have seen so far, there is no justification for a murder 2 charge. There may be justification for a manslaughter charge but I'm withholding judgment on that until I see all of the evidence. The prosecution would have to be in possession of something monumental that no one has seen yet to justify a murder 2 charge.

The biggest mistake people make in this case is being sure of things and not being willing to say "I don't know". Humans hate now knowing and much prefer certainty, it's why we come up with all sorts of beliefs from religion, to being sure GZ should be prosecuted, heck many people in this thread are even sure they know who GZ and TM were as human beings and what they were thinking as it happened! Me, I'm not so sure, all the more so as we have gotten further into this.

I admit that my unsuredness is also due in part to not having any respect or trust for the prosecutor, and is compounded by the fact that the first prosecutor did not want to prosecute, and that it was only after it became a political issue that changed. Then again, I don't exactly trust GZ much either.

So for now I'm content to sit on the fence and wait for the final evidence dumps to be released.

 

[johnny karate]

I think someone here doesn't know what "prosecute" means.

 

[Amazer]

Your statement above is absolute. You evidently are 100% certain that GZ should be prosecuted. We have not yet seen perhaps the majority of the most important evidence, yet still you are sure that he and anyone in a similar circumstance should be prosecuted.

It's probably got something to do with the fact that I think that it's not the job of prosecution to determine whether or not someone acted in self-defense. That determination is/should rightfully be the job that a court is tasked with. In order to have the courts do its job, someone like GZ needs to be prosecuted. Rather simple really.

Therefore I was merely sarcastically agreeing with your point.

You did quite a bit more then that.

I didn't said I object to GZ being prosecuted.

Then your reply "Me too. Especially if the story GZ says is true and TM attacked him, beat him, and was reaching for his gun. In that case we need to make sure no one regardless of ethnicity can defend themselves, and that all do the proper thing, and let the other person kill them." makes even less sense.

Perhaps you want to try to explain it again?

 

[crimresearch]

If TM knew he had a gun, had been followed by him, TM had reasonable grounds to fear for his life.

If there was some way to *prove* that he actually knew that.

 

[Cylinder]

It's probably got something to do with the fact that I think that it's not the job of prosecution to determine whether or not someone acted in self-defense. That determination is/should rightfully be the job that a court is tasked with. In order to have the courts do its job, someone like GZ needs to be prosecuted. Rather simple really.

Luckily for all of us, it is the job of the state to determine to a certain standard of evidence that a crime occurred and who committed it. It is the job of the court, through various procedures to test the evidence to determine if the state acted within the law and the job of the people to determine the evidence presented by the state is strong enough for conviction.