Okay so I'm sure you can help me out here.
George Zimmerman is in jail facing a second-degree-murder charge after killing Trayvon. It is second degree I assume, because his shooting of the victim was not premeditated and wilful.
The part that confuses me is that Zimmerman was walking around his neighbourhood carrying a loaded weapon. The purpose of guns is to kill people (or rats or deer if you are so inclined). That is what they are for- to cause maximum damage as easily as possible. How can carrying a loaded weapon and then using it to shoot a random kid in the back not be considered premeditated? GZ intended to shoot someone one day with his loaded gun, or else why would he carry it. If the purpose of a gun is to kill people and he shot it at someone, how can that be anything other than wilful and intentional? The only random element was the person who was shot. It could have been anyone. Just so happened to be Trayvon.
If I was walking around with a spade ( the purpose of a spade is to dig holes) and was attacked from behind and swung the spade around and in the course of defending myself killed the person, then I could see how that might be unpremeditated murder, but if you are carrying a device, the only use of which is to kill, then I can't see how you can say that your intention was not to kill.

Colour me confused.

With that line of thinking, it's no wonder that you are confused.

If I'm carrying a gun, it's because I want to kill someone? That's the only reason?

Why else would you?
I can see that if you are hunting or killing rabbits, but why in an urban environment?

I apologise for my barely coherent initial post, but the fact remains that guns are for killing- it's what they do best. If I carry one and shoot someone with it, then it is premeditated. How can it be otherwise? I know beforehand that if I shoot someone I am likely to kill them (unless I am a very good shot and aim to wound). If you know something beforehand and then go and do it anyway then that is premeditation. I am prepared to shoot someone with my killing machine and I do it. I thought about it and I did it.
Seems pretty premeditated to me.

In states the law allows, you can carry a gun for personal or group protection, doesn't mean you're actively planning to kill someone with it. In this instance; premeditation=planning.

So RgrF, you are saying that you are not planning to use the gun you are carrying for protection, you just happen to have it about your person on the off chance that you will need it?
If i carry a spade it can be safely assumed that I am going to be doing some digging. If I carry a gun it can be safely assumed that...what? My intention in carrying a gun is to use it. I would not carry a gun unless I was sure I would use it. What business would I have with carrying a gun otherwise?

I still say that my willingness to use the loaded gun I am carrying, is in effect premeditation.
"...doesn't mean you're actively planning to kill someone with it."
Yes I am, or else I would not be carrying one. In my head I have practiced what I would do in situation x and now that situation x arises, I use my gun.
How can this not be premeditation.
You must both be using the word premeditation differently to me.

Please understand, I am not being obtuse on purpose. I am constantly bewildered by Americans need to wield deadly weapons in their day to day affairs.

If he left the house that day saying to his wife, "honey, I'm off to kill that Trayvon kid - be back for dinner." THAT would be premeditated.

Quote
hal
If he left the house that day saying to his wife, "honey, I'm off to kill that Trayvon kid - be back for dinner." THAT would be premeditated.

Absolutely. Undeniably. Indubitably.
I also maintain that he left his house that day, as he probably did on many other days, saying to himself something along the lines of "If I need to shoot someone today, I will." and of course, one day, he did.
The thing you guys seem to be stuck on is that premeditation the way you are using it, involves planning to kill a specific person. I say that he was prepared, ie. had planned beforehand, to kill someone he felt he was justified in killing.
Again, the fact that it was Trayvon is entirely irrelevant.

Quote
Lux Interior
With that line of thinking, it's no wonder that you are confused.

Care to enlighten me...Lux?

Premeditation is a term defined in law, you can't make up your own definition.

BTW: I do understand where you're coming from with this and from what I've read think the guy ought not to be carrying a gun but serve serious jail time for what he apparently did.

Prosecutors can only work with the tools and laws they are given, an overreach in a case like this could well end in dismissal of charges or verdict of not guilty. It may end up like that yet.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/16/2012 04:59AM by RgrF.

Quote
RgrF
Prosecutors can only work with the tools and laws they are given, an overreach in a case like this could well end in dismissal of charges or verdict of not guilty. It may end up like that yet.

Agreed. I thought from the beginning that charging him with murder vs. manslaughter was a mistake.

And as to premeditation tied to carrying a weapon, that stretch is ridiculous. Self protection with a gun does not imply some grand desire to kill people. When threatened, simply showing a gun, or firing it astray can and is a common method for people to avoid injury to their own person or family.

Just look at the Rouges Gallery of posters with reasons for carrying a gun, the world just tilted on it's axis.

IIRC, he and his wife both got CCW, on the recommendation of a local police officer, due to the problems they'd had with stray dogs.

Also, I believe statements from the prosecutor's office made it clear he was being charged with murder based on his voluntary, 4+ hour 'interview'.

Which is why if you're ever involved in such a situation: [www.youtube.com]

I saw that video a few years ago and it's absolutely on point. Police need a sustainable charge, once the zone in and get one they're off to other matters, right and wrong have almost no place in the calculations.

Quote
Manlove


Colour me confused.

speculation and specious fabrications will do that

---

Kooper's Flute Thing cover

[www.freethegrapes.org]

norwegian wood reality TV

[www.youtube.com]

This was already explained a couple of times, but legal terms are categories, not adjectives.

Legal terms can sometimes be misleading. I remember when I was young I thought aggravated assault had something to do with being provoked when of course it does not.

---

"Stop thinking about art works as objects, and start thinking about them as triggers for experiences." ~ Brian Eno

Quote
Manlove

Quote
Lux Interior
With that line of thinking, it's no wonder that you are confused.

Care to enlighten me...Lux?

You believe that people only carry guns because they want to kill people. This is not true.

Thank you for your comments.
What I find interesting is that if I asked this question in the rest of the "civilised" world, the answers I would have gotten back would have been somewhat different.

What some of you can't see (billb and Lux (who are real charmers) and Pops to some extent), is that you have made the assumption that carrying a loaded weapon is a completely sane and socially appropriate thing to do. Only in this country (there may be others but you can do the research) do people think that this is normal.

I do appreciate the twisting of meaning that law inflicts upon words. I suppose I was asking a moral question not a law question, and what it comes down to is that the right to bear arms has become 'the right to shoot people if they unnerve you'.

Lux, billb, instead of making rude and pointless remarks, tell me how and when you would need a loaded gun when you are walking through your neighbourhood.

"And as to premeditation tied to carrying a weapon, that stretch is ridiculous." Doesn't seem ridiculous if my general assumption about people is that they are not trying to kill me.

America is so scared that it willingly buys into the fear generated by amongst others the NRA.
You don't seem to realise how ridiculous it sounds to say "I need to carry a gun so that I feel safe." You have forgotten that it is possible for no one to carry guns. You are so deep in your own fear that you assume everyone given the chance will shoot you, therefore you need to shoot them first.

I feel sorry for you who think like this. What must the world look like for you? A place of fear and pain, without remorse, where you have to get what you can when you can and kill first ask questions later.
Sad.

Manlove... you are just all over the place here...

You are trying to change the meaning of a long understood term. You can't do that - period. Premeditation is NOT what you think it is - period. No one here is going to go along with you new definition.

Quote

"America is so scared that it willingly buys into the fear generated by amongst others the NRA.

You don't seem to realise how ridiculous it sounds to say \"I need to carry a gun so that I feel safe.\" You have forgotten that it is possible for no one to carry guns. You are so deep in your own fear that you assume everyone given the chance will shoot you, therefore you need to shoot them first."

No one here has said this - why are you putting words into our mouths... I honestly thought that this post was going to be one of those, "sorry - I had a bit too much to drink last night" posts...

Most of us here are horrified by Stand You Ground...

Manlove(whatever that means), how much would you pay to get your hands on a 38 Special if you were aboard Flight 93?

Quote
Avenger
Manlove(whatever that means), how much would you pay to get your hands on a 38 Special if you were aboard Flight 93?

Oh, yeah, that's it - arm everyone on flights from now on - end of terrorism as we know it.

OK,how much would YOU pay for a 38 Special on that flight? You are free to say if I was offered one I would refuse to take it. Go ahead, say it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/16/2012 01:21PM by Avenger.

Avenger (whatever that means), you are clearly a moron. My moniker bugs you because it is ambiguous and not 'manly' like 'Avenger'? Be quiet.

And Hal - "You are trying to change the meaning of a long understood term. You can't do that - period."

How very authoritarian of you. Of course you can change meanings and definitions- it's one of the ways that change happens and that new laws are made.

Are the laws so good in this country that they don't need amendments?

"No one here has said this - why are you putting words into our mouths... I honestly thought that this post was going to be one of those, "sorry - I had a bit too much to drink last night" posts..."

Yes, I was tired and my post was not brilliantly written, but people on this forum have said almost exactly what I wrote. There are examples of it less than a page down in the posts. I did not say you said it or that anyone in this post said it, just that some people in general DO say it and some people in this forum DO think it. I am not putting words in mouths, I am reporting what I have seen and read.
Sorry if you don't like it.

Manlove - you don't change laws by changing the definition of words - you create new laws with different words...

"Sorry if you don't like it."

You're being silly... I like it just fine - I find it all amusing

If you want to address things that have been said, do so toward the people that say them. Otherwise you aren't much different than the guy shouting nonsense on the street.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/16/2012 01:32PM by hal.

Hal, I was talking about what constitutes degrees of murder. I think that carrying a loaded gun on public streets with the intent to use it if a situation arises that fulfills your criteria, is akin to, if not the same as, premeditation. You seem to think that the law has dibs on the word. I don't.
I think what Zimmerman did is murder with premeditation. No one here has told me why they think it is not. I have heard that this is not what the word means in law, or that I am (essentially) stupid and incoherent, but I have heard no sound convincing contrary argument. And for the record, I can be convinced by reasonable argument.

I'm not trying to redefine the word premeditation (which just means- planned, nothing more), I just want to know why what Zimmerman did was not considered premeditation.
The gun aspect is what some of you are getting all knicker-twisted about. Guns are not a god-given right, you silly people. They are for killing people.
If Z had not had a gun, then Trayvon would most likely not be dead.

Quote
Manlove
Hal, I was talking about what constitutes degrees of murder. I think that carrying a loaded gun on public streets with the intent to use it if a situation arises that fulfills your criteria, is akin to, if not the same as, premeditation. You seem to think that the law has dibs on the word. I don't.
I think what Zimmerman did is murder with premeditation. No one here has told me why they think it is not. I have heard that this is not what the word means in law, or that I am (essentially) stupid and incoherent, but I have heard no sound convincing contrary argument. And for the record, I can be convinced by reasonable argument.

I'm not trying to redefine the word premeditation (which just means- planned, nothing more), I just want to know why what Zimmerman did was not considered premeditation.
The gun aspect is what some of you are getting all knicker-twisted about. Guns are not a god-given right, you silly people. They are for killing people.
If Z had not had a gun, then Trayvon would most likely not be dead.

Not saying this applies to Zimmerman, and I'd be perfectly happy with a national firearm ban, but I don't find it hard to conceive of one deciding to carry a gun but sincerely and deeply hoping to never have to use it and especially to never end up taking a life.

---

MR/F Guestmap: [www.mapservices.org]

Quote
Manlove
Thank you for your comments.
What I find interesting is that if I asked this question in the rest of the "civilised" world, the answers I would have gotten back would have been somewhat different.

What some of you can't see (billb and Lux (who are real charmers) and Pops to some extent), is that you have made the assumption that carrying a loaded weapon is a completely sane and socially appropriate thing to do. Only in this country (there may be others but you can do the research) do people think that this is normal.

I do appreciate the twisting of meaning that law inflicts upon words. I suppose I was asking a moral question not a law question, and what it comes down to is that the right to bear arms has become 'the right to shoot people if they unnerve you'.

Lux, billb, instead of making rude and pointless remarks, tell me how and when you would need a loaded gun when you are walking through your neighbourhood.

"And as to premeditation tied to carrying a weapon, that stretch is ridiculous." Doesn't seem ridiculous if my general assumption about people is that they are not trying to kill me.

America is so scared that it willingly buys into the fear generated by amongst others the NRA.
You don't seem to realise how ridiculous it sounds to say "I need to carry a gun so that I feel safe." You have forgotten that it is possible for no one to carry guns. You are so deep in your own fear that you assume everyone given the chance will shoot you, therefore you need to shoot them first.

I feel sorry for you who think like this. What must the world look like for you? A place of fear and pain, without remorse, where you have to get what you can when you can and kill first ask questions later.
Sad.

I believe this is what is now called "concern trolling." The writer castigates a particular target under the guise of sympathy and worry. In this case, it comes across as patronizing.

The trope here is a misuse of a legal term which has been used for more than a century. The irony is that the parsing of homicide types into different classes of murder and manslaughter allowed for a more humane (if you want to see it that way) approach to some killers, who would no longer be executed for what they did in one moment of rage. The death penalty became something to use on what we would call "cold blooded" killers -- the concept of premeditation involves the idea that the person who killed someone else had a chance to cool off, and did not take it; alternatively, it involves a murder that was planned in advance, including cases of murder for hire or murder to inherit.

Consider two cases (one of which is a real death story): A man in a bar gets into an argument with another man. The decedent throws a punch, which lands squarely on the jaw of the killer-to-be. A fight ensues. At some point, the victim of that first punch overcomes the assailant and has him in a helpless position. At this point, he continues to batter the helpless man again and again. When the police arrive, they find that the original assailant is dead. Would you charge the survivor with a crime, and if so, which one?

The legal answer depends on a jury determination of whether there was premeditation on the part of the killer. Most prosecutors would not charge First Degree Murder for this action, because they can't prove that the killer had a chance to "cool off" and premeditate the killing. Most likely, he did not premeditate, and most likely did not expect to kill the other man. Everything happened in the heat of the moment. The charge seems to be in the area between Second Degree Murder and Manslaughter, where Second Degree Murder involves the intent to kill, but happened only on the spur of the moment. A person convicted of Second Degree Murder may get a very long prison sentence (sometimes amounting to a life sentence), but won't get the death penalty. In practice in most states, the death penalty is just about extinct (not counting Texas), so the difference comes down to the right to be considered for parole, or for a less than lifetime sentence, as opposed to Life without the Possibility of Parole.

In this case, the prosecutor might charge the killer with manslaughter, since what he did was reckless and liable to result in the death of another human being, even though there was not direct intent to kill. We use manslaughter for crimes such as the death of a pedestrian hit by a drunk driver.

Second Degree Murder is a very serious crime, and that is what Zimmerman is charged with. If you want to make a case that Zimmerman went out intending to kill somebody (this seems to imply premeditation) then the charges could have potentially been bumped up to First Degree Murder, but there is little or no evidence to this effect. One problem with this line of argument is that Zimmerman presumably patrolled his neighborhood carrying a gun for a long time, and it was only this one time that he shot someone. It still may be murder, but the elements required for a sentence of life without the possibility of parole or the death sentence appear to be missing.

Contrast this with the death of Laurence Austin, who was murdered by a man who was offered money to commit the killing, by another man who intended to inherit property as a result of Austin's death. In this case, both the shooter and the man who hired him were charged with First Degree Murder with Special Circumstances (the latter qualification allows for the death penalty). The special circumstance was murder while lying in wait (ie: about as cold blooded a killing as can be). Both were convicted of the crime and in each case, the jury brought in the verdict that included the special circumstance. Neither received the death penalty, but both are doing life without the possibility of parole.

As others here have noted, it is also possible to charge First Degree Murder if a death happened during the commission of another crime (the so-called Felony Murder definition). For example, if Zimmerman was committing an armed robbery and more or less accidentally killed somebody, he could still be charged with First Degree Murder. Again, there is no evidence that this is what happened.

I do understand that the original trope involved a blanket condemnation of the American system which (in some states, and only some states) allows people to carry concealed pistols. It also seems to imply a condemnation of a national propensity for gun ownership, and for some gun owners to carry concealed weapons even when the laws of their states forbid it. I think it's possible to have mixed feelings about this, but I also think it's fairly useless to continue to argue the point since by now, this system is thoroughly entrenched in our laws and our culture. It is interesting that gun violence and overall murder rates have been dropping in the US for more than a decade. There are exceptions which involve violent gangs, but it is easy to argue that the gangs function to act outside the laws and are only deterred by arrest and imprisonment.

The other issue in the Zimmerman case is the misuse of the concept of "stand your ground" as a defense for killing someone. I suspect that this is going to be taken up by the Florida legislature, and we can hope that a more rational system is put in place.

Quote
Bill in NC
IIRC, he and his wife both got CCW, on the recommendation of a local police officer, due to the problems they'd had with stray dogs.

Also, I believe statements from the prosecutor's office made it clear he was being charged with murder based on his voluntary, 4+ hour 'interview'.

Which is why if you're ever involved in such a situation: [www.youtube.com]

Thanks, watched/listened to the whole thing.

---

MR/F Guestmap: [www.mapservices.org]

Thank you Ca Bob and Black.

"Not saying this applies to Zimmerman, and I'd be perfectly happy with a national firearm ban, but I don't find it hard to conceive of one deciding to carry a gun but sincerely and deeply hoping to never have to use it and especially to never end up taking a life."

I think you are right Black, that this does not necessarily apply to Zimmerman. And I suppose to some extent I agree that one can "carry a gun but sincerely and deeply hope to never have to use it and especially to never end up taking a life." But I'd prefer the total ban.

Ca Bob, thanks for taking the time to explain this, as the law sees it I assume.
Here is where I take issue-
"Second Degree Murder is a very serious crime, and that is what Zimmerman is charged with. If you want to make a case that Zimmerman went out intending to kill somebody (this seems to imply premeditation) then the charges could have potentially been bumped up to First Degree Murder, but there is little or no evidence to this effect. "
There is a dead, presumably innocent, man.
"One problem with this line of argument is that Zimmerman presumably patrolled his neighborhood carrying a gun for a long time, and it was only this one time that he shot someone. It still may be murder, but the elements required for a sentence of life without the possibility of parole or the death sentence appear to be missing."
Again, Zimmerman was carrying a loaded weapon with intent to use it, if the situation arose. The situation did arise and he used it.
"...it was only this one time that he shot someone."
There's a first time for everything. If he had shot someone in similar circumstances 2 years ago, then that would have been the first time he murdered someone. I do not see how the fact that this was the first time he shot someone is a mitigating circumstance. He went out once or many dozens of times with the intent to use his gun. The number is irrelevant. He knew what he was doing.
I suppose I am arguing that he went out looking for someone to shoot and he found someone who fit his criteria- hoodie wearing, young and black. He shot that criteria filling person. I call this planned with malice aforethought.
I am struggling to see how it can be anything else.

Again, I really appreciate your comments. I will read them until I am sure what you mean, but I still feel that what Zimmerman did was intentional, premeditated and deserving of the full weight of legal rammifications.
For the record, I do not agree with the death penalty and am glad to hear that it has been all but phased out. However, people who carry guns must feel to some extent that they are capable of being judge, jury and hangman, and to the extent that innocent people are shot in the street, we still have the death penalty- only one that is not bound by law.

The right to keep and bear arms is a principle that this country was founded on. It stems from the populace wanting to be able to defend themselves. That right is guaranteed by the constitution, not God. Like it or not, that is the way it is in the United States. Not all countries hold with this particular way of thinking, but that is the way it is here.

Just because you carry a gun does not mean you are looking to kill someone. Police carry guns all the time, and I think they are trained to try everything they can before shooting or killing someone. There are a myriad of reasons that an individual might want to carry a gun with them, other than looking to kill someone.

As many have correctly pointed out, premeditation is a legal term and is defined by each state and jurisdiction. If the term applied in this case, I am quite sure the prosecutor would have used it, as they usually try to charge with the most serious charge they can.

---

Alpharetta, GA (Atlanta suburb)

Manlove, I can see where you're coming from, but I think I was in a much better position to relate before living for 10 years in a gang-dominated neighborhood where you can hear a shooting several nights each week, and police response times are often 45 minutes or more. To hold that one would only carry a gun due to intent of shooting someone would almost require that one lives in such a "safe" place that one never has to consider the possibility of being attacked. If that's your case, I'm glad you are able to live in such a safe environment. I don't think that's the way it is in a large part of this country, though.
BTW, hope you stick around this side.

---

MR/F Guestmap: [www.mapservices.org]

Quote
rgG
The right to keep and bear arms is a principle that this country was founded on.
-as was slavery-
It stems from the populace wanting to be able to defend themselves.
-from the government-
That right is guaranteed by the constitution, not God. Like it or not, that is the way it is in the United States. Not all countries hold with this particular way of thinking, but that is the way it is here.
-it is, but contrary to some opinions I'm hearing, it is not impossible to change it to another way-

Just because you carry a gun does not mean you are looking to kill someone. Police carry guns all the time, and I think they are trained to try everything they can before shooting or killing someone. There are a myriad of reasons that an individual might want to carry a gun with them, other than looking to kill someone.
-shooting rabbits, deer, pheasant...not sure what else-

As many have correctly pointed out, premeditation is a legal term and is defined by each state and jurisdiction.
-exactly. The meaning changes in each state, it is not fixed and immutable as I think Hal suggested-
If the term applied in this case, I am quite sure the prosecutor would have used it, as they usually try to charge with the most serious charge they can.

I don't think it is unreasonable to expect to be able to walk down a street with the assumption that I will not be shot because I fall into someone's definition of a person that it is ok to shoot. I'm sure Trayvon felt the same, and yet he is dead. But apparently I am wrong, as was he. According to some of you it is perfectly acceptable to flash a gun in someone's face if you feel threatened. That blows my mind. Flashing weapons around has become normalised and you don't think that is weird.
Carrying a loaded weapon IS showing that you are willing to use it. Why else would you need one? It is exactly the definition of planned/premeditated. Some of you seem unable to grasp this. It may be legal, but that is not the point. There are many legal things that have precious little to do with the common good.

I know some hold guns dear to their hearts, I don't know why. I know that they care more about keeping their guns than a few (?) innocent people being shot.
To my way of thinking these people are living in a Western fantasy land where they are Judge Dreads with life and death authority over their fellow men.
I know this seems silly, but this is exactly how America's stance on guns looks from the outside.
The NRA lobbyists spend millions (do your own damn research!) convincing legislators that guns are good and that we the people need them. For why? To protect ourselves from each other. We are silly.

Quote
Black
Manlove, I can see where you're coming from, but I think I was in a much better position to relate before living for 10 years in a gang-dominated neighborhood where you can hear a shooting several nights each week, and police response times are often 45 minutes or more. To hold that one would only carry a gun due to intent of shooting someone would almost require that one lives in such a "safe" place that one never has to consider the possibility of being attacked. If that's your case, I'm glad you are able to live in such a safe environment. I don't think that's the way it is in a large part of this country, though.
BTW, hope you stick around this side.

Thanks Black.
I lived in NYC for 4 years, and South London before that. I do understand that in gang-hoods it seems like everyone is 'packing', and I sincerely don't want you to become the Gandhi-esque figure on your street, but it has to stop and it can stop. But only if we choose to make it stop.

As a kid I was stabbed a few times on London streets. I'm glad those kids didn't have guns.
I hope you all can stay safe.

Quote
Manlove

Quote
rgG
The right to keep and bear arms is a principle that this country was founded on.
-as was slavery-
It stems from the populace wanting to be able to defend themselves.
-from the government-
That right is guaranteed by the constitution, not God. Like it or not, that is the way it is in the United States. Not all countries hold with this particular way of thinking, but that is the way it is here.
-it is, but contrary to some opinions I'm hearing, it is not impossible to change it to another way-

Just because you carry a gun does not mean you are looking to kill someone. Police carry guns all the time, and I think they are trained to try everything they can before shooting or killing someone. There are a myriad of reasons that an individual might want to carry a gun with them, other than looking to kill someone.
-shooting rabbits, deer, pheasant...not sure what else-

As many have correctly pointed out, premeditation is a legal term and is defined by each state and jurisdiction.
-exactly. The meaning changes in each state, it is not fixed and immutable as I think Hal suggested-
If the term applied in this case, I am quite sure the prosecutor would have used it, as they usually try to charge with the most serious charge they can.

I don't think it is unreasonable to expect to be able to walk down a street with the assumption that I will not be shot because I fall into someone's definition of a person that it is ok to shoot. I'm sure Trayvon felt the same, and yet he is dead. But apparently I am wrong, as was he. According to some of you it is perfectly acceptable to flash a gun in someone's face if you feel threatened. That blows my mind. Flashing weapons around has become normalised and you don't think that is weird.
Carrying a loaded weapon IS showing that you are willing to use it. Why else would you need one? It is exactly the definition of planned/premeditated. Some of you seem unable to grasp this. It may be legal, but that is not the point. There are many legal things that have precious little to do with the common good.

I know some hold guns dear to their hearts, I don't know why. I know that they care more about keeping their guns than a few (?) innocent people being shot.
To my way of thinking these people are living in a Western fantasy land where they are Judge Dreads with life and death authority over their fellow men.
I know this seems silly, but this is exactly how America's stance on guns looks from the outside.
The NRA lobbyists spend millions (do your own damn research!) convincing legislators that guns are good and that we the people need them. For why? To protect ourselves from each other. We are silly.

How did slavery enter into this? The right to own people as property was never guaranteed in the Constitution, on the contrary it is now expressly forbidden.
What you seem to have a problem with is handguns, not guns in general. There have been a lot of laws enacted over the past few decades that restrict the ownership and carrying rights for many handguns and assault weapons,so apparently everyone who lives in the US is not some NRA card carrying cowboy, as you would like to think. No where did I express an opinion one way or the other as to what I thought about carrying a handgun, I merely tried to answer your question.

Your assertion that merely carrying a loaded weapon is the definition of premeditated murder is ridiculous.

Change is always possible, that is what has made this country great. Working for change that they believe in is the pursuit of good citizens everywhere. As I noted, many laws have been enacted to restrict handguns and their use. Florida has, what I consider a flawed law on the books with their stand and defend statute. I think this is the crux of the problem, not the fact that a person can carry a loaded gun, with a government issued permit.

---

Alpharetta, GA (Atlanta suburb)

"Your assertion that merely carrying a loaded weapon is the definition of premeditated murder is ridiculous."

RgG, I have no argument with you, but again with this statement. 3 or 4 times now from various people!

From my point of view, which is -I do not assume that people will be trying to kill me as I walk down a street, therefore I do not need to carry deadly force to deter them from killing me, therefore I do not need to carry a loaded weapon- it seems pretty clear that carrying a loaded weapon is tantamount to saying that I am okay with shooting someone to death if I feel threatened, or in some instances, just so inclined.

I have rules for living that have fuckall to do with laws. For the most part, laws and me coincide, but this is one case where as far as I am concerned the laws are totally @#$%&. I don't care if it's legal to shoot someone. I am making the moral statement that in the Zimmerman case, what he did was shoot someone with malice and premeditated intention. Laws are irrelevant really. In fact, laws are probably one of the reasons that Trayvon is dead. Legally, Zimmerman could do what he did up until the point of actually shooting Trayvon, then it becomes a little legally cloudy as Ca Bob pointed out. Legally, it's okay to kill people if they come in your house to nick your telly. But really, is it right?

Quote
Manlove
George Zimmerman is in jail facing a second-degree-murder charge after killing Trayvon. It is second degree I assume, because his shooting of the victim was not premeditated and wilful.

If you want to discuss why you think this country has too many guns, or why you think carrying a gun is wrong, fine. But your OP was founded on a specious argument and you can't blame people for being hung up on it. You are trying to fold your preconceptions into the Zimmerman case and it's not working.

---

"Stop thinking about art works as objects, and start thinking about them as triggers for experiences." ~ Brian Eno

Manlove, you seem to be confusing morality and legality. Premeditation is a legal not a moral term. Your can't alwaya make people behave in a moral fashion, you can only have laws on the books that punish them when they do not. George Zimmerman could have stabbed the guy to death or beat him to death with a baseball bat, but carrying a knife or a bat would not make it premeditated any more than carrying a loaded gun. We always have the ability to kill someone at any time and any place, with whatever weapon we might have handy. Granted a gun might make it easier for most people, but it does not mean that if I have a loaded gun on my person that I am looking to kill someone. I know people that like to target shoot. That they might have a loaded gun with them on the way to the range does not mean they are looking to shoot someone or that if they shot someone they happen to see raping a person on the way to the shooting range, that they committed premeditated murder. That is all I am saying.

---

Alpharetta, GA (Atlanta suburb)

Quote
Manlove
...it seems pretty clear that carrying a loaded weapon is tantamount to saying that I am okay with shooting someone to death if I feel threatened, or in some instances, just so inclined.

You're wrong. Or confused. Or willing to allow some homicidal maniac to rape and kill your wife and daughter in front of you and say, "I just can't use potentially deadly force to stop this."

I am a proponent of strong gun laws; don't see why people should need semi-automatic weapons, and think there is abuse in concealed carry laws. But that does not mean that every person who carries a weapon is some deranged maniac waiting to kill someone. That's just plain NUTS!

It's all about protecting your precious guns with you lot. And all of you say that I am the one who is wrong or confused or just plain nuts! (By 'all' I mean the last 3 posters!).
The point of a gun is not to target shoot. Yes, it is something that can be done with a gun, but it is not what a gun is for. A gun is built to kill people. There are guns that have been designed specifically to target shoot, for example, but still, the main point of guns is to kill people. I call stupid anyone who considers otherwise. Seriously you are demented if you try to rationalise the real reason for guns away like this.
Okay, I will grant that the "real" reason that guns are made is that people buy them and gunmakers make a killing. Ha!

Individually if you like-
"Manlove, you seem to be confusing morality and legality. Premeditation is a legal not a moral term. "
No, premeditation is a word that has come to be used in a precise legal way that may or may not have anything to do with the meaning of the word. The meaning changes in different states as someone pointed out. I am not confusing legality and morality.
I am saying that something being legal has no bearing upon its morality, No confusion there.

"You are trying to fold your preconceptions into the Zimmerman case and it's not working."
No, I am stating unambiguously that Zimmerman went out that day as he had done on many other occasions looking for someone who fit his bill of 'bad guy'. On the day in question, he found someone and killed him. Do I think that he would not have done this had he not had a loaded weapon? Yes, I do. He would most likely not have run up to Trayvon and beaten him with a baseball bat (which has another use other than battering people!). Trayvon would most likely be alive had there been no gun involved.
My preconceptions scare you a bit because you believe that you have the right to kill people who scare you, or if you don't, you make it sound like you do.

And Pops, seriously, wtf are you on?
"You're wrong. Or confused. Or willing to allow some homicidal maniac to rape and kill your wife and daughter in front of you and say, "I just can't use potentially deadly force to stop this.""
Not once have I said or mentioned anything that would lead you to believe that I am a pacifist.
You sound ridiculous and fairly outrageous, if I might say so. I assume you aren't generally like this, but damn...

You are all so hung up on the gun aspect that you can't think beyond it. I hope no one I know or love ever meets any of you gun-toting renegades at night, alone!

I'm not a gun-toting renegade. I'm just a person who dislikes posters who ask for people's opinions and then chastises them for having any.

---

"Stop thinking about art works as objects, and start thinking about them as triggers for experiences." ~ Brian Eno

"You are all so hung up on the gun aspect that you can't think beyond it. I hope no one I know or love ever meets any of you gun-toting renegades at night, alone!"

Ok... admit it... you're drunk off your ass and are just having some fun - right? Cause you are making no sense at all...

You are the first person that has ever entered this den of lefty liberals and called us all gun nuts...

The fact that we all have deemed your new definition of premeditated murder is flat out wrong somehow makes us all pro gun... gun-totting whack jobs... my god this is funny...

edit:
ps - fyi - I shot my uncle's rifle twice when I was 13 and that is the extent of my relationship with guns. I DO NOT LIKE GUNS and want to see hand guns banned except in the most regulated exceptions.

Yet, I'm a gun totting renegade....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/16/2012 05:22PM by hal.

Ok, I am done. It is clear that a reasonable discussion is not what the OP wants. Sorry.

---

Alpharetta, GA (Atlanta suburb)

Almost everyone with a few exceptions has entirely missed the point of my post.

Hal, you come across as an idiot I am afraid.
"The fact that we all have deemed your new definition of premeditated murder is flat out wrong somehow makes us all pro gun... gun-totting whack jobs... my god this is funny..."

You are still unable for all your talk about lefties and gun regulation to see my point, which is that a boy is dead because Americans love guns more than lives.
You are only able to see what you have been lead to see and it seems, nothing more. All you've done is been personally insulting, when IRL we'd probably get on pretty well, but you chose to go that route...quickly.

You have added nothing useful to this post -including your derision. Shame really.

"If you want to discuss why you think this country has too many guns, or why you think carrying a gun is wrong, fine. But your OP was founded on a specious argument and you can't blame people for being hung up on it. You are trying to fold your preconceptions into the Zimmerman case and it's not working."
The 'specious part of my argument' as you put it, was precisely my question.
From my OP- "How can carrying a loaded weapon and then using it to shoot a random kid in the back not be considered premeditated? "
The question was not specious, it was a question. Hal in his wisdom immediately dismissed it as the question of a drunk. I don't know why except possibly that the American political system has shifted so far to the right that "this den of lefties" is actually more conservative and generally right-wing than they think they are.

I have had a few reasonable responses, but for the most part I have received abuse from people who believe that their Constitutional Rights somehow supersede the individual right of an innocent man not to be shot as he goes about his business- buying candy and a soda!

Obviously, you cannot read for comprehension. You have a lot of nerve calling anyone else an idiot.

---

"Stop thinking about art works as objects, and start thinking about them as triggers for experiences." ~ Brian Eno

So you're saying that you're NOT drunk?

Quote
rgG
We always have the ability to kill someone at any time and any place, with whatever weapon we might have handy. Granted a gun might make it easier for most people, but it does not mean that if I have a loaded gun on my person that I am looking to kill someone. I know people that like to target shoot. That they might have a loaded gun with them on the way to the range does not mean they are looking to shoot someone or that if they shot someone they happen to see raping a person on the way to the shooting range, that they committed premeditated murder. That is all I am saying.

Blimey, and you say that I don't want a reasonable discussion! Okay, as far as I am aware no self-respecting target-shooter would ever walk away from the range or drive to it with their weapon loaded. My understanding is that this in the ABC's of gun ownership. Or maybe not...do tell if I am wrong.
And as for said range shooter (which by the way, is the only other reason apart from defense that anyone has given me for owning a gun, even though there are a "myriad reasons", shooting the perceived rapist (which goes back to my point about some gun owners considering themselves judge and jury), obviously you are not serious. Random citizens shooting random citizens because of random perceptions. Hmm, fun!

Quote
$tevie
Obviously, you cannot read for comprehension. You have a lot of nerve calling anyone else an idiot.

What precisely do you think I am unable to comprehend? And yes, Hal is being an idiot.
I am a little concerned by the apparent inability of some of the people here to be flexible in their thinking, but apart form Avenger, who seems like a total moron, I have not name called until people were rude. At which point, they deserve what they get called.

I think Zimmerman is a POS, but I wouldn't call it premeditated murder. I do think it's worse than manslaughter. I don't know what other categories there are besides 2nd degree murder. If there's something between manslaughter and 2nd degree murder, that's what I think he should be tried on.

I'm sorry things got so ugly here. I do remember your name from the dealmac days, but you never acted like this. You simply aren't putting forth a coherent argument. Its not really even close but you're getting belligerent. I honestly did think that you were high or intentionally playing around with silliness or both.

Do you really think that we're all crazy and you're being rational?