Federal authorities have announced that they are now intervening in the investigation of the killing of Trayvon Martin in Florida. That will certainly enhance the completion of forensic evidence, which we discussed earlier as critical to a case like this one. I have previously cautioned that this is not such an easy case as has been suggested, even with the 911 tapes. One of the greatest barriers is the Florida “Stand Your Ground” law.
I am as angry about this shooting as others. However, there remain difficult questions under the existing evidence. The intervention of the Justice Department adds an interesting element While racism has been alleged, the statement by the Justice Department notably does not lay out the basis for intervention and does not say that local police asked for the assistance. That may produce questions from the family why this is a federal matter as opposed to a local matter. While Zimmerman is described as “white,” his family has insisted that “George is a Spanish speaking minority with many black family members and friends.” That does not necessarily mean that this is not a hate crime or civil rights violation. However, it is possible that Zimmerman acted out of his zeal as a “watchman” as opposed to race — the stated view of the police chief.
The DOJ is clearly treating it as a racially motivated shooting since the Civil Rights Division, in conjunction with the FBI, is participating in the investigation. Justice Department spokeswoman Xochitl Hinojosa states “The department will conduct a thorough and independent review of all of the evidence and take appropriate action at the conclusion of the investigation. The department also is providing assistance to and cooperating with the state officials in their investigation into the incident.” Cooperating is a different matter than a request for assistance. If they were not asked for assistance by the police, the question is whether the Justice Department views the local police as itself somewhat suspect in the handling of the case. We previously discussed legitimate complaints about aspects of the police investigation.
The most significant issue is the Florida “Stand Your Ground” law. The law protects citizens in their use of lethal force in self-defense. The law, found in 20 states, is an expansion of the protection afforded under Castle doctrine or “Make My Day” laws for shootings in the home. I have long been a critic of those laws.
The key component of the law is that it allows lethal force when a person reasonably perceives a serious threat of harm and such force is reasonable under the circumstances. Zimmerman is likely to cite the fact that he was bleeding from the struggle — even though he outweighed the teen significantly and was armed.
The concern of these laws is that the use of reasonable force is already protected under the common law. The laws are read to offer broader protection than the common law, which already has ample protection for reasonable force. The law specifically negated the requirement of retreat under state law. The law states in pertinent part:
A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
That still allows for serious question over whether, even if Martin did struggle with Zimmerman, there remains the notion of a fear of serious bodily injury.
I have said that aspects of the case remains murky. That is not to say that an indictment cannot be brought on the existing evidence, as I has said before. Again, the most salient facts against him are (1) the statement on the 911 tape showing animus, (2) the disregarded instructions not to follow Martin, (3) the advantage in weight and possession of a firearm in the struggle, and (4) the lack of any weapon or proof of criminal conduct by Martin.
While the basis for the intervention by the DOJ remains a bit murky itself, it may help with the many unanswered forensic questions. I am most interested in (1) the trajectory of the bullet, (2) the distance of the shooting, (3) the extent of injuries beyond the bullet wound on both men, and (4) the forensic analysis of the background of the 911 calls. Additionally, some have argued that the tape of Zimmerman has him using a racial slur, though many others have said that he is actually saying “punks.” An audio forensic expert could answer that question, which would relate directly to the purpose of the federal investigation.
Source: Washington Post
Thank you Sharon.
I have been actually worried since yesterday, and will express my fears to MCM.
MCM,
Back off, please. . Give it up, for his sake. He might just go and blow his head off if the realization hits him too hard. Better let him go his way.
He’s staggering and desparate now. We don’t to see him fall.
As long as he isn’t beating his wife and the kids it ain’t major.
Change? Nah. Impossible.
Again Sharon. Your input welcome, not just because you give me support.
But because you indicate what’s expected here.. My first (almost) blog life experience.
Idealist707,
Fear is a proper response to a threat. It is in how one handles the fear that counts. Anyone who is too fearful might freeze or make mistakes and one who is void of fears might not value the assets at risk properly.
What is also lost in this is why I’m advocating a different take. When a fight is threatened anywhere near me, I really seek to know the nature of the suffering in the aggravated person. This is where the center of the storm is, right? Knowing that others are afraid is secondary. What is it that the aggravated party is seeking? What calms that desire? It might be reasonable, no? It might be unreasonable but can be met with reason. All these are in play in any real conflict.
Note above that I frequently wrote comments to clarify Tony’s position so I made it clear I understood the desire not to back down to a bully, to cede space we feel rightfully inclined to occupy etc. At no point does Tony seek to acknowledge outside his argument instead, “i reject your creed”, “I’m military”,”I’m a sharpshooter”, etc. He’s a very very defensive writer at least.
But whether he sees it or not, it is the idea that this “conversation” would require ‘retreat’ or that he’s being ‘attacked’ while he is actually simultaneously attacking, that is indicative of how we can trust his ability to ‘stand his ground’ and do so with reasonable force. If he can’t distinguish a criticism in public forum from an “attack” require retreat, then I can’t support his view on these laws as sound. Clearly he overstates his opponent’s case.
He argues for a standard different than mine. Fine, fair to do so. I’m arguing for a standard that would care less if I’m egotistical or modest. Either way, I’m up for your review. In his standard, he should be preordained to harm at the fullest extent should he feel “intimidated” or “attacked”. Under that standard, would I be sitting here with a bullet in my gut by now?
Idealist especially was not violent. Out of the entire conversation, you’ve not been an alpha, a testo-fest, wanking, twitchy, threat. And yet, “fuck you” is the response. Quite telling.
MCM and Tony C.
Am getting out because the respective personal threads get entangled and tangled (also). All debates should be one on one.
As for Tony. Keep your ideas. Hope they don’t spread.
As for my implying my sickness is your sickness—it isn’t sickness to me.
Sorry you feel it was. Was trying to disarm the demon of “retreat” for you. Playing therapist again. MCM thought your words of scorn on that were meant for him—but it was I who uttered the comparison.
BFN Lurking with interest.
Telling people “fuck you” is childish. Stop the alpha male garbage, Tony. You have people discussing a different view with you and you’re dishing out insults but then can’t take them. There is no need to say, “fuck you” to anyone here who has spoken to you. Someone has a different view of this than you do. You look and sound like a bully when you say this to idealist707. I haven’t seen him be violent or pushy with you. He’s discussing the topic with you. You say you think people shouldn’t back down then demand they back down from you. That is a bully.
Idealist, I’m sorry someone had to address you this way. Please be nice to this disturbed man. He seems at a breaking point on the topic. Thank you
MCM,
I tried the sharing approach. I tried his needs relate to mine, we are equally human in wanting to retain sefl-respect. But apophenia affiicts him
The use of the word “bait” seems to have colored his thinking thereafter.
All I offer is thereupon pronounced evil, deceitful, etc etc.
He is in need of major help, which he denies. Catch-22 in reverse.
He feels he is healthy and we are sick—-rots a ruck with that attitude.
He won’t answer direct questions like I asked about his specialty, published papers, journals, etc.
He is beyond reach, I fear.
Your points well taken and appreciated. You’ve been where I never will.
As have admitted, I have been afraid of all, not just bullies. And it persists in spite of being able to open and reach out now.
Wonder where Tony C.’s fear is? Does he himself know? Doubt it.
Like my body-gripping fear of being abandoned in the crib. It has only appeared 2 times in my life, completely unexpected,, but now getting OT.
Fear is healthy. And should be acknowledged or it will steer you badly at times.
Thanks, Woosty.
@Idealist: Hope this helps you.
No, not at all.
You are mistaken, I reply as I feel. If you want to talk about science, I love science. You say, you put out the bait: Fuck you. I am not playing chess, I am trying to have a conversation, and dumb fuck idiots like you cannot help but start insulting, preaching, and making completely unfounded assumptions about me (Oh, Tony, you are just like I was before I became a much better person than you!) and then try to treat me for the disease that infects you.
Congratulations, you tricked me into thinking you were a sincere scientific conversationalist; I gave you the benefit of the doubt and responded with civility, and then you confessed it was all a con and you were just another scheming jerk trying to trick me.
Same thing goes for MCM: He preaches the value of retreat in order to attack me; he is a keyboard hypocrite. Although I am not intimidated in the least, just look at his posts, one after another. Looks like classic bullying behavior to me.
As for my biographical note: It was you looking for my beliefs and why I believe what I do, and whether I believe in the supernatural, and I told you what I have told other people. Then you vilify me for that?
I have no psychological need for confirmation of my conclusions, scientific or otherwise, from anybody except the people I know personally that are qualified to understand me. I engage in conversation for completely innocent reasons: You might have heard of an article I hadn’t, or video I didn’t see, or we might have a common interest.
I do not need your support or belief or acceptance, I know what I know and it is justified with logic. And now I know something new, that you are a dishonorable liar and cheat that cannot be trusted and deserves nothing from me.
“Same thing goes for MCM: He preaches the value of retreat in order to attack me; he is a keyboard hypocrite”
Haus, we aren’t in combat. We’re in discussion. Can you distinguish the difference? Please provide proof of your explanation. (essay please)
“He preaches the value of retreat in order to attack me;”
False. There is no preach here and the value of retreat is being discussed to save lives. “attack” …might want to consider some of your own comments. At NO POINT have I suggested you can’t insult me. You have done so from the beginning, so what. I’m not worry about those comments, they’re just comments. You’ve claimed I have no ability for basic logic, I’m a simpleton, etc. So i wouldn’t get too frothy about ‘attack’ when you’re doing it.
I have been no such hypocrite as I haven’t suggested you should refrain from insults. If this is your idea of combat, I suggest you stay at the keyboard and leave the gun toting to cops. Your life on the street might not be met with rhetoric.
I have openly challenged your macho approach to ‘stand your ground’. Yes, I did this directly and to the point. No games. If idealist707 has a view on this, so be it. But I’m deadly serious about the need to understand the value of retreat in a real life combat role.
If you’re now going to start convulsing about “keyboard” combat, I think its time you drink some chai and relax. This is not combat. This is discussion.
And you can throw all the “Fuck you” comments around that you want, just words big guy, just words.
Fact is I’ve been very sincere that you are wrong about ‘retreat’ as ‘running away’ and have ample support from far greater military minds than you and I in that reality. It is from them that I learned that retreat isn’t cowardly. You can rant about that all you wish but you’re flat out wrong. Retreat isn’t cowardly any more than Advance is brave. It is forward and back.
I will agree with idealist707 though that you are utterly predictable in your irascible responses and that is something I know I can provoke because I understand that matrix. I’m not here to do that with you. I am challenging your claims about ‘retreat’. That you think this means I should retreat is rather humorous actually because we aren’t in combat.
And I already said, I understand the desire to stand your ground…that isn’t rocket science. Froth away if you must but you’re a classic case of tense for no reason. I challenged your macho and you only got more macho. It is easily predictable that you’re a danger in a public setting with that mindset. Froth at that assertion all you want but you’re the one who put it out there.
“classic bully”
“fuck you”
“treat me for the disease that infects you.”
lots of froth there, Tony. You have some issues that should be rested. I don’t mind telling you that and it isn’t bullying you to say so.
“I engage in conversation for completely innocent reasons: ”
And so do others, haus. It isn’t only your world, your blog, or your experience. Welcome to sharing it. It seems painful to you, but it doesn’t have to be.
Rest well Tony, you’re well loved and highly respected in your …domain.
Tony C.
I put the bait out of seeming to require you to prove your scientific capability.
You could and should have replied: Irrelevant to the subject under discussion.
You instead gave my questions the dignity of answering them—-thus confirming your need for that support in your internal world.
Do you see how you can be suckered. Not defeated as such, but demeaned and dishearted—-ultimately.
I preach at you, you feel. Let me tell you, this sermon is meant as much to aid me, as to aid you.
Tony,
Another thing you need to evaluate and abandon
.
You, when pressed on your ideas, pull out your bonafides as a way of “proving ” the worth of your ideas.
Your being this, that, and the other, is irrelevant in defense of ideas.
There is no rank here. Even the protessor can be and is challenged, even by such legal mites as I. Surely you are disgusted when you hear some higher-ranking person use it as a way to end all discussion.
You say: I have military experience, I have been using this attitude for XX years, I am a scientist with many achievements. ETC.
Well, goody for you, says your opponent. Let me hear the arguments all these achievements have equipped you with.
The proof then falls back on argumentation, not necessarily he who has the best facts, nor the “correct” answer—-but he who ARGUES BEST.
So when you pull rank, you are simply saying I have no good arguments left.
Good luck in abandoning that “losing tactic”. One down makes it easier to do more. Remind yourself of each barrier passed or mountain climber.
That is very needed when changing things around.
Tony C.
You were suckered again:
MCM said::
“No tony,
I made a general comment about certain proud people then a specific about not knowing your state of mind. If the shoe fits, wear it.”
—————-
Problem: You looked for an attack signal, and being focused on detecting and analyzing that, you don’t read the actual signals. And make conclusions based on misunderstood data. Wonder how you perform in less stressful scientist situations.
MCM is an expert. Your chances in mental combat are null. But your “pride” keeps you in an untenable situation, because abandoning a position would shatter your world, you feel deepest..
Listen and read what I say, Tony.
I was in the same position as you all my life until about 5 weeks ago.
I had a position which was “me”, which was my all, had to be maintained in spite of all input to the contrary. Not the same as yours, but same as to type of fixated life strategy. What was mine?
To prove my worth as a human being, I had to prove that I was smarter.
That I had to know more than others. To “be” right. To start and end the contact from an “above” position. To give lectures instead of contact.
Not being an expert I used my agile memory and mind to collect expertise outside the area of the common man, in my case medicine, biology, etc and also science in areas that interested me. I became a nerd, but withouu nerd contacts—as even they abhorded me.
When I accepted the idea that thet was an unnecessary hindrance, I faced the problem of what am I if not superior? What are my characteristics, my personal qualities, my real feelings which were hidden even from me under the costume. What is an ordinary person like?
Where can I stand? All unknown. Having been cut off, without real contact, empathetic observation, empathetic feelings (self-imposed altruism existed), etc it wasn’t easy to know where or how to begin.
It was for a time a fearful situaltion. Having taken off my costume, I did not know how I appeared to others, nor actually how I “was”. Gradually, (no further mention now,) I have found more and more of myself—and the reaction from others are proof that they like what they see.
Before it was approval of my role, now it is approval of me.
Thus my feelings in my guts are more accessible than anytime earlier in my life. I am healing and entering the human race cautiously.
And, I’ve had gestalt therapy help to do this. No theories, just help in experiencing life in a different position or in another manner.
Try it, you’re worth it.
Hope this helps you.
Your position on LQG is as mine. The difference is that as a fan of Lee Smolin I am not a scientist. But that gives me the freedom to enjoy one of Lee’s happiest discoveries, and use it myself. To use associations outside the box to suggest solutions inside it.
Good luck finding the real you. Give yourself the chance. Your need for respect is crippling you. Let your need be replaced but acceptance of being vulnerable, not every blow to your self-image is fatal, as you fear.
It will quiet the mind and allow you to argue your case better.
It always helped my Kerstin. I haven’t gotten there yet. Only became aware of another crippling strategy 8 days ago, which requires integrating in this renovated me.
Good luck to us both.
“Problem: You looked for an attack signal, ”
idealist707,
Way back up there, I wrote that for a long time I’ve been working with people about this “twitch” (aka looking for an attack signal is excellent language).
That “always alert” status leads to apophenia (seeing patterns that aren’t there). FEMA Camps become concentration camps when you have this pattern run you too much. Always looking for the fight is a sign in my experience. It is a sign of unfinished anger. Somewhere, someone got frightened, hurt, offended, and is waiting to take it out on the next “attack signal”.
And I was being serious when I said I don’t know Tony’s mind or emotion. His words are all I can go by. I take much of what he says to be his sincere emotion about the topic. I can even identify with that passion. I just disagree with the mindset that seeks the hardest road first out of compensation. The easiest road to peace is always the best road. Anything less and you should be reviewed by your peers after any such event to see if you “brought your shit” that day.
Also, I do stick to what I know. It is the best way to deliver the goods. I read this Turley blog every day. I don’t sit here and argue as a lawyer, because I’m not one. But as also mentioned above, that doesn’t mean I don’t have law experience as plaintiff, defendant, witness, legal courier, and a martial artist. I’m not at all vague about laws in states I visit or live because I tend to cooperate with law enforcement related to martial arts standards. I have to know what my legal requirements in their district are.
Just like registering a gun, if I move into a neighborhood and get into a fight with an average joe who has never taken a single fighting class, I might be held to a higher standard if questions start arising about the conflict. Since I’ve had training in de-escalation, I have to employ it. All the attacks on “duty to retreat” were extraneous redundancies mixed with a big old dose of PreJudice. prejudice in a law is the worst form of law.
But lets take this out of the legal realm that Tony avoids in his argument and stick with “opinion” world. My opinion about the difference between “self-defense” and “arriving with an agenda” comes from first hand experience. There is nothing to brag about. No brag in almost killing someone who attacked you. It is sick, not funny. No rocks to get off.
While the ego fest might distract, I invite Tony and others to consider the moral structure of the argument. Tony’s “I do not care why the right thing is done, just that the right thing is done” is not very scientific. I do care why the right thing is done, because as a scientist I need to repeat the experiment and evaluate the data. Why is it that Jonathan Turley is someone I respect and not simply admire his legal chops. Because he not only does the right thing mechanically with the law, but he seeks the proper moral center in the law too. The “why this is right” is always made clear by Prof Turley.
Without being distracted by the ego part of it, lets examine the rewards and punishments of the “self-aggrandizing egos” in our two arguments.
1. Tony C wishes (feel free to correct if this isn’t accurate) to be able to ‘stand his ground’ free of liability if an aggressor seeks to remove his ‘right’ to be in a place he was authorized to be and he kills him. He specifically wants no “demand to retreat” placed upon him if he were to fear for his life or that of others. He seems convinced that such protection didn’t already exist and that the “spirit” of stand your ground was most important because someone has to be able to stand up to bullies or they will rule the world and he will lose his right to be where he should be.
This was wrapped in “I will kill if attacked” and “tough shit” towards the bully’s outcome.
2. My argument was, even if I could have all that room, I should make sure I have a check on my reaction to an event because I think the community knows what standard is best. I am no island. I argued for a limited use of force to match with only the amount necessary to end the situation including avoiding it all together. Each step I take would merely be determined by the live action, not a pre-ordained desire to whip out weapons and be Wong Fei Hung.
I ask, ultimately on stance alone, which has more humility.
I know that my teachers are right because for a life time I have chosen Option 1 while they advised Option 2. Repeatedly I was wrong about my self-centered desire to harm ‘bad guys’ and ‘right the wrongs’ etc. This has ultimately been disregarded as “macho shit” by now in my life. I’ve had guides to get here, 2 women in my life who loved me more than I loved myself. I didn’t care what happened to me before they came in my sphere. My wife looked on in fear when I had to confront a man in front of a store who was calling his wife the c-word and threatening to beat her in front of the store. That look of fear for my well being never appeared in a fight I had been in before…it rattled me worse than a punch.
When this ‘macho’ mind takes over, innocent people get hurt on a greater ratio than when people take minimum action in a fight or avoid the fight all together. 95% of all potentially violent interactions in the world are going to be bluffs or posturing with no real threat of violence. A conditioned mind can discern the difference by examining many different factors including posture, language, eyes, etc. As a fighter, I look for that ‘twitch’ that says he’s for real or he’s just talk. Almost all, virtually everyone is bluffing or posturing to simply get some respect or deflect a potential threat.
If every time my cats hissed at each other a gun had to come out…lots of dead cats would be around. But most hisses are simply warnings. I also sought above to say a few times, it doesn’t matter if Tony manages to get through life with his mentality about deadly force because for every Tony, there’s a not-Tony that has the same legal leeway and he isn’t so lucky. He goes to the morgue for his macho while his children suffer.
Case in point in Florida, David Jones, who was shot over a park fight that never had to turn deadly. His daughter needs him but he’s dead. I’m sure that big military man had training too. I’m sure he thought his skills would get the better of his aggressor and he is dead.
So despite the appearance that I’m looking to ‘defeat’ Tony here, the truth is I want him to go home every day and die of natural causes.
It like the old Japanese story:
A wealthy gentleman went to the priest to ask a blessing on the occasion of his grandson’s birth. He asked the priest to provide a blessing for the family.
The priest wrote out: Father dies, son dies, son dies.
The wealthy man was upset at this blessing. He screamed, “what sort of blessing is that!”
The priest replied, “I was merely asking for a blessing for the natural order. See, son dies before father, or his son dies before his father, the great suffering will consume the family. But if the natural order is preserved, there will be less suffering upon the family”
The wealthy man was surprised yet thankful to hear this blessing and thanked the priest for his wisdom
———————–
Macho gets people killed. But even if I remove the argument about macho from ‘retreat’, I think my greatest point to Tony about retreat is that there is no shame in retreat because it is simply a movement. While calling me a ‘self-aggrandizing ego’, Tony was arguing for ego in ‘running away’. He was arguing to save his ego, not his life.
As I said above, advance and retreat, are motions. They lack emotion. “running away” is a rather charged way of saying “retreat”.
“you’re a simpleton” is actually fine with me. Truth might not match that, but I admire simpletons. Their world seems easier somehow. Less burdens when you don’t have to think about consequences. I seek simple resolutions to complex problems. Occam’s views were worthy, no?
Our foreign policy in America has too many “retreat is not an option” mindsets in play when it comes to invading and conquering. Sarah Palin and others rail for more war in Iraq and Afghanistan by bleating “retreat is not an option” and “why are we going to run away”
They are stuck on stupid.
@Michael: It is easy to fluster certain proud people.
I am not flustered. I answer violence with violence, ridicule with ridicule, insult with insult. Funny how you say, “I don’t know what is in his head,” immediately after asserting that I am “proud” and immediately before claiming my mind is “overly firm.” You’re a simpleton.
No tony,
I made a general comment about certain proud people then a specific about not knowing your state of mind. If the shoe fits, wear it.
@Idealist: And do you believe as some scientists that the universe may not be uniform as to constant laws.
No.
And how do you conceive of what it is outside of the universe, or before time started flowing.
I do not. As a scientist, I am comfortable with the answer that I don’t know. I do not have to invent an answer.
If the universe is infinite, how large is that? If it is finite, what lies outside?
First, the universe can be finite with nothing outside of it; it could be a four dimensional sphere, so that if a projectile travels far enough in one direction it will end up where you started.
But that isn’t necessary to know, really. The observable universe is more than we will ever explore, even optically. I am also okay with leaving such mysteries to future generations, it is my educated opinion, at the moment, that there is not enough information available to do anything but wildly speculate about those things. And even further than that, we have no clue as to how to generate the information that could help provide the answers. We won’t be building a particle accelerator the size of our galaxy, for example. So it is up to somebody in the future, perhaps, to figure that out. Or perhaps it will never be known, civilization may collapse in the next thousand years.
Or are there forces greater than those we can perceive in the sub-atomic particle world.
It depends on what you mean by “perceive,” but in general I do not believe that any forces exists that cannot be measured.
Stringers say they are enormous. What’s your position on strings?
My position is that string theory is utter bullshit and a tragic waste of physicists. I believe there is nothing testable in it, and never will be. I subscribe to a form of loop quantum gravity that has the potential to produce actually testable hypotheses. String theory is a fad that has led to a dead end. It won’t go anywhere, and in twenty more wasted years, the money (for grants and research) will move elsewhere. That will happen faster if one of the alternatives (LQG) starts making testable scientific progress, which I expect it will.
While we are on the subject, I do not believe in the Big Bang or Inflation, either. I do not believe in Dark Matter, I do not believe in Dark Energy, and I am just beginning to think that maybe the Higgs boson does not exist. Have you heard the neutrinos are cycling through forms much faster than was expected? Experiments to test that were just recently devised, and provided another surprise.
The best theory of physics we have ever had is in trouble, and nobody on the planet knows how to fix it. It is interesting times, I think.
Simpleton John Timony chimed in on this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/24/opinion/floridas-disastrous-self-defense-law.html
“At the time the Florida law was working its way through the Legislature, proponents argued that a homeowner should have the absolute right to defend himself and his home against an intruder and should not have to worry about the legal consequences if he killed someone. Proponents also maintained that there should be no judicial review of such a shooting.
But I pointed out at the time that even a police officer is held to account for every single bullet he or she discharges, so why should a private citizen be given more rights when it came to using deadly physical force? I also asked the bill’s sponsor, State Representative Dennis K. Baxley, to point to any case in Florida where a homeowner had been indicted or arrested as a result of “defending his castle.” He could not come up with a single one.”
————-
This was one of my points above. There hasn’t been a threat on people who were defending themselves before this law. He then states something even more to my liking:
“The only thing that is worse than a bad law is an unnecessary law. Clearly, this was the case here.”
The irony here is I am one of Timony’s critics from his handling of WTO events in Philly and Miami. His tough guy stuff showed up there too. Fire brings fire.
Gene, Enter the dragon follows that.
idealist707,
It is easy to fluster certain proud people. I don’t know what is in his head, that’s his space, not mine.
in speaking with a friend who is a former SERE instructor, this overly firm mind is one of the things addressed in SERE. In the Korean war, many captured troops had been brought up in this ‘firm stiff’ mind. Turns out though, they cracked first. SERE teaches to be flexible with the people who have captured you. This tough guy projection is easy to break. All tough guys can be broken, all of them. We’re only mortal.
It is the flexible mind and construct that will survive the longest. All good martial art is based in adaptation not “I’ll do this when x happens.” People who think like that get hurt more often than not. It is in this area that we train the longest. The art of it is exploring all of these areas. One day, you simply hit another area of though that is not based in the ‘kick someone’s ass’ motif.
to the other Cognatives here:
“You then say, “You don’t have a right to escalate.”
I never claimed that I had such a right. ”
This is what the boor here can’t figure out: “I would kill if I were attacked.”
I would kill if I were attacked makes no qualification of the “attack”. Now I have already presumed this is in context of “deadly force” because that is what the law pertains to. But the person speaking gave his final verdict before combat. To me, this is premediation that devalued life before attack. I cannot therefore trust his word that he was acting without a desire to kill. Knowing first hand that not all attacks, or even most of them, require deadly force, I’m suspect as to his intentions. Yet, conflating ‘self-defense’ with an intent to kill is a bad mix to place a good faith support.
Stated from another view: “I would only kill another person if it was the only way to save or prevent harm to another life”
Not the same thing.
Rewrite from the boor’s main argument:
“I would like to make sure the law would not penalize me if I had to take a life to prevent the harming of another, including myself. If I was in a place I was rightfully allowed to be and had to stand up to a threat, I don’t believe I should be sanctioned if I felt in reasonable consideration I had to hold the space for the safety of myself or others.”
Of course, then you’d be told…you already have that.
It is important that intentions are clear when assessing the level of liability of one’s actions. With proscribing these investigations, the community is left to the power of the one who took life. I don’t like to be judged harshly either when having to answer for harming. Yet it is still the right thing to do.
If a life is lost, the idea of proscribing an investigation is absurd. That is one of the parts of this Florida law that created the mess Sanford is in now.
What Prof Turley and many of us are arguing for is stated clearly:
“The laws are read to offer broader protection than the common law, which already has ample protection for reasonable force.”
Ample Protection for Reasonable Force
The boor wants Unreasonable Force while already amply protected. He wants the license to kill without sanction if he can claim he wanted to stand his ground. He blankets this in the idea that other laws (duty to retreat) require him to submit to a bully, leaving his wife and children in danger.
Many failed nations used to subscribe to only: “Retreat is not an option”
Rome, British Empire, Ottomans, Persia, USSR, United States.
And to the boor….
In arguing how the term “retreat” is used in the military is different than how a “retreat” is USED in the military. When “feigning retreat”, you are still retreating, but not for weakness, not because you lack resources, not because you are confused, but because you want to control the meta space. That you have been unable to grasp this all along in the conversation, is not surprising to me now. It is something that I’m quite used to with boors. One context, one level, one topic only please. It is a hell of a time dealing a multidimensional cross platform player in life.
Retreat isn’t only an option, it is an amazing tool that is not “running away”.
buren (Sw) = borne (En)
MCM
He’s getting incoherent now. More emotion driven, prestige bound, self-reassuriing, quite pitiful to see.
BFN
Wonder why he did not flee. But his attitude prevents rational thought.
MCM
Was going to make a personal point about gut feelings.
My guts have been cut off from me as to feelings until this my 75th year.
Incredible? True. Am just now beginning to feel them.
You understand as do I that communicating with gut feeliing people was impossible.. It was all role playing on my part, and people sensed it
Now the reactions to my changed tone on voice, an alive face, a living body language, etc is greeted with smiles and pleasure in their replies to me.
Wonderful that it could be done this late.
Juat thought would reinforce it by disclosing it. I even feel now my slight anguish at this self-revelation. But joining the human race is scary.
It’ s almost 2 AM here. so must quit for now. Back tomorrow to follow Tony’s fear of being seen a coward. Is his problem the same as the homophobes who really are concealing their gayness from themselves (as alleged)? So in Tony’s case, he is afraid of his own reteating would force him ot face his own (in his eyes) cowardice. How sad, he can’t consider and be reconciled that we all must face defeat and fear and retiring from assault. Does he realize he is not the ultimate warrior? He is a distant relative to the Greeks in the Trojan war, bear your shield or be buren on it.
No honor otherwise. Thus honor was all for them. As Homer relates i’m told.
BTW, for anyone interested, Spike TV is re-running “I Am Bruce Lee” tonight (3/23). I cannot suggest it enough for martial artists, fans of MA movies, or those simply interested in philosophy (Bruce was down with philosophy).