[Jeysie]

Propaganda? Um, hardly.

The incidents in the article Lucien linked to do not surprise me one bit. There have been more than a few incidents in my area where people have gotten violent with others because they mistakenly thought the other person was being threatening or offensive. Last thing we need to do is pass a law legitimizing such impulsive mistakes.

I'm glad to hear MA isn't on your list of states passing such a law, Pilman. Bad enough to have to feel nervous about people who are itching for trouble; I don't need to feel nervous around the generally decent people, too.

Peace & Luv, Liz

[Jazhara7]

Originally Posted by PILMAN

Completely off-topic, but that does *not* look like 3 a.m. unless you are somewhere in the north during the winter where the sun rises *very* early (and I think not even there the sun would be that high up at that time). Looks more like 3 p.m.

Also, that guy looks freshly shaved. I doubt he'd shave before facing a criminal in his house. Or is that common practice? His hair is too tidy too, though it's hard to tell with such short hair, really.


This unrealistic display really takes away from the message of the image. Speaking from a neutral point of view.

But seriously, try to get some realism into your photos, people, dammit!



-

[Giligan]

That's the best photo. Ever.




Still, something about that Kalshnikov is screaming "Airsoft".

[PILMAN]

Originally Posted by Giligan

That's the best photo. Ever.




Still, something about that Kalshnikov is screaming "Airsoft".

The photo was taken by Oleg Volk, a known gun rights advocate. He is from the Soviet Union and moved to the US quite a while ago. It's definitely a real AK47, you can get a Romanian AK for 300 dollars.

[PILMAN]

is this one better?

[Jatsie]

I love how he's wearing the same shade of a beige, that he's painted his walls.

[PILMAN]

Originally Posted by Jat316sob

I love how he's wearing the same shade of a beige, that he's painted his walls.

That would be the light from the flash reflecting on the wall.

[Jatsie]

Nonsense, the man has clearly camouflaged himself. Living in a place that illuminated at 3am, he can't rely on the cover of darkness when investigating mysterious crashes.

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

Originally Posted by Jeysie

*Your* place, no. *Their* place, yes.

Okay.

If someone speaks out against something, and I've done/seen it myself, I do in fact bring it up to correct them.

Who needs to be corrected in my campfire scenario, the person who finds gun carriers creepy, the gun carriers that didn't speak up, or myself with knowledge of gun carriers that didn't speak up; and why are we not correct in our actions?

I have myself spoken up. Recently, at a large mixed party where left-leaning people were giving some pretty harsh opinions regarding the intelligence level of right-wingers, I had to speak up after it got to the point of embarrassment for the right-wingers in the room I knew to be listening. I announced their presence and they we all engaged in an open, civil discussion.

At the previously mentioned campfire event, the moment came and passed quickly. Those in the know were more than willing to get past it. That to me was the correct way to go.

Since I generally feel compelled to one, be honest with people

Somehow, I don't think it's prudent in a nice campfire gathering--after someone gives their opinion of gun owners being creepy--to blurt out "actually, I've got a glock in my vest here" and "yes, and I've got a snub nose on my ankle". At least, not that moment. There's no dishonesty there.

and two, equally importantly, make sure someones not proceeding along with what I feel is an incorrect assumption of matters.

It's not my place or their place to point out to that person that they're assuming too much about their company. Best to change the subject. (Which is what happened.)

So again, yes, I find your collective silence telling.

Telling what? I take no offense, I simply don't understand what my stance would be telling you. I don't believe I'm being dishonest, disrespectful, or unsafe.

In fact, if I did inform the speaker (at that moment, in front of everyone), that there were concealed carries in the group, would I not be dishonest in revealing their trust in regards to their concealment?

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

Originally Posted by PILMAN

is this one better?

Um, weren't you the one that evoked propaganda (re Brady, and let's not forget who he worked for when he was shot)?

This most definitely qualifies as propaganda.

[Jeysie]

Originally Posted by Not A Speck Of Cereal

Who needs to be corrected in my campfire scenario, the person who finds gun carriers creepy, the gun carriers that didn't speak up, or myself with knowledge of gun carriers that didn't speak up; and why are we not correct in our actions?

Honestly? Everyone.

The person who finds gun carriers creepy, because I'm assuming she didn't think your friends were creepy, even though they actually are gun carriers. She might either realize gun carriers weren't creepy after all, or decide that the fact that her friends carried guns but didn't tell her bothered her; either way she'd now be operating from knowledge instead of ignorance.

The gun carriers by not speaking up. Letting the woman believe she's perfectly "safe" because there's no one she knows to be a "creepy person" around is dishonest to me.

And you for having knowledge that there are people she would think are "creepy" around and not saying anything.

Originally Posted by Not A Speck Of Cereal

Somehow, I don't think it's prudent in a nice campfire gathering--after someone gives their opinion of gun owners being creepy--to blurt out "actually, I've got a glock in my vest here" and "yes, and I've got a snub nose on my ankle". At least, not that moment. There's no dishonesty there.

I disagree on both counts. For one, if someone makes a contentious statement, then it's both their own fault and not a surprise if the conversation turns uncomfortable or controversial because of it. If she didn't want to potentially start a buzz, then she shouldn't have said anything.

For two, I mean, come on. They're winking at each other and more or less saying, "Guess there's a couple people here she doesn't realize aren't creepy, eh?". And letting her go on ignorant of reality. And that's not dishonest? It may be a "white lie" to save face, but it's still a lie.

Originally Posted by Not A Speck Of Cereal

In fact, if I did inform the speaker (at that moment, in front of everyone), that there were concealed carries in the group, would I not be dishonest in revealing their trust in regards to their concealment?

Once I stopped to think about my response to this, I realized it's the whole attitude of "I want to hide the fact that I'm walking around with a weapon that I'm prepared to use on anyone who I believe is threatening to me" that feels *wrong* to me.

If you feel a need to carry around a weapon for that purpose, then so be it. But don't *hide* it and pretend to be harmless.

Peace & Luv, Liz

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

Liz, give me a hug.

I've read your entire post and admire your passion, but I really see no point in pursuing this further. I could and I do disagree on several (not all) points, but any more discourse would serve no purpose.

In gun debates, I've tried to apply objectivity (as a moderate liberal, non-gun advocate) and it always seems to fail against the emotive argument. So once again, I must bow out.

[Jeysie]

Heh. I do realize my biases in the matter. I'm very big on honesty... I dislike secrets and lies, even white ones, because I don't like having to operate from incomplete knowledge. It almost always leads to incorrect conclusions, and when you're talking weaponry, incorrect conclusions can be dangerous.

I can accept that some people feel a need to carry a weapon to protect themselves. I just find the thought troublesome on a number of levels myself. And I feel that concealing the fact that you're armed is even more troublesome. If you're going to arm yourself in the hopes of scaring off/defending yourself against criminals, then you ought to be wearing it openly so people *know* you're not going to brook trouble.

I don't find my argument emotive, though... I've just had enough experience with people to know better. *shrugs*

Peace & Luv, Liz

[Hammerite]

Originally Posted by PILMAN

is this one better?

Or kick the bastard RIGHT in the knackers!
Then he feels he's learned more of a lesson.

[stepurhan]

Originally Posted by PILMAN

The state of Florida in the United States became the first to enact such a law on October 1, 2005. ...........Law enforcement agencies must now have probable cause to believe that the use of deadly force was unlawful before an arrest can be made.

The entirely of your post between these two sentences (and including these two sentences) was a direct copy of this wikipedia article If you are going to quote directly from a specific source then please reference it with at least a link to the original.

I should also point out that not mentioning your source as wikipedia is slightly misleading since you appeared to be presenting the information as fact. Whilst wikipedia does have a good reputation (and this article appears well referenced meaning others can check the facts though wikipedia themselves are still expressing concern over referencing) its very nature means it is not always accurate and can, on some ocassions, be entirely incorrect.

[SSH]

Originally Posted by stepurhan

Whilst wikipedia does have a good reputation

Does it? I'd only ever trust Wikipedia with a kilogram of salt and not at all on anythign remotely contraversial (like this)

[stepurhan]

Originally Posted by SSH

Does it? I'd only ever trust Wikipedia with a kilogram of salt and not at all on anythign remotely contraversial (like this)

Argument for another thread really (in fact I think there is a thread for just that somewhere) but just considering this article.

The first part states the provisions of the law and the date the statute was passed, both of which are easily verifiable even without links being provided. It then cites the opinion of the National Rifle Association which sounds plausible and is almost certainly verifiable as well. The original article then went on to mention the Brady Campaign. PILMAN omitted this section from his quote (To PILMAN. This is a further reason to cite your sources.)

The second part (headed Other States on wikipedia) tells what other states have done on similar lines. Again this is all statute or case law so verifiable.

My point is that all this article does is state facts. It doesn't say whether the law itself is a good or bad thing, just what it's legal effect is (with some reference to certain groups opinions) As such, the controversial nature of the subject is irrelevant because the article doesn't express an opinion.

It is when dealing with verifiable facts such as this that tend to find wikipedia reliable.(though I always check other sources if the accuracy of the answer has any importance beyond idle curiosity) It is when it gets on to more subjective issues (like the adventure game article I recall causing such a stir a few years back) that it becomes less trustworthy.

[PILMAN]

http://www.wptv.com/news/local/story...3-cdcfdbc4eed4

Reported by: Marci Gonzales

Photographed by: Dennis Burke & Blain Logan

A not guilty verdict was announced Monday for Norman Borden, the man on trial for shooting two people to death during an argument.

After several hours of deliberation, the jury ruled that Norman Borden should face no consequences for shooting and killing Christopher Aruajo and Saul Trejo.

After an argument in October, investigators say Aruajo crashed a Jeep near Borden and Borden opened fire.

Borden claimed self defense, shooting to protect himself from the suspected gang members.

Araujo's fiance tells NewsChannel 5 she's outraged by the verdict.

"This is ridiculous. How can you shoot somebody, my husband was the driver, he was shot seven times in the face. How is it self defense?"

Borden won't comment on his plans now that he's free.

Those close to the case worry about his safety.

A gang member burned Borden's home down after the shooting, in retaliation, and more attacks are feared.

__________________________________________________ _______________

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localne...RDEN_0626.html

Man said he killed two attackers in self-defense
By LARRY KELLER

Palm Beach Post Staff Writer

Tuesday, June 26, 2007

WEST PALM BEACH — Norman Borden became the first defendant in Palm Beach County to beat murder charges under the state's Castle Doctrine law, which expands an individual's right to self-defense, when a jury acquitted him of all charges Monday in connection with a double slaying.

Friends and family of the two men he shot to death cried and covered their faces with their hands as the court clerk read the verdicts: Not guilty. Not guilty. Not guilty. Not guilty.

Borden, 44, also was teary-eyed as he whispered thanks to his attorney, Public Defender Carey Haughwout. "He's very relieved," Haughwout said later. "I think he always had faith they would do the right thing."

At least 20 sheriff's deputies, including three undercover agents, ringed the courtroom when the jury returned with its verdict. A half-dozen deputies hovered near Borden, probably to protect him more than to prevent an escape.

Borden received death threats, Haughwout said, and security throughout the trial was increased dramatically out of fears of street gang retribution against him or jurors.

On Oct. 8, Borden fired 14 shots from his 9mm handgun at three men in a Jeep who he said shouted threats at him and tried to run him over as he walked his four dogs in the Westgate neighborhood near West Palm Beach at about 2:30 a.m. Killed were Christopher Araujo, 19, and Saul Trejo, 21. Juan Mendez, now 21, was wounded.

Borden said he feared for his life and acted in self-defense.

Borden had reason to believe the men in the car were violent, Haughwout told jurors. Araujo once told Borden that he carried two guns and had held a weapon to a woman's head, according to trial testimony. Trejo was a local leader of Sur 13, a violent street gang, according to authorities. A baseball bat and a makeshift weapon were found in the Jeep, but no guns.

Neither Haughwout nor prosecutor Craig Williams thought the verdicts had implications for future defendants claiming self-defense under the Castle Doctrine law, which has been in effect less than two years.

"This case kind of stands on its own," Williams said. "They were bringing a lot of violence to this defendant. I don't think the new law made any difference. The truth hurt me in this case."

The law broadens a person's right to self-defense to include shooting in his own home or vehicle or in a public place. It states that a law-abiding citizen 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 believes it necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another."

Last month, a Central Florida man was acquitted of second-degree murder in the shooting death of his live-in girlfriend in another Castle Doctrine case. The dead woman's friends allegedly threatened to kill him, and he fired as they broke into his mobile home, killing her. He said he didn't know his girlfriend was at the door when he fired.

Borden was acquitted of two counts of first-degree murder, one count of attempted first-degree murder and one count of shooting into an occupied vehicle by the jury of 11 women and one man. Another felony charge was dropped by the prosecution.

Williams conceded that Borden acted in self-defense when he fired the first five shots. But when he moved from the front of the Jeep to the driver's side and fired nine more rounds, it became murder, he argued.

"There was no threat" after the first five shots, Williams said in closing arguments. He said that, although the danger to Borden was real, he had time to reassess the situation after firing the initial shots because the Jeep had come to a stop after slamming into a fence post.

"He knew what was going on," Williams told the jury. "He knew what he was doing."

Borden told investigators that, even after he fired the initial shots, he saw movement inside the vehicle and still felt he was in danger.

Haughwout urged jurors to view the incident through Borden's eyes.

"The car is not the danger," she said in her closing argument. "It's the people in the car that are the danger. How do you reassess when you're in that spot with people that ... want to kill you? You do what you have to do to survive. There is no time for thought. There is no chance for reassessment."

After two hours of deliberations, the jury returned its verdict agreeing with her.

Araujo's fiancée, Anastasia Bocanegra, 20, wept as the verdicts were read and was incredulous afterward.

"He got away with killing two people," she said. "The car was stopped. Norman was not in fear for his life. These were not bad guys. They were babies."

Instead of spending life in prison if he had been convicted as charged, Borden gained his freedom at 8:13 p.m. after more than eight months in jail. Haughwout declined to say what Borden's plans are now, because of fears for his safety.

Williams said he also worries about threats against Borden. "I pray nothing happens to him. Am I worried? Sure. Look what they did to his house."

Two days after the shootings, Borden's house was set on fire, presumably in retaliation.

Compounding his troubles, his four pit bulls were euthanized while he was incarcerated.

"His story is very tragic," Haughwout said. "He's lost everything. He has no home to go home to. He's been in a grieving process ever since this happened."

Borden's instinctual response to the threat to his safety was "more rational" and "courageous" than would be expected of most people, she said. He has always regretted that he killed Araujo and Trejo, she said.

"There's nothing about this that Norman is proud of," Haughwout said.

---------------------------------------------------------

The guy never should have been prosecuted.

Good thing for the Florida stand your ground law.

[Hammerite]

Yeah but it could be very easy to just kill someone and claim they attacked you.
The man should've been given at least SOME form of punishment.

[PILMAN]

Originally Posted by Hammerite

Yeah but it could be very easy to just kill someone and claim they attacked you.
The man should've been given at least SOME form of punishment.

Punishment for what? He was defending himself, why should he be punished? If anything he should be awarded for getting rid of scum on the streets.