[Politics]The Right to Arm Bears in a Crowded Theater

sabs · Post by **sabs** » Sun Jun 09, 2013 11:10 am

Yesterday was a good day for the Gun buffs
Santa Monica Mass Shooting

AND

Q:Mommy, why don't I have a daddy?
A: Because you shot and killed him when you were 4

erik · Post by **erik** » Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:15 am

sabs wrote: Q:Mommy, why don't I have a daddy?
A: Because you shot and killed him when you were 4

While your phrasing isn't half as terrible as the fact that someone died from a gun accident, it's still pretty fuckin rude. Maybe I'm a hypocrite for not having gotten pissed at similar instances of this here and I do enjoy dark humor, but I don't think this qualifies as humor and it got under my skin. Just juvenile meanspiritedness. Kind of shit I'd expect on Limbaugh.

The story was worth sharing because it is a tragedy that highlights the dangers of gun ownership, but some respect maybe?

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:56 am

erik wrote:
sabs wrote: Q:Mommy, why don't I have a daddy?
A: Because you shot and killed him when you were 4
While your phrasing isn't half as terrible as the fact that someone died from a gun accident, it's still pretty fuckin rude. Maybe I'm a hypocrite for not having gotten pissed at similar instances of this here and I do enjoy dark humor, but I don't think this qualifies as humor and it got under my skin. Just juvenile meanspiritedness. Kind of shit I'd expect on Limbaugh.

The story was worth sharing because it is a tragedy that highlights the dangers of gun ownership, but some respect maybe?

I don't know if you are a hypocrit, but you sure are dumb as shit.

What the fuckity fuck. How can you with a straight face say you like Dark Humor but ask for "respect." Respect is one of those stupid words that don't mean anything that people use as a shorthand for lots of concepts, so how about you explain what about making a joke is so terrible? Who is he hurting by making that joke?

erik · Post by **erik** » Mon Jun 10, 2013 3:01 am

Nobody's likely hurt since I doubt anyone within a couple degrees of separation of that event read it, it is just rude and it wasn't even funny. So basically rudeness without any upside.

Why be an asshole just for the sake of being an asshole? I know, I'm asking the wrong guy.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Mon Jun 10, 2013 3:45 am

erik wrote:Nobody's likely hurt since I doubt anyone within a couple degrees of separation of that event read it, it is just rude and it wasn't even funny. So basically rudeness without any upside.

Why be an asshole just for the sake of being an asshole? I know, I'm asking the wrong guy.

1) It was funny. No one cares that it wasn't funny to you because you apparently want to be offended for no goddam reason.

2) How the fuck was it rude? Who is it rude to? Hint: The answer is still nobody.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Mon Jun 10, 2013 4:05 am

I'm pretty sure I read that differently than either Kaelik or erik, because I found it neither offensive nor funny. And I think erik is a dumbass (read: little too woundup) for being offended and Kaelik is a monster (read: little creepy) for thinking it was funny.

I can't actually read minds, but I'm pretty sure the point wasn't to get a laugh out of the tragedy of a four-year-old shooting their father, it was to explicitly point out the tragic implications of a four-year-old shooting their goddamn father, and it is structured as a joke for effect. The giveaway is that the punchline isn't funny, it's just super fucking depressing and makes you bitter and angry that it happened. Which is the appropriate response for normal human beings. So I fail to see how the "joke" is making light of the tragedy, given that it did a better of job of hitting me in the kidneys with the tragedy than the article did.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Mon Jun 10, 2013 4:19 am

My understanding was that the obvious terrible outcome is so specifically fucked up that it is also a joke at the expense of people who think gun fapping is a good idea.

erik · Post by **erik** » Mon Jun 10, 2013 4:32 am

I'll cop to being too wound-up thar. Empathy overload for the poor kid and everyone else. In retrospect don't think the link text upset me until after I read the contents.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Mon Jun 10, 2013 4:58 am

Yeah. The link text hit my chest like a ton of bricks. I read that - then the article - and I just felt horrid.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Mon Jun 10, 2013 1:25 pm

DSMatticus wrote:I'm pretty sure I read that differently than either Kaelik or erik, because I found it neither offensive nor funny. ...

I can't actually read minds, but I'm pretty sure the point wasn't to get a laugh out of the tragedy of a four-year-old shooting their father, it was to explicitly point out the tragic implications of a four-year-old shooting their goddamn father, and it is structured as a joke for effect. The giveaway is that the punchline isn't funny, it's just super fucking depressing and makes you bitter and angry that it happened. Which is the appropriate response for normal human beings. So I fail to see how the "joke" is making light of the tragedy, given that it did a better of job of hitting me in the kidneys with the tragedy than the article did.

That's how I read it. I didn't take it as a joke, but the phrasing seemed apt and got the point across. A guy is dead, his former roommate (hopefully) will feel bad about leaving a loaded gun in reach of a four-year old, a kid no longer has a dad, and whether he remembers it or not, the four-year-old killed him. I took it as showing that there are greater implications than just a guy dying.

I have a four-year-old. While I don't own any guns, I suppose I should have a talk to her about them on the off chance that she ends up finding one. My dad has some, but at least he doesn't keep them any where that a kid could get at them, and he doesn't keep them loaded.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Mon Jun 10, 2013 5:06 pm

Yeah, we had the discussion, too. I asked him first what he should do if he ever found one, and his immediate response was "destroy it." We worked that into "don't touch it."

I admit, I was kind of surprised to hear the destroy suggestion... Especially because we just went to Cabela's and played in the arcade shooting gallery. I figured that he'd be a little more gung-ho. Guess not.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Mon Jun 10, 2013 6:47 pm

Maj wrote:Yeah, we had the discussion, too. I asked him first what he should do if he ever found one, and his immediate response was "destroy it." We worked that into "don't touch it."

That is priceless! Eager to please, I guess.

nockermensch · Post by **nockermensch** » Mon Jun 10, 2013 8:34 pm

erik wrote:While your phrasing isn't half as terrible as the fact that someone died from a gun accident, it's still pretty fuckin rude. Maybe I'm a hypocrite for not having gotten pissed at similar instances of this here and I do enjoy dark humor, but I don't think this qualifies as humor and it got under my skin. Just juvenile meanspiritedness. Kind of shit I'd expect on Limbaugh.

The story was worth sharing because it is a tragedy that highlights the dangers of gun ownership, but some respect maybe?

Eh, there exists a horrible situation that some people can see that will end in tragedy from a mile away, but other people think it's "normal" and leave it as is. Then the tragedies keep happening.

Black humor is a coping mechanism.

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 7:37 pm

So the Trayvon Martin thing is back in the news. Whole bunch of friends on facebook and my sister are talkin' about it and all I've heard is the closing arguments were made. Anyone wanna give me the shorthand on what the story is so far? Also I heard this, this, and this happened. I gotta admit I don't see these as too smart.

Grek · Post by **Grek** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 8:03 pm

Sure.

One night, there's this guy, Trayvon Martin, out walking around. He's a black teenager. A white member of the neighborhood watch, George Zimmerman, sees him, thinks that he is up to no good and calls the police. The police tell him to stay back. After a while, Zimmerman sees Martin again. He decides to confront Martin. A fight fight occurs, which Zimmerman loses. Zimmerman then shoots Martin with a handgun.

Cut to the last week or so. The Prosecution is arguing that because Zimmerman confronted Martin, attacked him and then shot him dead, Zimmerman should be convicted of a crime. The Defense is arguing that, because Martin overcame Zimmerman and hit Zimmerman's head against the concrete during their fist fight, that Zimmerman feared for his life and could legally shoot Martin in self defense under Florida law.

The jury is now deciding on a verdict. The sentence will either be Not Guilty, Guilty of Manslaughter or Guilty of Murder in the Second Degree. They're expected to decide some time this week, probably within the next few days.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 9:55 pm

Of course, the reason why it blew up into such a huge deal was because the local police pretty much completely fucking ignored the need for an investigation when Martin originally died until they were called out on it.

This isn't the first nor will it be the last time someone was killed, in Florida alone, over some conservative schizo states' ridiculous self-defense laws. If the police had responded quickly with an investigation it wouldn't get past state news. What makes it a game-changer was the rather obvious and historical racism of the police's apathy.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 10:02 pm

It's worth noting that Martin knew he was being followed - both Martin's call to a friend and Zimmerman's call to the police confirm that. When Zimmerman first calls the police, he is inside his vehicle and Martin is staring at him and checking him out, trying to figure out why this dude is following him around. Eventually Martin gets scared and bolts, and Zimmerman chases after him (you can hear him getting out of the car and giving what sounds like a light pursuit). Zimmerman loses him, finishes the call, and then it's unclear what happens next. Zimmerman's story is that he walks around to get the street address of the place to give to police and Martin jumped him and Zimmerman shot in self defense.

The best case scenario (for Zimmerman) is that this is true, and if it is Zimmerman should rot in fucking jail. Zimmerman stalked a 17-year-old boy who he had not seen commit any crime until the kid thought he was in enough danger to bolt down the street, and then Zimmerman started chasing him on foot. When you chase innocent people without identifying yourself or trying to communicate with them, they assume you are dangerous (I fucking would). It's possible Martin started the fight, but honestly? IF he had started the fight AND he were alive while Zimmerman were dead AND the races were reversed, Martin actually would have a fucking fantastic self-defense/stand-your-ground claim and he'd walk away easy. "I noticed a black guy following me for a few blocks, eyes right on me the entire time. I eventually got scared and ran. He chased me, and I thought he'd catch me so I panicked, turned, and started hitting him. He had a gun, we wrestled over it, and I shot him." The irony.

The worst case scenario is that there is some amount of bullshit in Zimmerman's account and he found Martin and in some way provoked or initiated the conflict. We'll never know, because Martin is entirely too dead to argue he acted in self-defense (or tell us Zimmerman found him/caught up to him and grabbed him or whatever), and so there's a pretty good chance Zimmerman is going to get away with chasing down and murdering a 17-year-old boy because he was black and that automatically justifies any amount of suspicion you might have and any threatening action you take in the course of that suspicion.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 10:07 pm

Grek wrote:A white member of the neighborhood watch, George Zimmerman,

Zimmerman considered himself to be Hispanic - he might have a white-ass German last name, but his Mom is from Peru, and he registered as a Hispanic voter.

He's also the coordinator of the neighborhood watch, as the gated community where this happened had suffered a pile of burglaries, thefts, and attempted break-ins in the preceding year (the last of which was perpetrated by two black guys a couple of weeks before Martin's death).

Martin went out to go get some snacks at a local convenience store and noticed he was being watched and followed. This freaked him out and made him start acting all weird trying to ditch his tail.

Zimmerman saw a non-resident black guy strolling around the neighborhood, and began to follow him. He had seen and reported someone (also black) casing a house a few weeks prior, but police didn't arrive in time to catch the guy, who burgled the house a few days later. When Martin started acting all weird trying to get Zimmerman off his trail, it seemed like confirmation of shadiness to Zimmerman.

A fight broke out - both sides have different version - that resulted in Zimmerman shooting Martin.

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Sat Jul 13, 2013 10:54 pm

The argument of the defense is that Zimmerman was acting without malice - yeah, he ignored the police when they told him not to follow the kid minding his own business, but he did anyway and ended up in a fight where he fought for his life and shot him in self defense.

And that's really the basis of Zimmerman's defense, because the basic facts of black kid walking -> stalked by overzealous neighborhood watch guy -> fight -> black kid gets shot by Zimmerman are not in doubt. Unfortunately the defense also keeps trying to malign Trevor Martin as some sort of thug, which just makes them look like assholes, and the prosecutors have plenty of material making Zimmerman look like an asshole...if Zimmerman doesn't go to jail, people are going to be bullshit.

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 2:22 am

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... y/2514163/

God dammit, Florida.

erik · Post by **erik** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 3:49 am

Ancient History wrote:http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... y/2514163/

God dammit, Florida.

As in he absolutely should have been found guilty under their law? Or that their stupid "stand your ground" law harbors these situations?

I'll totally go with the second. The first, however, I'm not getting.

As I understand it, Martin actually did have violent incidents in his recent past where he was the aggressor, his cell phone contained a text pertaining to an illegal gun sale, and his phone contained a picture of him with an illegal gun. I can totally believe that he did attack the creepy white/hispanic guy who was stalking him and also that Zimmerman did fear for his life or great bodily harm and shot in self defense. It seems totally plausible to me that the defense could make a case for self defense for Zimmerman.

Now, it is also totally reversible that if Martin had killed Zimmerman he would have had a case for self defense as well.

It's fucked all around, upside and down. But given Florida's laws, I'm not certain if I could have voted to convict Zimmerman of murder or manslaughter if I were on that jury. I just don't know.

[edit: ze punctuation.]

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 4:02 am

The facts of the case are that Zimmerman precipitated the incident, ended up in a fight, and while getting his ass kicked by a teenage boy pulled his gun, fired and killed him. At the very least that should be involuntary manslaughter. I think this is a case where the prosecution fucked up badly, and the jurors handed down a technically correct verdict that let a killer go free.

So, I repeat: God dammit, Florida.

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 4:39 am

I'm leaning on the second as well. The law completely allows for stupid situations where both participants could legally say they felt that they were being attacked and thus can 'stand their ground'.

However, I am of the opinion that had the races been reversed that we'd be looking at a guilty instead of not.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 4:50 am

Basically, Zimmerman took "Neighbourhood Watch" to mean "Armed Thug." I'd have voted for "involuntary manslaughter" at least.

Edit: Oh look, it's almost as if the law changes based on the skin colour of the person with the gun.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 5:44 am

MGuy wrote:The law completely allows for stupid situations where both participants could legally say they felt that they were being attacked and thus can 'stand their ground'.

Actually it doesn't. You can't chase someone down the street and still be standing your ground.