Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Nakura on July 15, 2013, 04:33:00 pm
-
Here in the States there was a pretty big non-story that the media has been pushing for about a year now. Last night the courts finally ruled on the case and decided that Zimmerman (the defendant) was not guilty of murder (or any other charge). Today there are people rioting across the country, claiming the trial wasn't fair.
Here's the backstory:
A number of burglaries had occurred in George Zimmerman's neighborhood, so he decided to begin patrolling his neighborhood at night as a neighborhood watchman. One night he encountered a 17 year old black man (Trayvon Martin) in his neighborhood who Zimmerman thought was acting suspiciously. Zimmerman called the police to report the incident and the operator dispatched a squad car, while recommending that Zimmerman stay in a safe location.
Zimmerman took the operator's recommendation with a grain of salt and decided to confront the suspect and wait for the police to arrive. Upon leaving his car and approaching the teenager (Martin), asking him what he was doing, the teenager called Zimmerman a "creepy ass cracker" and attacked him. After taking a beating, Zimmerman, who claims he felt his life was in danger, managed to grab his gun and shoot Martin, who was pummeling him into the ground. Zimmerman claims that he was acting in self-defense, whereas the prosecutor tried to argue that you cannot defend yourself against someone if you followed them first (which Zimmerman did). Zimmerman then turned himself into the police and explained what happened.
Immediately following the incident, some in the mainstream accused Zimmerman of being racist and guilty of murder. Things intensified when MSNBC released a fake 911 conversation between Zimmerman and the police operator, having heavily doctored the audio to make Zimmerman appear racist. There was a massive uproar by the black community and some even attacked white people in "retaliation" for Martin's death. To top off the escalation, President Obama voiced his own opinion on the incident, in which he condemned Zimmerman and said that he wish Trayvon were his son.
Personally, I think the mainstream media media really shot themselves in the foot on this one. I think they turned this into a political issue to help Obama get elected, increase the racial divide and promote the idea that "gun owners are evil." I for one am glad that the system worked and that we didn't cave to the demands of the mainstream media. Even if Zimmerman was guilty, which is up in the air, I don't see how this trial could have ended any differently. We simply cannot allow the media to act as judge, jury and executioner. We are a nation of law and the burden of proof has to be beyond a reasonable doubt.
By blowing this non-story out of proportions and deliberately lying to promote their agenda and increase their ratings/viewership, the media made it very difficult to support the prosecution in this case. They polarized the issue so greatly, that nearly all white people (except liberals) thought that Zimmerman was innocent, whereas nearly all black people thought that Zimmerman was guilty. It quickly became a black vs white issue and a right vs left issue. Nobody cared about the truth or seeing that justice is actually carried out, people only cared about whatever best fit their agenda. Does anyone actually believe that Chris Matthews in the gang actually care about Martin's family receiving justice?
I have no opinion one way or the other about Zimmerman's guilt or innocence, it's not my place to decide. I really couldn't care less about this case and haven't been following it, but it does raise a few interesting questions:
Does the act of following someone negate that person's ability to claim self-defense if they are attacked? Was the court correct in ruling that Zimmerman was not guilty? Did the media take things too far?
-
I think you have some pretty hefty spin in your description of what happened.
-
I think you have some pretty hefty spin in your description of what happened.
Kind of what happens when get your 'news' from MMO-Champion and GameFAQs.
-
[...] there are liberals rioting across the country, trying to play the race card. [...] the liberal media came out swinging [...] There was a massive uproar by many liberals [...] I think the liberal media [...] They turned this into a political issue to help Obama [...] and promote the idea that "gun owners are evil." [...] the demands of the liberal media [...] We simply cannot allow the liberal media [...] deliberately lying to promote their agenda and win an election [...] They polarized the issue so greatly, that nearly all white people (except liberals) [...] nearly all black people thought that Zimmerman was guilty [...] Nobody cared about the truth or seeing that justice is actually carried out [...] Did the liberal media take things too far?
Your bias is showing.
-
[...] there are liberals rioting across the country, trying to play the race card. [...] the liberal media came out swinging [...] There was a massive uproar by many liberals [...] I think the liberal media [...] They turned this into a political issue to help Obama [...] and promote the idea that "gun owners are evil." [...] the demands of the liberal media [...] We simply cannot allow the liberal media [...] deliberately lying to promote their agenda and win an election [...] They polarized the issue so greatly, that nearly all white people (except liberals) [...] nearly all black people thought that Zimmerman was guilty [...] Nobody cared about the truth or seeing that justice is actually carried out [...] Did the liberal media take things too far?
Your bias is showing.
It's simply what happened. One would be hard-pressed to prove that the liberal media didn't use this incident for political and sensationalist gain.
-
I think Zimmerman made some really ****ing stupid decisions, but I won't send someone to prison for defending themselves. That's assuming that particular narrative is correct, because as I understand it the actual details are still pretty fuzzy and at the very last he isn't a model of morality himself.
Yes, the media did take this too far. The liberal culture warrior lynch mob attacked him with just as much racism (ironic, because many of them were white--well, that's white guilt for you) as any conservative racial demagogue would show to a black man.
You know, I wonder how all those race warriors felt when they realized Zimmerman was a white Hispanic with black people in his family. It must have been very embarrassing for them. Those that didn't do it just for political gain, that is.
The whole case just became a proxy war between the races. To the leftists, Zimmerman was their worst nightmare: a white (also Hispanic and black, but no one seemed to notice that) man who killed a black kid, and their racial views blinded them to reality. He was more a symbol of whiteness than an individual person. Similarly, Trayvon became a martyr and a symbol of the oppressed black race, and thus objective analysis became impossible. The trial was, in many people's minds, a battle between the races rather than law enforcement.
The ultimate irony is that Zimmerman may still have been guilty. His (and his supporters') version of events exonerates him, but it's entirely possible that something else happened.
You know, George Zimmerman may be the first white Hispanic with black blood relatives to be embraced fully and championed by the racist conservative demagogues, and to be treated like a racist white man by the liberals.
-
[...] there are liberals rioting across the country, trying to play the race card. [...] the liberal media came out swinging [...] There was a massive uproar by many liberals [...] I think the liberal media [...] They turned this into a political issue to help Obama [...] and promote the idea that "gun owners are evil." [...] the demands of the liberal media [...] We simply cannot allow the liberal media [...] deliberately lying to promote their agenda and win an election [...] They polarized the issue so greatly, that nearly all white people (except liberals) [...] nearly all black people thought that Zimmerman was guilty [...] Nobody cared about the truth or seeing that justice is actually carried out [...] Did the liberal media take things too far?
Your bias is showing.
There's a hefty dose of anti-liberal sentiment in there, but even a liberal like me can see that my "side" acted really inappropriately.
EDIT: This has the unfortunate side effect of putting making me partially side with some of the conservative pundits over social liberals. Not because I in any way appreciate the rest of their racial rhetoric, but because in this case they're closer to being balanced (for once).
Also, Zimmerman has a criminal record too. And it's a lot worse than smoking weed.
-
oh look, guess who nakura decided to write a wall of text in defence of
-
No I won't be dragged into a gun conversation with Nakura. NO NO NO :D
-
oh look, guess who nakura decided to write a wall of text in defence of
He said he has no opinion about Zimmerman's guilt or innocence. It would seem more like an attack on liberals than a defense of him.
-
I think you have some pretty hefty spin in your description of what happened.
Kind of what happens when get your 'news' from MMO-Champion and GameFAQs.
sorry are you actually trying to imply that anyone who disagrees with you is getting their information from game forums?
have fun growing up, hopefully you simply have to live with the lingering embarassment of... this instead of turning into andrew schlafly
-
[...] there are liberals rioting across the country, trying to play the race card. [...] the liberal media came out swinging [...] There was a massive uproar by many liberals [...] I think the liberal media [...] They turned this into a political issue to help Obama [...] and promote the idea that "gun owners are evil." [...] the demands of the liberal media [...] We simply cannot allow the liberal media [...] deliberately lying to promote their agenda and win an election [...] They polarized the issue so greatly, that nearly all white people (except liberals) [...] nearly all black people thought that Zimmerman was guilty [...] Nobody cared about the truth or seeing that justice is actually carried out [...] Did the liberal media take things too far?
Your bias is showing.
It's simply what happened. One would be hard-pressed to prove that the liberal media didn't use this incident for political and sensationalist gain.
I think you're missing my point, a bit.
-
I just hope the correct decision was made in the courtroom.
This thread looks dangerous to me, so...
:warp:
-
Today there are liberals rioting across the country, trying to play the race card.
You're on a pretty liberal forum. None of us give a ****. (Here's a hint, there's no topic on it.) Hell, nobody in the world appears to give a **** outside of the media. Nobody talks about it.
Hell, just talking about riots in this context proves you have no memory or decency. Do you remember Rodney King? That was rioting.
-
Lol, I didn't think people still believed that we had a "Liberal Media" We have a Corporate Media and that's it.
-
Lol, I didn't think people still believed that we had a "Liberal Media" We have a Corporate Media and that's it.
It's also a Government Media that is biased towards one of the two governing political parties.
Today there are liberals rioting across the country, trying to play the race card.
You're on a pretty liberal forum. None of us give a ****. (Here's a hint, there's no topic on it.) Hell, nobody in the world appears to give a **** outside of the media. Nobody talks about it.
Plenty of people talk about it.
Hell, just talking about riots in this context proves you have no memory or decency. Do you remember Rodney King? That was rioting.
I think it was like one city that had actual riots and a few others just had some minor civil unrest. He's blowing stuff out of proportion.
On the other hand, it's still correct to call the events in that particular city (Oakland, California) riots. Nonfatal ones, but still riots. It is not bad or insensitive to do that.
I feel like my position sits in between that of everybody here. I mean, I keep partially agreeing with people from both sides of arguments.
-
Plenty of people talk about it.
Because it's on the media, therefore people must care, right? You're bad at this.
-
Well if people didn't care the media wouldn't show it so often? IDK, just thinking about ratings...
-
The Zimmerman incident make me wonder about fairness in the United States, especially with Marissa Alexander being sentenced to 20 years around the same time.
-
Plenty of people talk about it.
Because it's on the media, therefore people must care, right? You're bad at this.
Because opposing viewpoints are EVEIL!!! :p
You seem to have missed the tremendous amount of anger this case has generated in so many people. If hardly anybody cares, then why were there a whole bunch of protests across the country and actual riots in Oakland? Why did Zimmerman's supporters donate over $400,000 to his defense fund? The media runs stories that will generate a lot of attention, and, unfortunately, inciting racial tensions is a very easy way to do that.
Let me reply to this again:
Today there are liberals rioting across the country, trying to play the race card.
You're on a pretty liberal forum. None of us give a ****. (Here's a hint, there's no topic on it.) Hell, nobody in the world appears to give a **** outside of the media. Nobody talks about it.
It seems like a lot of us give a ****, including you, who bothered to post in this thread. Did you just latch onto that one sentence and ignore the part of his post that was valid?
-
this shouldn't have even gone to trial. the police weren't even going to charge him until the media picked it up and tried to make a race war out of it. and then the president all but calls him guilty on national tv...
there ought to be some slander/defamation lawsuits coming down the pipes.
-
In all fairness the "self defense" bit is a little weird, considering the other guy didn't have any weapon with him, that it was Zimmerman who chased him, etc., etc.
The only thing that makes me think the judging was alright is because of the really good idea of declaring someone innocent till proven guilty.
-
Zimmerman didn't chase him, he approached him and asked him what we was doing. This is not a question to which I would respond with vulgarity and a physical assault. This is a rather clear-cut case of self defense. There's no indication that he did anything that warranted a violent response. While I'd probably have waited for police in this case, I can easily see myself doing exactly what Zimmerman did in a situation like this. Nothing racist about it, and I believe that if Martin was white, it wouldn't have changed a thing (well, aside from the idiotic media reaction).
-
You assume he told the truth to the police. I do not assume such a thing. AFAIK, he did chase him despite being told by the police to stay put. I have no idea who was aggressive and to whom. And I do not think anyone but those two really know (knew) what happened in truth. It is this simple fact that makes me say the ruling was fine. We simply have no sufficient evidence to put Zimmermann in jail, despite all the suspicion one can have against him.
-
contrary to what many major news networks reported, zimmerman DID show signs of heavy abuse that were consistent with his story to police. there is no evidence to contradict his story, and at least some to corroborate it.
-
I think you have some pretty hefty spin in your description of what happened.
Kind of what happens when get your 'news' from MMO-Champion and GameFAQs.
sorry are you actually trying to imply that anyone who disagrees with you is getting their information from game forums?
have fun growing up, hopefully you simply have to live with the lingering embarassment of... this instead of turning into andrew schlafly
No, I am saying that I get my information from game forums. Or rather, that's where I first hear about them (I don't watch TV).
I have edited my opening post and tried to paint a less biased picture of how the media handled the events.
-
Here's a little reading material on the media's treatment of Zimmerman (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/07/13/Media-Zimmerman-Coverage-Rap-Sheet)
-
Plenty of people talk about it.
Because it's on the media, therefore people must care, right? You're bad at this.
I overheard two of my co-workers talking about it on my lunch break. They were frustrated that Obama didn't step in and overrule the court (what the hell?), and apparently one of their kids is going to a pro-Trayvon protest.
I also discussed it with one of my co-workers, who is actually intelligent. He provided some interesting input on the case, being an African American gun owner who supports stand-your-ground laws. After much discussion, he told me he believes that Zimmerman racial profiled (black teenager wearing a hoody at night) Martin, either consciously or unconsciously, but that he didn't mean to kill him. He believes that Zimmerman should have been charged with manslaughter though, since he followed Trayvon first.
-
Here's a little reading material on the media's treatment of Zimmerman (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/07/13/Media-Zimmerman-Coverage-Rap-Sheet)
I generally agree with that article's narrative, although "white Hispanic" is a racial group--many people from Latin America are descendants of Spaniards or other white Europeans.
-
It's worth remembering that Trayvon, if he noticed he was being followed and now confronted by some guy who was following him, may have had just as much cause to fear for his life.
Was there enough evidence to charge Zimmerman with murder? No. Was it his actions that caused the incident? Absolutely.
-
It's worth remembering that Trayvon, if he noticed he was being followed and now confronted by some guy who was following him, may have had just as much cause to fear for his life.
Was there enough evidence to charge Zimmerman with murder? No. Was it his actions that caused the incident? Absolutely.
[/quote
Absolutely. I am in full agreement with you here.
-
Popehat has an interesting take on the verdict as well
http://www.popehat.com/2013/07/15/the-zimmerman-verdict-be-careful-what-you-wish-for/#more-19042
-
It seems like a lot of us give a ****, including you, who bothered to post in this thread. Did you just latch onto that one sentence and ignore the part of his post that was valid?
There was no part of that post that was valid or anything less than flamemongering in the first degree, I simply chose the best illustration of that fact.
I overheard two of my co-workers talking about it on my lunch break.
Truly, this represents the American people!
It's a manufactroversy and it didn't take for most people. You want to talk about big deals in racially motivated court proceedings, OJ Simpson's trial was a big deal. Elián González was a big deal. Rodney King's beating was a big deal. This is not a big deal.
he told me he believes that Zimmerman racial profiled (black teenager wearing a hoody at night) Martin, either consciously or unconsciously, but that he didn't mean to kill him.
I should note that this is actually a point in Zimmerman's defense when it comes to the matter of whether he acted in self defense, as self defense is about whether the person acting believes they are in danger and this would cause him to believe Martin was a danger.
In all fairness the "self defense" bit is a little weird
There are pictures you can find fairly easily of Zimmerman in the immediate aftermath of the incident while he's sitting on the back end of an ambulance talking to the cops and bleeding from a broken nose. There's physical evidence that Martin did attack him, it's not just his word. (Or you believe Zimmerman somehow broke his own nose to make his story work, which turns the whole thing into a Law & Order episode.)
-
I overheard two of my co-workers talking about it on my lunch break.
Truly, this represents the American people!
So where is your data coming from? Your own coworkers?
-
So where is your data coming from? Your own coworkers?
Bothering to actually look at the newspapers, the world of the blog, and even news coverage of the matter on the networks. (Which use it as filler because nothing's happening; meanwhile, print media offers minor obligatory coverage because everyone else is but never treated it with much seriousness, and most people who are able to form coherent arguments in the blogosphere offered one-and-done opinions.) And actually remembering what a big thing looks like. (Again, King, OJ, González.)
-
it's really a pity battuta's on sabbatical, this sort of situation is pretty much what he researches
-
this is why we need to legalize murder.
-
I'm sitting here in Aus listening to some of this, have not got wind of it much other than a not guilty verdict and some images and video of rioting and cars on fire. And our own anti-gun groups rattling the cage a bit.
I found this video which attempted to explain the case and verdict a little bit, whether it has it's own spin or not is up to you to decide. I'm more or less happy that it appears to focus more on the facts and actions rather than a usual spin of 'Zimmerman is white, racist' or 'Martin is black, obviously a criminal' and the usual media rubbish.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gf39_rBRXQA
How bad has these riots and such been anyway?, somewhat serious in areas or is it blown-out of proportion?
-
I overheard two of my co-workers talking about it on my lunch break.
Truly, this represents the American people!
So where is your data coming from? Your own coworkers?
lolno. You just wanted to get that out there though, didn't you? Pretty feisty, I see, always looking to start trouble. Are you George Zimmerman?
-
How bad has these riots and such been anyway?
Important enough for CNN to not mention them on the front page of their website. (I've not seen any news outlet here mention actual riots.)
-
controversy != riot
-
There are demonstrations, sure, and the usual few people getting rowdy, but I haven't seen anything that would suggest full-fledged riots.
-
Spin, baby, SPIN!
I wondered if this topic would come up. Here's the deal:
1. Charges were absolutely appropriate. To be able to use self-defense (or, as it's called in Florida, justifiable homicide) there must be a homicide. That means that Zimmerman had to be accused of a homicide to present a defense of self-defense. Now, I don't for a second think second-degree murder was the appropriate charge. There's what the mob called it - murder - and what the evidence suggested - manslaughter at absolute worst. Prosecutorial discretion should not extend to decline to charge when a homicide has occurred and when the circumstances surrounding a claim of self-defense are even slightly unclear, nevermind downright muddled like in this case. That is why the original state prosecutor made the wrong call, and the special prosecutor made the right call. It was in the interests of fundamental justice to put the evidence before a judge and/or jury to determine if Zimmerman's claim was reasonable.
2. The pressure from the media, the constant stirring of racial tensions, the editing of the evidence, and the general witch hunt were all absolutely inappropriate. More and more I'm starting to think that murder cases, particularly high-profile murder cases, should be subject to an automatic publication ban covering all the evidence and witnesses. Zimmerman was convicted in the court of public opinion long before this went to trial.
3. The verdict was the right call. I don't for a second think Zimmerman is not morally culpable for Martin's death, but I do recognize that the United States is supposed to be a society governed by the rule of law, and the law says the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt to secure a conviction. They didn't even come close to that. There are too many unknowns and too many inferences that the prosecution team left with the jury. Jurors are owed a fair bit of deference - they see all the evidence, engage in the trial, and are far better equipped to come to a fair legal decision than any observer. That's why we use them. The people saying the jury was wrong are missing the point. Zimmerman may be guilty of criminal negligence causing death. His actions might even meet some of the bar for manslaughter. He wasn't charged with either - he was charged with second degree murder. The Jury's question to the judge shows they also contemplated manslaughter as instructed by the judge and rejected it. Obviously, there are too many unknowns to criminally sanction Zimmerman. They returned a verdict of "not guilty" - that doesn't mean "innocent," it means that the state did not prove its case to remove Zimmerman's liberty.
4. Much as I think Zimmerman is absolutely responsible for this event, chasing the man with a civil suit or a Justice case under the Civil Rights Act is wrong too - the man was acquitted. Pursuing this further is an end-run around the principles of justice, legal though it may be (for those unaware, the US has a doctrine of dual sovereignty where the state and the federal government are both deemed to have a interest and therefore may both present charges resulting from the same incident without tripping on double jeopardy).
5. The people saying Zimmerman has been exonerated and that the prosecution was an overstep have missed the point - Zimmerman is criminally not guilty, he is not found innocent. Alternatively, the people claiming justice wasn't done are also missing the point - the justice system is supposed to be an impartial arbiter of the evidence, which is precisely what happened in this case. You cannot pursue goals of liberty and equality and denounce a criminal case where those principles are actually applied at trial just because it is politically inconvenient for your narrative. Then again, you can't support the Constitution and liberty and all the other platitudes that come from Zimmerman's defenders and not recognize this case is a troubling example of institutionalized racism and laws that favour the powerful over the powerless.
Is George Zimmerman to blame for the death of Trayvon Martin? Absolutely. Does he deserve to be punished for it by the state? Not without additional evidence. As it is, this man will have to live with this for the rest of his life and constantly look over his shoulder. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.
-
I could certainly try to write a few paragraphs around this case and everything that I find strange with how people appear to respond and the whole media circus surrounding the case, but I want to sum it up in what I feel is going on: Divide And Conquer. Cause some minor infighting, plaster the media full of the case and focus on race or class to get a rise out of people to keep them obsessing and busy with minor issues.
It's quite the distraction for many from events like the NSA/PRISM 'revelations' (Its not new information, actually, Echelon, leaked files, testimonies, etc. confirmed this a long time ago) continuing to come out as well as the events in and around Syria continuing to heat up towards a hot regional war that could spark world war and the plethora of other troubles and issues that need to be addressed, some more urgently than others.
At least it's all a treasure trove of behavioral information for psychologists or those in learning like myself. :P
-
5. The people saying Zimmerman has been exonerated and that the prosecution was an overstep have missed the point
I'm not sure that's the argument being presented. Having watched the case, it seems the prosecution never had the ability to prove their case, and chose to prosecute anyways in the hopes the jury pool had been sufficiently tainted by the media.
That seems reckless, and disingenuous.
-
5. The people saying Zimmerman has been exonerated and that the prosecution was an overstep have missed the point
I'm not sure that's the argument being presented. Having watched the case, it seems the prosecution never had the ability to prove their case, and chose to prosecute anyways in the hopes the jury pool had been sufficiently tainted by the media.
That seems reckless, and disingenuous.
Had they charged Zimmerman with the Florida equivalent of criminal negligence causing death or manslaughter from the start and focused on proving that, they actually had a reasonable shot at legitimate conviction. The burden of mens rea is considerably less for those charges.
-
How bad has these riots and such been anyway?
Important enough for CNN to not mention them on the front page of their website. (I've not seen any news outlet here mention actual riots.)
http://www.upi.com/blog/2013/07/15/Trayvon-Martin-protests-escalate-in-California/2541373889450/ (http://www.upi.com/blog/2013/07/15/Trayvon-Martin-protests-escalate-in-California/2541373889450/)
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/07/14/kill-pigs-riot-erupts-in-oakland-in-response-to-zimmerman-verdict-79653 (http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/07/14/kill-pigs-riot-erupts-in-oakland-in-response-to-zimmerman-verdict-79653)
http://now.msn.com/george-zimmerman-verdict-protested-in-oakland (http://now.msn.com/george-zimmerman-verdict-protested-in-oakland)
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/14/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-rallies/2516555/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/14/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-rallies/2516555/)
There were riots in Oakland. Small-scale ones, but riots nonetheless.
As mentioned in these articles, most protests were fairly peaceful.
-
The only good thing to come of this whole thing is how we now get to drink all of those delicious liberal tears.
For your entertainment: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1002
-
When this case was first reported on (or rather, once it got traction on newsfeeds I am reading), I was pretty much on the "Zimmerman needs to be convicted" side of the debate. It seemed to confirm all of the negative narratives that we europeans focus on when we discuss american domestic politics; We had a black kid being killed because of committing the crime of looking a bit shifty to someone who was on a neighbourhood watch power trip. It hit the right buttons, ya know, and confirmation bias did the rest.
But now that I've had some time to read some more informed commentary, I am very much with MP-Ryan on this issue. A trial needed to be conducted, because when a citizen kills another one, there needs to be an investigation, and there needs to be an official determination whether or not the act was justifiable under the applicable laws, or whether the person doing the killing overstepped and needs to be punished for it.
That this narrative had other sideshows playing out that impacted the reporting on it (All-white jury, a victim and a perpetrator who were both not exactly examples of exemplary behaviour) is unfortunate, and the media's tendency to distort the truth anyway in order to fit into a given narrative was particularly pronounced here.
There are, of course, discussions one can have on this topic. Such as the question why a white person is statistically more likely to be acquitted on a justifiable homicide defense, for example.
What I would like everyone in this thread to do though (and this is the part where I put on my moderator hat), is to try to keep it away from the tiresome "liberals vs conservativesREAL 'MURICANS" cockfight that at least some people want to get into. Yes, Nakura, that specifically (although not exclusively) means you.
-
I overheard two of my co-workers talking about it on my lunch break.
Truly, this represents the American people!
So where is your data coming from? Your own coworkers?
lolno. You just wanted to get that out there though, didn't you? Pretty feisty, I see, always looking to start trouble. Are you George Zimmerman?
Wth Nakura that wasn't even directed to you. Or did you intend to reply to NG? Learn to use the quote function properly. And I agree with The_E on this. You are always jumping at the opportunity to finger point those daym libralss.
-
The real irony is that if there are any smart people out there who want to shoot Zimmerman, they'll provoke him first and claim it was self defence.
That and the fact that due to deciding to act like a vigilante, he'll spend the rest of his life scared that someone will do the same to him.
-
He wasn't guilty of the crimes he was accused of, but I don't think we'll ever find out what really happened. The real mistake here was phrasing of the law itself, though it doesn't change the fact that Martin got severely carried away.
What's more worrying is the level of Political spin being put on the whole matter; this was a tragic case that has got blown out of proportion to suit 2 different political agendas. The moment someone talks about 'liberal tears' or 'Republican racism' I sort of turn off to the entire topic anyway.
As MP says, the charges bought were probably more emotional in format than effective, nor was it racially motivated, though that doesn't mean racial stereotypes didn't play a role, but I even heard one comment that 'Republicans like Latinos now, because there's a Black man in charge', which is possibly one of the more stupid statements I've read on the matter.
The next productive step is to attack the wording of the law, not the person who abused/misinterpreted it, so that such a tragedy cannot repeat itself.
-
except that won't prevent the incident, that will only change the outcome of the trial that follows.
-
except that won't prevent the incident, that will only change the outcome of the trial that follows.
That's like saying that the law that forbids murders does not prevent murders, only what comes after.
-
except that won't prevent the incident, that will only change the outcome of the trial that follows.
I didn't say it would, I just said it would prevent the tragedy that followed. It'll take a lot more than laws to stop these sort of things entirely.
One interesting thought experiment is to change races of the shooter/victim between Black, Latino, White etc, and ask yourself how various media would respond in those situations to the outcome, it quickly becomes apparent that this was a road to nowhere, no matter what happened, someone was going to be wronged, and that is why the law itself sits at the heart of the problem.
-
Great statistical analysis of white and black killers / victims for the past decades:
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=7168
-
The next productive step is to attack the wording of the law, not the person who abused/misinterpreted it, so that such a tragedy cannot repeat itself.
Whats wrong with the law as it is? I dont think there is anything that can be changed in law to prevent cases like this, not without risk of putting innocent people that really only defended themselves in prison.
-
Because one person chose to pursue the other, this was not a random event, and it could be considered that the aggressive pursuit of the victim would have made him believe that he himself was in danger. That's the tragedy of this whole thing, the fact that both sides most likely genuinely believed they were acting in defense of their own lives.
As I said earlier, Martin most likely seriously over-reacted to the pursuit, but the law still needs to recognize that by pursuing someone in that manner, particularly after being told not to, Zimmerman was encouraging the situation that developed.
-
The entire thing was a comedy of errors from the very beginning. Zimmerman shouldn't have been playing cop, Martin shouldn't have approached him (seriously, if someone's stalking you, don't ****ing confront them, it's a bad idea and won't end well), the media should NEVER be allowed to release the name of people involved in these kinds of situations until the court rules, and the DA shouldn't have caved to public pressure to throw a murder 2 charge at the wall.
Now we've got a dead teenager, a guy who was found innocent by the courts but is still guilty in the eyes of the public, and a bunch of bait for the "race war" morons on both sides, nevermind the fact that Zimmerman isn't white.
That being said, given the charges and the evidence, I think the jury came to the correct decision in that there wasn't enough evidence for murder 2 to stick. Manslaughter might have worked, but again, the DA was an idiot.
-
Because one person chose to pursue the other, this was not a random event, and it could be considered that the aggressive pursuit of the victim would have made him believe that he himself was in danger. That's the tragedy of this whole thing, the fact that both sides most likely genuinely believed they were acting in defense of their own lives.
As I said earlier, Martin most likely seriously over-reacted to the pursuit, but the law still needs to recognize that by pursuing someone in that manner, particularly after being told not to, Zimmerman was encouraging the situation that developed.
What exactly do you suggest, that if you follow someone you are liable to be convicted of manslaughter if he assaults you? I certainly cannot agree with that, nor with any double standards that would put people at legal disadvantage for merely following someone, a legal act in itself. Sure, if he did not follow him, then this all could have been avoided, but law cannot recognize such hypothetical speculations.
-
Because one person chose to pursue the other, this was not a random event, and it could be considered that the aggressive pursuit of the victim would have made him believe that he himself was in danger. That's the tragedy of this whole thing, the fact that both sides most likely genuinely believed they were acting in defense of their own lives.
Changing the law won't change that. There was already an appropriate felony charge for what happened, as MP-Ryan noted, but it wasn't pursued. (And manslaughter might apply as well.) Bending the definition of second degree murder that far would make things worse.
-
Come to Massachusetts, we would rather you be murdered than take steps to defend yourself.
edit-grammar fix for great justice.
-
When this case was first reported on (or rather, once it got traction on newsfeeds I am reading), I was pretty much on the "Zimmerman needs to be convicted" side of the debate. It seemed to confirm all of the negative narratives that we europeans focus on when we discuss american domestic politics; We had a black kid being killed because of committing the crime of looking a bit shifty to someone who was on a neighbourhood watch power trip. It hit the right buttons, ya know, and confirmation bias did the rest.
The funny thing is that even in some European Nations Zimmerman wouldn't been convicted. Afiak is I know the Florida laws about self defence are roughly the same as in Germany, and we had a same event some years ago:
An old millionaire was mugged in his home and was able to get a gun... he shoot one of the fleeing muggers in the back. the millionaire wasn't convicted because it was self defence.
The public reactions have been the same, but on a lower level.
Some claimed that it was murder, and some claimed it was triggered by racism because the mugger was a children of an emigrant.
But it didn't stir up that much of public comments as the case with Zimmerman.
Well, it's a nice opportunity to refuel some old prejudices against the USA, a opportunity no one in the German Media would not want to waste.
-
Because one person chose to pursue the other, this was not a random event, and it could be considered that the aggressive pursuit of the victim would have made him believe that he himself was in danger. That's the tragedy of this whole thing, the fact that both sides most likely genuinely believed they were acting in defense of their own lives.
As I said earlier, Martin most likely seriously over-reacted to the pursuit, but the law still needs to recognize that by pursuing someone in that manner, particularly after being told not to, Zimmerman was encouraging the situation that developed.
What exactly do you suggest, that if you follow someone you are liable to be convicted of manslaughter if he assaults you? I certainly cannot agree with that, nor with any double standards that would put people at legal disadvantage for merely following someone, a legal act in itself. Sure, if he did not follow him, then this all could have been avoided, but law cannot recognize such hypothetical speculations.
As I said earlier, Martin over-reacted to the pursuit, but the problem was that murder 2 was applied when it shouldn't have been. In situations like that, there has to be more available to the court than simply 'Not Guilty'. Even the jurors themselves stated in interviews that the problem was the law that was applied, and were initially split on whether to find him guilty or not.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/zimmerman-juror-says-sanford-detective-made-big-impression-planning-to-write-a-book/2013/07/15/ce4afbb2-edb1-11e2-bb32-725c8351a69e_story.html
IF events unfolded exactly as described, which may or may not be the case then, yes, Zimmerman was defending himself. However, if people feel that the law itself somehow responsible for Zimmerman walking free after what he chose to do, then their next step is not to riot, it is to campaign for the laws change.
Personally, I doubt we will ever find out exactly what happened, chances are it was six of one half dozen of the other, and that, as I've maintained from the start, is the real tragedy of the entire case.
-
I could care a less about the trial, the charges, or gun control. But it's been pretty clearly shown how the Martin side swayed the media early and on purpose. Half the country is making decisions based on only partial information and biased images.
Most of journalism pokes fun (and often rightly so) at Fox... but this is a case that shows they are almost all a bunch of tools.
That's why I voted 'Other'.
-
a guy who was found innocent by the courts but is still guilty in the eyes of the public
Correction: he was found not guilty. The court does not find a person innocent, a person is considered legally innocent of a crime unless proven guilty. That said, legally innocent and truthfully innocent are two different things. The legal system does not assess true innocence.
-
I overheard two of my co-workers talking about it on my lunch break.
Truly, this represents the American people!
So where is your data coming from? Your own coworkers?
lolno. You just wanted to get that out there though, didn't you? Pretty feisty, I see, always looking to start trouble. Are you George Zimmerman?
Wth Nakura that wasn't even directed to you. Or did you intend to reply to NG? Learn to use the quote function properly. And I agree with The_E on this. You are always jumping at the opportunity to finger point those daym libralss.
I was standing my ground, I felt as though my life was in danger you were making fun of me. To me it seemed like you were implying that I am such a moron, that I would take anything my degenerate co-workers would say with anything more than a grain of salt; let alone that I would use their gossip as "facts" for the creation of this thread.
Rereading what you said and taking it into a different context, I now see that it is entirely possible that you were not attempting to imply that I am naive and/or unintelligent.
-
Nakura, I will back Luis up on this, I was very surprised that you didn't see what he was doing. My reaction to seeing your post back when you put it was kind of like Oh, Nakura... and feeling sorry for you. I didn't know what to say though.
He's definitely talking to NGTM-1R, not you.
-
Because one person chose to pursue the other, this was not a random event, and it could be considered that the aggressive pursuit of the victim would have made him believe that he himself was in danger. That's the tragedy of this whole thing, the fact that both sides most likely genuinely believed they were acting in defense of their own lives.
As I said earlier, Martin most likely seriously over-reacted to the pursuit, but the law still needs to recognize that by pursuing someone in that manner, particularly after being told not to, Zimmerman was encouraging the situation that developed.
What exactly do you suggest, that if you follow someone you are liable to be convicted of manslaughter if he assaults you? I certainly cannot agree with that, nor with any double standards that would put people at legal disadvantage for merely following someone, a legal act in itself. Sure, if he did not follow him, then this all could have been avoided, but law cannot recognize such hypothetical speculations.
As I said earlier, Martin over-reacted to the pursuit, but the problem was that murder 2 was applied when it shouldn't have been. In situations like that, there has to be more available to the court than simply 'Not Guilty'. Even the jurors themselves stated in interviews that the problem was the law that was applied, and were initially split on whether to find him guilty or not.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/zimmerman-juror-says-sanford-detective-made-big-impression-planning-to-write-a-book/2013/07/15/ce4afbb2-edb1-11e2-bb32-725c8351a69e_story.html
IF events unfolded exactly as described, which may or may not be the case then, yes, Zimmerman was defending himself. However, if people feel that the law itself somehow responsible for Zimmerman walking free after what he chose to do, then their next step is not to riot, it is to campaign for the laws change.
Personally, I doubt we will ever find out exactly what happened, chances are it was six of one half dozen of the other, and that, as I've maintained from the start, is the real tragedy of the entire case.
If you campaign to change the law, that leads to even more problems. That would result in countless innocent people who actually were defending themselves to be convicted. Not to mention if they change the law so that you can be convicted of manslaughter (or even murder) if you defend yourself from someone who you were following, that could be abused just as much as the way the law is currently written. Rather than actual criminals claiming "I was only defending myself," they would now be claiming "he was following me." It just replaces one "loophole" with another.
-
Nakura, I will back Luis up on this, I was very surprised that you didn't see what he was doing. My reaction to seeing your post back when you put it was kind of like Oh, Nakura... and feeling sorry for you. I didn't know what to say though.
He's definitely talking to NGTM-1R, not you.
Yes, I see that now. *facepalm*
Sorry Luis, perhaps I am the idiot that I thought you were calling me after all. :banghead:
-
That's the thing though, isn't it? The law needs to work for both sides involved. As was argued in the case, Zimmerman claimed he left the car to look at a street sign, in a neighborhood he'd lived in for four years and was the Neighborhood Watch leader for. It's not beyond the realms of possibility I suppose, but strikes me as unlikely. Once again, he may have said this purely because he knew the legal eggshells he was walking on, and there's nothing wrong, in essence, with following a suspicious character.
However, the chances are a campaign would have more impact than a riot, even if it achieves 'nothing' with regards to changing the law itself. I agree that the law needs to support people who defend their own neighborhoods, I come from a country that cannot even make up its mind properly how to react to a home intrusion, but it also needs to stress that 'playing the hero' and trying to confront a suspect face-face should only be done if a crime is actually seen to be taken place and/or people are in immediate danger, not that one is assumed about to.
Maybe Zimmermans' comment that 'nothing ever gets done about it' to the Police before he pursued Martin is a more telling comment in the case than it has been taken as, it's often used here as a reason for vigilante action, the -not always unfounded- assumption that if the matter is left to the Police, it will have no long term impact on the situation.
-
The self-defense provisions Zimmerman used exist and apply in every Common Law country on the planet (so most of the Commonwealth, the US, and a couple others). Not sure if similar provisions exist in Germany, or those countries which use a variation on a Civil Code (France, Spain and their former colonies).
Campaigning to change the law isn't the answer - not for the reasons Nakura listed, which aren't even legally applicable, but I digress - but enforcing the existing legislation properly is. Zimmerman legitimately appears to have used deadly force to defend himself from what the evidence suggests was a deadly force attack - or at least, the prosecution could not prove this wasn't the case. Questions about Zimmerman's zeal in involving himself in the matter are best addressed as criminal negligence or manslaughter - in short, self-defense may be available to excuse deadly force and absolve you of a murder conviction, but you can be convicted of creating the circumstances which forced you to resort to deadly force when there were other options available.
Zimmerman was charged with the wrong offense. That's not a problem with the law (and Florida's stand your ground law was not invoked at trail at all), that's a problem with high-profile status in the media.
But again, just so everyone knows, the self-defense provisions Zimmerman invoked are as old as Common Law itself and are available to every resident of every Common Law country, and those based on English Common Law - like the United States.
-
Zimmerman was charged with the wrong offense. That's not a problem with the law (and Florida's stand your ground law was not invoked at trail at all), that's a problem with high-profile status in the media.
Doesnt the court have the option to convince him of a lesser charge?
I dont think manslaughter conviction would be likely. Youd still have to prove criminal negligence or something like that, but the evidence is not good enough. And he had injuries corroborating that a fight did occur. I remember reading somewhere that in self-defense vs. manslaughter cases, presence of injuries is often a deciding factor.
-
Doesnt the court have the option to convince him of a lesser charge?
I dont think manslaughter conviction would be likely. Youd still have to prove criminal negligence or something like that, but the evidence is not good enough. And he had injuries corroborating that a fight did occur. I remember reading somewhere that in self-defense vs. manslaughter cases, presence of injuries is often a deciding factor.
Manslaughter was given as a lesser included charge. There are usually limits to how far you can stretch on that, though. Typically involving some combination of the state's laws, the judge's willingness to allow it, the state seeking to include it, and the defense's objections.
In this case I wouldn't be surprised that either Florida law does not allow a top count to be reduced out of its nature (second degree murder implies intent, manslaughter can, criminally negligent homicide explicitly doesn't) or the judge looked at the anemic case the prosecution put on and when the time came for jury instructions delivered a rebuke by forcing them to fight on the merits of the inappropriate charge they tried for rather than letting them have their cake (charge with second degree murder) and eat it too (get a conviction for criminally negligent homicide).
-
Well, The Onion has determined that Zimmerman was guilty, so I guess that settles that then... :rolleyes:
0:00, 0:23 and 2:13...
-
Am I the only one that finds The Onion completely boring, now?
-
Am I the only one that finds The Onion completely boring, now?
The standard has badly slipped. I only check it out once in a while now.
-
The standard has badly slipped. I only check it out once in a while now.
Yeah, I think the Onion's straight-up not funny more often than not. About the only pieces that elicited even a chuckle recently are those about politicians. Their "coverage" of the election was pretty good, but almost everything else is closer to depressing.
OT: (not reading through everything, just leaving a disposable remark) I honestly don't know what to think about this case anymore, and I'm pretty sure that the only person who really knows what happened that night was just acquitted.
-
MP-Ryan summed up my feelings exactly.
And yeah Florida's self defense laws are well in line with 30 other U.S. states and the majority of the developed world. Considering SYG is essentially simply the lack of the 'duty to retreat', the only country I can think of that doesn't have some SYG equivalent is my own (Canada) where lethal force is only justified if you had no other option.
Based on the zimmerman evidence, I feel like he would have been easily acquitted here as well.
-
Based on the zimmerman evidence, I feel like he would have been easily acquitted here as well.
Nah, here he would have been charged with manslaughter or criminal negligence causing death and convicted of one of them (likely the latter, manslaughter is still a stretch). Not a chance second-degree murder would stick here either, though. Then again, here he wouldn't have been a wannabe cop armed with a handgun in hip holster wandering around his community, either, since such things are totally illegal in our country.
The Zimmerman/Martin travesty is the result of a collision of inadequate firearms laws, inadequate policing, racism, hero complex bull****, street thug bull**** (seriously, Martin was no angel either; both he and Zimmerman can be classed as dip****s, just slightly different kinds of dip****) and the wrong kind of criminal charge laid. Plenty of blame to be spread around everywhere.
-
Based on the zimmerman evidence, I feel like he would have been easily acquitted here as well.
Nah, here he would have been charged with manslaughter or criminal negligence causing death and convicted of one of them (likely the latter, manslaughter is still a stretch). Not a chance second-degree murder would stick here either, though. Then again, here he wouldn't have been a wannabe cop armed with a handgun in hip holster wandering around his community, either, since such things are totally illegal in our country.
The Zimmerman/Martin travesty is the result of a collision of inadequate firearms laws, inadequate policing, racism, hero complex bull****, street thug bull**** (seriously, Martin was no angel either; both he and Zimmerman can be classed as dip****s, just slightly different kinds of dip****) and the wrong kind of criminal charge laid. Plenty of blame to be spread around everywhere.
This had nothing to do with firearms law. Self-defense law applies to firearms and non-firearms alike, and as previously mentioned by several members, Florida self-defense law is about the same as other first-world countries. Zimmerman would have been able to own and yes, even carry, a firearm in every single U.S. state and most other first-world countries (including Canada and almost all of Europe). Concealed carry is hardly something unique to America, a number of European countries have laws allowing civilians to carry handguns in public. Also note that stand-your-ground laws had NOTHING to do with the defense, which relied on basic self-defense law.
-
Based on the zimmerman evidence, I feel like he would have been easily acquitted here as well.
Nah, here he would have been charged with manslaughter or criminal negligence causing death and convicted of one of them (likely the latter, manslaughter is still a stretch). Not a chance second-degree murder would stick here either, though. Then again, here he wouldn't have been a wannabe cop armed with a handgun in hip holster wandering around his community, either, since such things are totally illegal in our country.
The Zimmerman/Martin travesty is the result of a collision of inadequate firearms laws, inadequate policing, racism, hero complex bull****, street thug bull**** (seriously, Martin was no angel either; both he and Zimmerman can be classed as dip****s, just slightly different kinds of dip****) and the wrong kind of criminal charge laid. Plenty of blame to be spread around everywhere.
This had nothing to do with firearms law. Self-defense law applies to firearms and non-firearms alike, and as previously mentioned by several members, Florida self-defense law is about the same as other first-world countries. Zimmerman would have been able to own and yes, even carry, a firearm in every single U.S. state and most other first-world countries (including Canada and almost all of Europe). Concealed carry is hardly something unique to America, a number of European countries have laws allowing civilians to carry handguns in public. Also note that stand-your-ground laws had NOTHING to do with the defense, which relied on basic self-defense law.
No Nakura, I can't speak for Europe, but concealed carry is not legal in Canada. Hand guns are classed as restricted firearms and you need an additional license on top of a regular firearms license in order to carry own one.
Furthermore, in order to transport a hand gun at all it needs to be in the trunk of your car, separated from the ammunition and you must contact the police ahead of time to inform them both when you are transporting the hand gun, as well as where you are transporting it to and from so as to acquire authorization to transport it from the Chief Firearms Officer of your given province.
I'll tell you flat out that I have never seen a gun in a public place unless it's carried by the police. People don't bring legal weapons out in public considering you know, hunting rifles and the like would be rather conspicuous, handguns are restricted, and concealed carry is illegal.
I still don't think he would have been convicted of manslaughter here, since even Canadian law justifies lethal force if retreat is no other option (though the judge would be the one determining if there was no other option - we don't have SYG). However, he would have likely been unable to kill Martin in the first place here, because of the aformentioned gun laws. Three minutes elapsed between Zimmerman's call with Dispatch ending and the cops arriving. Without a firearm I doubt zimmerman could have killed Martin.
-
George Zimmerman Emerged From Hiding for Truck Crash Rescue (http://abcnews.go.com/story?id=19735432&)
-
Based on the zimmerman evidence, I feel like he would have been easily acquitted here as well.
Nah, here he would have been charged with manslaughter or criminal negligence causing death and convicted of one of them (likely the latter, manslaughter is still a stretch). Not a chance second-degree murder would stick here either, though. Then again, here he wouldn't have been a wannabe cop armed with a handgun in hip holster wandering around his community, either, since such things are totally illegal in our country.
The Zimmerman/Martin travesty is the result of a collision of inadequate firearms laws, inadequate policing, racism, hero complex bull****, street thug bull**** (seriously, Martin was no angel either; both he and Zimmerman can be classed as dip****s, just slightly different kinds of dip****) and the wrong kind of criminal charge laid. Plenty of blame to be spread around everywhere.
This had nothing to do with firearms law. Self-defense law applies to firearms and non-firearms alike, and as previously mentioned by several members, Florida self-defense law is about the same as other first-world countries. Zimmerman would have been able to own and yes, even carry, a firearm in every single U.S. state and most other first-world countries (including Canada and almost all of Europe). Concealed carry is hardly something unique to America, a number of European countries have laws allowing civilians to carry handguns in public. Also note that stand-your-ground laws had NOTHING to do with the defense, which relied on basic self-defense law.
Alright. Almost all of Europe you say? You can count out the Netherlands, Belgium, France and Germany at the least on that equation. Quite sure the UK can be counted out as well. Then there's Poland, and...
well, I could go on and on, but I am quite sure that I just listed the major EU countries there anyway. Your knowledge of firearm laws in other countries is non-existent... And you have been called out several times on this already.
Could you at the least try and prove your statements? I'd like to hear which EU countries actually do allow concealed carry.
-
Based on the zimmerman evidence, I feel like he would have been easily acquitted here as well.
Nah, here he would have been charged with manslaughter or criminal negligence causing death and convicted of one of them (likely the latter, manslaughter is still a stretch). Not a chance second-degree murder would stick here either, though. Then again, here he wouldn't have been a wannabe cop armed with a handgun in hip holster wandering around his community, either, since such things are totally illegal in our country.
The Zimmerman/Martin travesty is the result of a collision of inadequate firearms laws, inadequate policing, racism, hero complex bull****, street thug bull**** (seriously, Martin was no angel either; both he and Zimmerman can be classed as dip****s, just slightly different kinds of dip****) and the wrong kind of criminal charge laid. Plenty of blame to be spread around everywhere.
This had nothing to do with firearms law. Self-defense law applies to firearms and non-firearms alike, and as previously mentioned by several members, Florida self-defense law is about the same as other first-world countries. Zimmerman would have been able to own and yes, even carry, a firearm in every single U.S. state and most other first-world countries (including Canada and almost all of Europe). Concealed carry is hardly something unique to America, a number of European countries have laws allowing civilians to carry handguns in public. Also note that stand-your-ground laws had NOTHING to do with the defense, which relied on basic self-defense law.
No Nakura, I can't speak for Europe, but concealed carry is not legal in Canada. Hand guns are classed as restricted firearms and you need an additional license on top of a regular firearms license in order to carry own one.
Furthermore, in order to transport a hand gun at all it needs to be in the trunk of your car, separated from the ammunition and you must contact the police ahead of time to inform them both when you are transporting the hand gun, as well as where you are transporting it to and from so as to acquire authorization to transport it from the Chief Firearms Officer of your given province.
I'll tell you flat out that I have never seen a gun in a public place unless it's carried by the police. People don't bring legal weapons out in public considering you know, hunting rifles and the like would be rather conspicuous, handguns are restricted, and concealed carry is illegal.
I still don't think he would have been convicted of manslaughter here, since even Canadian law justifies lethal force if retreat is no other option (though the judge would be the one determining if there was no other option - we don't have SYG). However, he would have likely been unable to kill Martin in the first place here, because of the aformentioned gun laws. Three minutes elapsed between Zimmerman's call with Dispatch ending and the cops arriving. Without a firearm I doubt zimmerman could have killed Martin.
Actually, you can legally carry handguns in Canada:
20. An individual who holds a licence authorizing the individual to possess restricted firearms or handguns referred to in subsection 12(6.1) (pre-December 1, 1998 handguns) may be authorized to possess a particular restricted firearm or handgun at a place other than the place at which it is authorized to be possessed if the individual needs the particular restricted firearm or handgun
(a) to protect the life of that individual or of other individuals; or
(b) for use in connection with his or her lawful profession or occupation.
Source: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-11.6/
-
So this license they mention, how hard is it to get?
-
Based on the zimmerman evidence, I feel like he would have been easily acquitted here as well.
Nah, here he would have been charged with manslaughter or criminal negligence causing death and convicted of one of them (likely the latter, manslaughter is still a stretch). Not a chance second-degree murder would stick here either, though. Then again, here he wouldn't have been a wannabe cop armed with a handgun in hip holster wandering around his community, either, since such things are totally illegal in our country.
The Zimmerman/Martin travesty is the result of a collision of inadequate firearms laws, inadequate policing, racism, hero complex bull****, street thug bull**** (seriously, Martin was no angel either; both he and Zimmerman can be classed as dip****s, just slightly different kinds of dip****) and the wrong kind of criminal charge laid. Plenty of blame to be spread around everywhere.
This had nothing to do with firearms law. Self-defense law applies to firearms and non-firearms alike, and as previously mentioned by several members, Florida self-defense law is about the same as other first-world countries. Zimmerman would have been able to own and yes, even carry, a firearm in every single U.S. state and most other first-world countries (including Canada and almost all of Europe). Concealed carry is hardly something unique to America, a number of European countries have laws allowing civilians to carry handguns in public. Also note that stand-your-ground laws had NOTHING to do with the defense, which relied on basic self-defense law.
Alright. Almost all of Europe you say? You can count out the Netherlands, Belgium, France and Germany at the least on that equation. Quite sure the UK can be counted out as well. Then there's Poland, and...
well, I could go on and on, but I am quite sure that I just listed the major EU countries there anyway. Your knowledge of firearm laws in other countries is non-existent... And you have been called out several times on this already.
Could you at the least try and prove your statements? I'd like to hear which EU countries actually do allow concealed carry.
Czech Republic is very lax about concealed carry compared to other EU countries. It's one of the few European countries I could stand to live in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_Czech_Republic
In general, you can conceal carry in several other European Union member states, you just have to demonstrate good reason and go through hefty paperwork. I wouldn't know about this process though, I am only somewhat familiar with gun policies in the Czech Republic, Sweden, Finland, and Ireland.
-
Based on the zimmerman evidence, I feel like he would have been easily acquitted here as well.
Nah, here he would have been charged with manslaughter or criminal negligence causing death and convicted of one of them (likely the latter, manslaughter is still a stretch). Not a chance second-degree murder would stick here either, though. Then again, here he wouldn't have been a wannabe cop armed with a handgun in hip holster wandering around his community, either, since such things are totally illegal in our country.
The Zimmerman/Martin travesty is the result of a collision of inadequate firearms laws, inadequate policing, racism, hero complex bull****, street thug bull**** (seriously, Martin was no angel either; both he and Zimmerman can be classed as dip****s, just slightly different kinds of dip****) and the wrong kind of criminal charge laid. Plenty of blame to be spread around everywhere.
This had nothing to do with firearms law. Self-defense law applies to firearms and non-firearms alike, and as previously mentioned by several members, Florida self-defense law is about the same as other first-world countries. Zimmerman would have been able to own and yes, even carry, a firearm in every single U.S. state and most other first-world countries (including Canada and almost all of Europe). Concealed carry is hardly something unique to America, a number of European countries have laws allowing civilians to carry handguns in public. Also note that stand-your-ground laws had NOTHING to do with the defense, which relied on basic self-defense law.
Alright. Almost all of Europe you say? You can count out the Netherlands, Belgium, France and Germany at the least on that equation. Quite sure the UK can be counted out as well. Then there's Poland, and...
well, I could go on and on, but I am quite sure that I just listed the major EU countries there anyway. Your knowledge of firearm laws in other countries is non-existent... And you have been called out several times on this already.
Could you at the least try and prove your statements? I'd like to hear which EU countries actually do allow concealed carry.
The right to carry a firearm is recognized by the European states listed below, but please note that this is an incomplete list and I couldn't find information regarding carrying firearms at all (one way or the other) for a few European countries.
Austria
Source: http://www.poa-iss.org/CountryProfiles/CountryProfiles.aspx
Belgium
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm
Bulgaria
Legal entities and natural persons can acquire, store and use explosives, firearms and ammunitions for professional security activities and for self-protection, for industrial, hunting, sporting and cultural purposes.
The employees of legal entities, the natural persons and the sole traders are permitted to carry firearms for the purposes enumerated in paragraph 1.
Source: http://www.poa-iss.org/CountryProfiles/CountryProfiles.aspx
Croatia
Outside the hunting grounds or shooting ranges, hunting and sporting weapons may be carried only in suitable holsters or cases and may not be loaded.
Source: http://www.poa-iss.org/CountryProfiles/CountryProfiles.aspx
Cyprus
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm
Czech Republic
Gun politics in the Czech Republic incorporates the political and regulatory aspects of firearms usage in the country. Policy in the Czech Republic is in many respects less restrictive than elsewhere in Europe (see Gun politics in the European Union). The most recent Gun Act was passed in 2001, replacing the previous law and tightening the legislation slightly. Firearms in the Czech Republic are available to anybody without a criminal record and aged above 18 (or 21 for certain license categories). Self-defense is an acceptable justification to obtain a firearms license. The Czech gun laws also permit a citizen to carry a concealed weapon without having to specify a reason.
From Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_Czech_Republic
Specific Law (in Czech): http://zbranekvalitne.cz/legislativa/119-2002
Estonia
§ 50. General Procedure for Carrying of Weapons
(1) Weapons and ammunition shall be carried together with a corresponding weapons permit or permit to carry a weapon.
(2) Weapons and ammunition shall be carried in a concealed manner which precludes their being lost, falling into the hands of other persons or causing accidental damage. The chamber of a carried firearm, except for the chamber of a revolver, shall be empty of cartridges.
(3) It is prohibited to carry weapons or ammunition:
1) while intoxicated or under the influence of narcotic, psychotropic or psychotoxic substances;
2) at meetings, demonstrations, pickets, festivities and other public events, except for persons performing their functions or duties at such public events.
(4) A Minister may, by a directive, restrict the carrying of weapons in the ministry, in government agencies within the area of government of the ministry, in state agencies administered by the ministry and at facilities in the possession of such government agencies or state agencies.
(5) A directing body or head of a company or non-profit association or a sole proprietor may, by an order, restrict the carrying of weapons in its seat and at other facilities in its ownership or possession if the police prefecture of the location of the facility has granted its consent therefor.
(6) The carrying of hunting weapons while hunting is regulated by the Hunting Act and legislation issued on the basis thereof.
Source: http://www.legaltext.ee/en/andmebaas/ava.asp?m=022
France
1. Carrying and transport of shoulder weapons and ammunition of the 5th,1 7th2 and 8th3 categories are free.
2. Prohibited except in cases provided for in Articles 58-14 and 58-2:5
- carrying of firearms and ammunition of the 1st6 and 4th7 categories, handguns of the 7th2 and 8th3 categories, weapons of the 6th category, listed in Article 2, as well as, without genuine reason, the carrying of other firearms of the 6th8 category;
- transport, without genuine reason, of firearms and ammunition of the 1st6 and 4th7 categories, weapons of the 6th category and handguns of the 7th2 category.
The licence issued by a sports federation, mentioned in 4-b) of Article 239 above, is equivalent to a lawful transport document for sports shooters, referred to in 2- of Article 2810 above, and for individuals transporting weapons of the 6th8 category, for firearms used for the practice of sports covered by the said federation
3. Firearms referred to in 2- above are transported in a way that they cannot to be used immediately either by using a technical device to meet this objective, or by removing their safety parts.
4. Notwithstanding 2- above, carrying and transport of firearms of the 1st6 and 4th7 categories, lawfully purchased and held, their use being allowed for hunting, are authorised for such activity, under conditions set by joint order of the Ministers of Interior and Defence, and Ministers in charge of Industry, Trade, Customs and Environment.
Source: http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000005618597&dateTexte=vig#
Germany
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm
Greece
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm
Hungary
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm
Ireland (Republic of)
(1) t shall not be lawful for any person after the commencement of this Act to have in his possession, use, or carry any firearm or ammunition save in so far as such possession, use, or carriage is authorised by a firearm certificate granted under this Act and for the time being in force.
(2) [E]very person who after the commencement of this Act has in his possession, uses, or carries any firearm without holding a firearm certificate therefor or otherwise than as authorised by such certificate, or purchases, uses, has in his possession, or carries any ammunition without holding a firearm certificate therefor or in quantities in excess of those authorised by such certificate, or fails to comply with any condition subject to which a firearm certificate was granted to him, shall be guilty of an offence under this Act and shall be punishable accordingly.
Source: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1925/en/act/pub/0017/index.html
Latvia
Permit for Carrying of Weapons
A permit for carrying of a weapon shall grant to a natural person the right to possess a firearm at a place specified in the permit, to carry, transport or convey it, to acquire and possess the munitions thereof, as well as to apply and utilise a firearm in accordance with the cases and procedures prescribed by law.
Source: http://www.poa-iss.org/CountryProfiles/CountryProfiles.aspx
Issuance of Weapon Permits
(1) The State Police shall issue the following permits for the acquisition and possession or carrying of weapons (with a term of validity of from one to five years):
1) permits for the possession of Category D, B or C sports or hunting firearms and high-energy pneumatic weapons; and
2) permits for the possession or carrying of such Category B short-barrelled firearms the calibre of which is not more than 9 millimetres.
(2) The State Police shall issue permits to legal persons for the acquisition, possession and transportation of Category B, C and D firearms, and high-energy pneumatic weapons.
(3) The State Police shall issue permits for acquisition or possession of Category B and C firearms (except rifled hunting firearms) to merchants, which have received a second category special permit (licence) for the performance of guarding activities.
(4) Permits for possession of weapons shall be issued to legal persons for a time period of from one to five years.
Source: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/latvia
Liechtenstein
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm
Lithuania
Duties of the Owner, Holder, User of Weapons, Ammunition
2. The owner, user of the weapons classified in Categories A, B and C, ammunition for them shall be prohibited from:
1) carrying a weapon without carrying a permit to carry the weapon;
2) transporting a weapon without also carrying a permit to hold or a permit to carry the said weapon;
3) carrying, transporting a weapon while being under the influence of alcohol (0.4 per mil or more) or intoxicated with narcotic, psychotropic or other intoxicating substances;
4) using alcoholic beverages, narcotic, psychotropic or other intoxicating substances after the use of a weapon until the sobriety or intoxication will be tested or it will be refused to carry out the test;
5) carrying a weapon ready for firing (a cartridge is put into the chamber, a revolver is cocked, a archery weapon with an inserted arrow and a drawn string), except under the circumstances when there is a direct threat to the person's health or life;
6) giving a weapon over to another person who does not have the right to hold or carry a weapon of such category and designation (this requirement shall not apply when persons are being trained to use a weapon during a shooting competition, practice, training);
7) carrying a long firearm, a archery weapon in hunting areas without having the right to hunt;
8) hindering the officers of supervisory institutions to inspect weapons, ammunition, places where they are kept, as well as documents related to the acquisition, holding, accounting of weapons, ammunition.
3. This Article shall not regulate the holding and carrying of weapons that belong to the entities having a special status.
Source: http://www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter3/dokpaieska.showdoc_e?p_id=365738&p_query=&p_tr2=
General Requirements for Issuing Permits
6. A permit to acquire a weapon shall be valid for a period of six months from the day of its issuance. In case of failure to acquire a weapon, it shall be possible to apply, in accordance with the general procedure, to a police institution for another permit to acquire a weapon.
7. Permits to acquire weapons shall allow a permit holder to acquire ammunition.
8. Natural persons may acquire and keep at the same time not more than 500 cartridges of each type (calibre) for the weapons they possess. Natural persons who possess weapons for sporting purposes may acquire and keep at the same time an unlimited number of cartridges of each type (calibre).
9. The amount of ammunition which is permitted to be acquired and kept by legal persons shall be established by the Government or an institution authorised by it.
10. Permits to acquire weapons classified in Categories A, B and C, their ammunition shall be issued to permanent residents of the Republic of Lithuania and legal persons registered in the Republic of Lithuania in accordance with the procedure established by the Government or an institution authorised by it. Acquired weapons must be registered at police institutions not later than within 10 days of the acquisition thereof. Upon the registration of the weapons, a permit to carry weapons or a permit to hold them shall be issued. A single permit to carry (hold) weapons may be issued to natural persons. The said permit shall indicate which weapons a person may carry and which he may hold...
Source: http://www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter3/dokpaieska.showdoc_e?p_id=365738&p_query=&p_tr2=
Moldova
Rights and Obligations of Weapon Owners and Users
Owners and users of weapons shall have the right to:
a) hold and carry weapon in compliance with the requirements under which the weapon was obtained;
b) use the weapon only in the cases and in the manner prescribed by positive regulations.
Owners and users of weapons are obligated to:
a) use the weapon only in compliance with the requirements under which the weapon was obtained;
b) ensure maintaining the weapon and ammunition in preserved condition in compliance with positive laws and normative acts of the Ministry of the Interior.
Source: http://www.seesac.org/uploads/armslaws/moldova.pdf
Carrying the Weapon
Owner, possessor or user, while they are carrying the weapon, are obligated to have on their person the due permit issued by the local police authority.
Source: http://www.seesac.org/uploads/armslaws/moldova.pdf
Use of Firearms
Persons having the permit to hold and carry the weapon may use the weapon as a last resort in the following cases:
a) For self-defence and for protection of persons from attack that poses a real threat to life and health, as well as for the prevention of seizure of firearms through the use of force.
b) In order to repel a group or armed attack on facilities and premises guarded, which belong to physical and legal persons;
c) In order to ward off breaking into residential and business facilities which threatens the life and health of persons present on these premises;
d) In order to arrest a person who offers armed resistance, or who was caught to perform a serious criminal offence and who attempts to leave the scene of the crime.
Owners, possessors, and users may also use firearms for raising alarm or calling for help, as well as for rendering harmless the animal which threatens the life and health of persons
Source: http://www.seesac.org/uploads/armslaws/moldova.pdf
Monaco
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm
Montenegro
Physical person may carry weapons on the ground of weapon permit and possess it on the basis of permit to carry it.
Source: http://www.poa-iss.org/CountryProfiles/CountryProfiles.aspx
Poland
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm
Romania
Physical persons shall be allowed to hold and, as appropriate, carry and use the arms and ammunition only based on the permit issued by the authorities of the Ministry of the Interior with the jurisdiction over the area in which such persons have place of residence.
Competent authorities of the Ministry of the Interior may issue to physical persons the licences to hold, carry or use arms and ammunition, pursuant to the provisions herein and provided they keep due records of it.
Competent authorities of the Ministry of the Interior shall define the number of weapons that may be held, where one and the same person may not be approved to hold more than two weapons of the same calibre, and the quantity of ammunition appropriate for such weapons.
Source: http://www.poa-iss.org/CountryProfiles/CountryProfiles.aspx
The person licensed to hold and, as appropriate, carry arms and ammunition shall be issued a "Weapon License".
In the weapon license, the competent authority shall enter the description of the arms and ammunition that the license holder is authorized to own, and the purpose for which such arms and ammunition may be used.
The weapon licence shall entitle its holder to hold and, as appropriate, carry and use the arms and appropriate ammunition as entered in such licence, as well as borrowed arms and ammunition, pursuant to the provisions provided by the law.
Source: http://www.poa-iss.org/CountryProfiles/CountryProfiles.aspx
Serbia
Relevant authorities shall issue permit to carry weapon for personal safety based on the decision approving carrying of such weapons.
Permit to carry weapons shall be valid for the period of five years from the day of its issuance and may be extended, if a holder submits an application 30 days at the latest prior to is expiration, for the same period of time if the relevant authorities conclude that the reasons due to which the initial permit has been issued continue to exist.
If the relevant authorities find out, in the course of the procedure from the paragraph 2 of this Article, that the reasons because of which carrying of weapon has been approved, ceased to exist, he shall suggest the authorized official to bring a decision by means of which carrying of weapon shall be banned. In case authorized official finds out that the reasons on the ground of which carrying of the weapons has been approved, ceased to exist, he shall make decision by means of which carrying of weapons shall be banned.
The authorized official shall make decision to ban weapon carrying and to take away permit to carry weapons in case the relevant authorities find out even before permit expiration that the reasons because of which carrying of the weapons has been approved ceased to exist.
An appeal against the decision from the paragraph 3 and 4 of this Article may be submitted to the Minister of Interior within 15 days from the day of decision reception.
Source: http://www.poa-iss.org/CountryProfiles/CountryProfileInfo.aspx?CoI=169&pos=30
A person possessing weapon permit and permit to carry such weapon may carry weapon for personal safety.
A person wishing to carry weapon for the purpose of personal safety shall submit to the relevant authorities written application, containing proper explanation.
Based on the application from the paragraph 2 of this Article, official of the organizational unit authorized by the Minister of Interior (hereinafter referred to as authorized official) shall bring decision approving carrying of the weapons for the purpose of personal safety if convinced that there are exceptional and justified reasons for safety protection of the applicant.
In case application for obtaining permit to carry weapons for personal safety has been rejected, applicant may submit an appeal with the Minister of Interior within 15 days from the day of decision reception.
Source: http://www.poa-iss.org/CountryProfiles/CountryProfileInfo.aspx?CoI=169&pos=30
Slovakia
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm
Slovenia
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm
Spain
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm
Sweden
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm
Switzerland
Carrying of arms
1 Any person who carries an arm in a place accessible to the general public or who transports an arm must hold a licence to carry arms. The holder of this licence must keep it on him and present it upon request to the police or customs authorities. Art. 28, para. 1 is reserved.
2 A licence to carry arms is issued to any person who fulfills the following conditions:
a. no objection can be raised against the person for any of the reasons as referred to in art. 8, para. 2;
b. the person plausibly establishes that he needs an arm to protect himself or third parties or objects against a tangible danger;
c. the person has passed an examination attesting to the fact that he is capable of handling an arm and knows the legal provisions regarding the use of arms; the Federal Police and Justice Department lays down examination regulations.
3 The licence to carry arms is issued by the competent authority of the Canton of ordinary residence for a given type of arm for a maximum period of five years. It is valid throughout Switzerland and fees may be payable. The persons ordinarily resident abroad must obtain it from the competent authority of the Canton by which they intend entering Switzerland.
Source: http://www.un-casa.org/CASACountryProfile/NationalLegislation/[email protected]
Turkey
Source: http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/
Ukraine
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm
Though as previously mentioned, I could not find information for a number of European states, such as Andorra, Denmark and Italy.
-
Nakura, learn to read law before you quote it.
There are extremely few, extremely exceptional circumstances, under which it is legal to carry any firearm in Canada in public. You have just taken those sections a long way out of their context. I'll explain more later tonight if I have time, but you have just displayed that you know nothing about Canadian firearms laws.
-
Nakura, learn to read law before you quote it.
There are extremely few, extremely exceptional circumstances, under which it is legal to carry any firearm in Canada in public. You have just taken those sections a long way out of their context. I'll explain more later tonight if I have time, but you have just displayed that you know nothing about Canadian firearms laws.
Nothing was taken out of context, any Canadian legal expert could back me up on this. You're the one making up random accusations, by accusing me of "knowing nothing about Canadian firearms law," when you provide absolutely ZERO laws or court interpretations that disagree with anything I posted.
So tell me, Ryan, what did I "take out of context" again?
-
Nakura, learn to read law before you quote it.
There are extremely few, extremely exceptional circumstances, under which it is legal to carry any firearm in Canada in public. You have just taken those sections a long way out of their context. I'll explain more later tonight if I have time, but you have just displayed that you know nothing about Canadian firearms laws.
[...] any Canadian legal expert could back me up on this. [...]
Did I just read this?
-
I'm going to venture a guess that you didn't realize that I read (and enforce) Canadian law for a living before you made that post and set yourself up for the written point-by-point deconstruction that follows. In point of fact, any Canadian legal expert would tell you exactly what I did. But now that I have some time to elaborate, I shall.
Common Law and Self-Defence
So, all Common Law countries - and the US uses a derivation of Common Law - use virtually the same principles for self-defense: a person's duty is first to retreat if possible, but may use reasonable force to defend themselves or other persons. If one reasonably believes they are in imminent danger of death or grievous bodily harm as a result of force used against them, they may use force intended to cause grievous death or bodily harm to defend themselves.
This means literally every weapon of opportunity is acceptable. That means a drug dealer who has an illegal handgun may legally use it to defend themselves. That does not mean they are not still criminally liable for illegal possession of a weapon. I'll come back to this.
Stand Your ground
Stand Your Ground Laws are a twist on Common Law - they remove the duty to retreat. They do not exist outside the United States in other Common Law countries. You are correct that SYG was never argued by Zimmerman - he never needed to. He had no opportunity to retreat when he was facing death/grievous bodily harm. However, that is irrelevant for my argument above. SYG merely muddys the Florida waters and the comprehensive circumstances I blamed for this mess.
Use of Weapons In Self-Defence
As I mentioned above, any weapon of opportunity is acceptable so long as the level of force is reasonable. That means if a person reasonably believes someone is trying to kill them, they can use whatever they get their hands on to stop them. BUT if you possessed that weapon of opportunity before you needed to use it, and you possessed it in a manner that is illegal, you are still criminally liable for that.
Canadian Firearms Law
Firearms in Canada are governed by the Criminal Code (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/) and the Firearms Act and its Regulations (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-11.6/). The Firearms Act divides weapons into three classes: non-restricted, restricted, and prohibited. To possess or transport any of them, you must have an appropriate license. All handguns are either restricted or prohibited. This will become important momentarily. The Firearms Act governs the circumstances under which a person may own, possess, and transport a firearm. The Criminal Code (Part III) sets out the criminal laws that apply to the possession, use, storage, and transport of firearms. Both are criminal legislation.
To own a firearm generally, one must be licensed. Conditions for non-restricted weapons and licenses are fairly benign. Conditions on restricted and prohibited weapons are quite strict. Restricted and prohibited weapons may only be possessed and used at particular locations under particular circumstances, and transported between those locations and your residence. This is all governed by a permit called an Authorization to Transport (ATT). Possession/use/transport outside of the parameters of your ATT, the Firearms Act, and the Regulations under the Firearms Act is a criminal offence under part III of the Criminal Code (section varies by circumstances).
Now, you referred to section 20 of the Firearms Act earlier. Section 20 is a CFO exemption which may be granted under specific circumstances, by permit, to certain persons, on a case by case basis. This is the section that allows corporations or individuals to apply for permits for their employees to carry handguns - armed security among them. These conditions may be amended onto an ATT in advance. Section 20 is located under the heading "Authorized Transportation of Firearms" for a reason, and is a special exemption to s.17, which requires a license holder to keep their restricted or prohibited weapon only at their dwelling or places authorized in their ATT. Section 20 is not a blanket that applies to all or most license-holders in Canada; it applies to very, very few.
Furthermore, s.20 is actually governed by Regulations. Specifically, the Authorizations to Carry Restricted Firearms and Certain Handguns Regulations, found at the bottom of the Firearms Act. There are extremely limited circumstances under which s.20 may even be applied. They are spelled out in detail there, you may read them if you wish.
Concealed Carry in Canada
Is completely illegal, except for peace officers permitted to use Criminal Code provisions that enable them to break the law in the course of their duties. In fact, carrying ANY concealed weapon is illegal in Canada, generally speaking. Section 90 of the Criminal Code. There are a few other Criminal Code offences and Firearms Act offences that relate as well, but 90 is the main one. S.90 hints there may be some circumstances under which the Firearms Act may authorize concealed carry (which will be by permit), but I have yet to ever find a related section of the Firearms Act that corresponds, or a provision in the Regulations. An exemption under one or the other would be required to negate s.90 of the CC, and a permit condition would be required as well.
Generally speaking, concealed carry does not legally exist in Canada.
George Zimmerman in Canada
Back to the original premise then. In Canada, George Zimmerman could not have carried a handgun around his neighbourhood, holster or concealed. He would never have been able to get a permit - he doesn't meet any of the Criminal Code conditions. Thus, his carrying of a handgun would have been completely illegal.
Would he be guilty of second-degree murder here? No - he used a weapon of opportunity to defend himself legally.
Would he be guilty of manslaughter here? Maybe - the intent requirements on manslaughter in Canada are considerably less than murder charges. s.232 of the Criminal Code.
Would he be guilty of criminal negligence causing death here? Almost certainly. s.219 and 220 of the Criminal Code. The prosecution could meet that bar quite easily.
Would he be guilty of firearms offences here? Absolutely - carrying a restricted or prohibited weapon in the circumstances and manner he did constitutes violations under Part III of the Criminal Code.
Given that I've forgotten more about Canadian law than you've ever known, Nakura, I trust you will shortly be recanting all of your statements on this page of the thread concerning Dragoth's and my posts and Canadian law on the subject. Given your grasp of Canadian law is best described as "atrocious," I'm going to venture a guess that all of the quotes you just provided concerning other countries are similarly distorted and ill-informed.
-
Nakura, while I can't prove that what MP-Ryan says about his occupation is true, if you put a gun to my head and told me to decide, I'd say he's telling the truth. I'll just drop this here, as I've seen him mention it before more than once, so you don't think it's too big of a coincidence to believe:
I work in law enforcement and hear the "but it's the spirit of the law" "but that's not how we meant to write it" "it's implied!" arguments all the time. If there's one thing I've learned in approaching 8 years of law enforcement experience, it's this:
-
I'm going to venture a guess that you didn't realize that I read (and enforce) Canadian law for a living before you made that post and set yourself up for the written point-by-point deconstruction that follows. In point of fact, any Canadian legal expert would tell you exactly what I did. But now that I have some time to elaborate, I shall.
Common Law and Self-Defence
So, all Common Law countries - and the US uses a derivation of Common Law - use virtually the same principles for self-defense: a person's duty is first to retreat if possible, but may use reasonable force to defend themselves or other persons. If one reasonably believes they are in imminent danger of death or grievous bodily harm as a result of force used against them, they may use force intended to cause grievous death or bodily harm to defend themselves.
This means literally every weapon of opportunity is acceptable. That means a drug dealer who has an illegal handgun may legally use it to defend themselves. That does not mean they are not still criminally liable for illegal possession of a weapon. I'll come back to this.
Stand Your ground
Stand Your Ground Laws are a twist on Common Law - they remove the duty to retreat. They do not exist outside the United States in other Common Law countries. You are correct that SYG was never argued by Zimmerman - he never needed to. He had no opportunity to retreat when he was facing death/grievous bodily harm. However, that is irrelevant for my argument above. SYG merely muddys the Florida waters and the comprehensive circumstances I blamed for this mess.
Use of Weapons In Self-Defence
As I mentioned above, any weapon of opportunity is acceptable so long as the level of force is reasonable. That means if a person reasonably believes someone is trying to kill them, they can use whatever they get their hands on to stop them. BUT if you possessed that weapon of opportunity before you needed to use it, and you possessed it in a manner that is illegal, you are still criminally liable for that.
Canadian Firearms Law
Firearms in Canada are governed by the Criminal Code (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/) and the Firearms Act and its Regulations (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-11.6/). The Firearms Act divides weapons into three classes: non-restricted, restricted, and prohibited. To possess or transport any of them, you must have an appropriate license. All handguns are either restricted or prohibited. This will become important momentarily. The Firearms Act governs the circumstances under which a person may own, possess, and transport a firearm. The Criminal Code (Part III) sets out the criminal laws that apply to the possession, use, storage, and transport of firearms. Both are criminal legislation.
To own a firearm generally, one must be licensed. Conditions for non-restricted weapons and licenses are fairly benign. Conditions on restricted and prohibited weapons are quite strict. Restricted and prohibited weapons may only be possessed and used at particular locations under particular circumstances, and transported between those locations and your residence. This is all governed by a permit called an Authorization to Transport (ATT). Possession/use/transport outside of the parameters of your ATT, the Firearms Act, and the Regulations under the Firearms Act is a criminal offence under part III of the Criminal Code (section varies by circumstances).
Now, you referred to section 20 of the Firearms Act earlier. Section 20 is a CFO exemption which may be granted under specific circumstances, by permit, to certain persons, on a case by case basis. This is the section that allows corporations or individuals to apply for permits for their employees to carry handguns - armed security among them. These conditions may be amended onto an ATT in advance. Section 20 is located under the heading "Authorized Transportation of Firearms" for a reason, and is a special exemption to s.17, which requires a license holder to keep their restricted or prohibited weapon only at their dwelling or places authorized in their ATT. Section 20 is not a blanket that applies to all or most license-holders in Canada; it applies to very, very few.
Furthermore, s.20 is actually governed by Regulations. Specifically, the Authorizations to Carry Restricted Firearms and Certain Handguns Regulations, found at the bottom of the Firearms Act. There are extremely limited circumstances under which s.20 may even be applied. They are spelled out in detail there, you may read them if you wish.
Concealed Carry in Canada
Is completely illegal, except for peace officers permitted to use Criminal Code provisions that enable them to break the law in the course of their duties. In fact, carrying ANY concealed weapon is illegal in Canada, generally speaking. Section 90 of the Criminal Code. There are a few other Criminal Code offences and Firearms Act offences that relate as well, but 90 is the main one. S.90 hints there may be some circumstances under which the Firearms Act may authorize concealed carry (which will be by permit), but I have yet to ever find a related section of the Firearms Act that corresponds, or a provision in the Regulations. An exemption under one or the other would be required to negate s.90 of the CC, and a permit condition would be required as well.
Generally speaking, concealed carry does not legally exist in Canada.
George Zimmerman in Canada
Back to the original premise then. In Canada, George Zimmerman could not have carried a handgun around his neighbourhood, holster or concealed. He would never have been able to get a permit - he doesn't meet any of the Criminal Code conditions. Thus, his carrying of a handgun would have been completely illegal.
Would he be guilty of second-degree murder here? No - he used a weapon of opportunity to defend himself legally.
Would he be guilty of manslaughter here? Maybe - the intent requirements on manslaughter in Canada are considerably less than murder charges. s.232 of the Criminal Code.
Would he be guilty of criminal negligence causing death here? Almost certainly. s.219 and 220 of the Criminal Code. The prosecution could meet that bar quite easily.
Would he be guilty of firearms offences here? Absolutely - carrying a restricted or prohibited weapon in the circumstances and manner he did constitutes violations under Part III of the Criminal Code.
Given that I've forgotten more about Canadian law than you've ever known, Nakura, I trust you will shortly be recanting all of your statements on this page of the thread concerning Dragoth's and my posts and Canadian law on the subject. Given your grasp of Canadian law is best described as "atrocious," I'm going to venture a guess that all of the quotes you just provided concerning other countries are similarly distorted and ill-informed.
Yes, occupation is one of the 'genuine reasons' to carry a handgun, but protection of life is also a genuine reason for applying for a carry permit. Protection of life permits, though generally issued to protect from wild animals, are also issued for self-defense (from humans), if the applicant can prove that their life may be in danger and that police protection is insufficient. Normal civilian authorization to carry licenses only apply to open carry, because of the Criminal Code. However, there is a separate permit that is available, a Class 3 Authorization to Carry License. Class 3 licenses allow civilians to carry concealed firearms, one of the few exceptions to the Criminal Code which is available to civilians, but rarely issued.
Here is the full text of the law: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-98-207/FullText.html
I mean no disrespect, Ryan. If I am wrong in this regard, please correct me.
-
Yes, occupation is one of the 'genuine reasons' to carry a handgun, but protection of life is also a genuine reason for applying for a carry permit. Protection of life permits, though generally issued to protect from wild animals, are also issued for self-defense (from humans), if the applicant can prove that their life may be in danger and that police protection is insufficient. Normal civilian authorization to carry licenses only apply to open carry, because of the Criminal Code. However, there is a separate permit that is available, a Class 3 Authorization to Carry License. Class 3 licenses allow civilians to carry concealed firearms, one of the few exceptions to the Criminal Code which is available to civilians, but rarely issued.
Here is the full text of the law: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-98-207/FullText.html
Quit reading Wikipedia. They aren't sourcing the Class information (the MP's website is an ATIP scant on details), and nowhere does that class designation scheme exist in Canadian law. You can't find it in the Firearms Act or its regulations. I invite you to try. The actual authorizations to carry are designated under the Regulations you just linked, and nowhere do the conditions in it permit concealed carry - in point of fact, they specify the use of a holster and often a uniform as well.
Now, it's amazing that you've managed to link the regulations but you haven't read them - or, if you have, my earlier comment that you need to learn how to read law before you quote it applies doubly. There are precisely two circumstances under which a person may be authorized to carry a restricted or prohibited weapon. Reproduced below:
Protection of Life
2. For the purpose of section 20 of the Act, the circumstances in which an individual needs restricted firearms or prohibited handguns to protect the life of that individual or of other individuals are where
(a) the life of that individual, or other individuals, is in imminent danger from one or more other individuals;
(b) police protection is not sufficient in the circumstances; and
(c) the possession of a restricted firearm or prohibited handgun can reasonably be justified for protecting the individual or other individuals from death or grievous bodily harm.
Lawful Profession or Occupation
3. For the purpose of section 20 of the Act, the circumstances in which an individual needs restricted firearms or prohibited handguns for use in connection with his or her lawful profession or occupation are where
(a) the individual’s principal activity is the handling, transportation or protection of cash, negotiable instruments or other goods of substantial value, and firearms are required for the purpose of protecting his or her life or the lives of other individuals in the course of that handling, transportation or protection activity;
(b) the individual is working in a remote wilderness area and firearms are required for the protection of the life of that individual or of other individuals from wild animals; or
(c) the individual is engaged in the occupation of trapping in a province and is licensed or authorized and trained as required by the laws of the province.
Now, in each subparagraph (denoted by letters), you will note the presence of the word "and" or "or." Where "and" appears, every subparagraph must be met for a section to apply. Thus, here is how you read section 2:
For the purpose of section 20 of the Act, the circumstances in which an individual needs restricted firearms or prohibited handguns to protect the life of that individual or of other individuals are where the life of that individual, or other individuals, is in imminent danger from one or more other individuals AND police protection is not sufficient in the circumstances AND the possession of a restricted firearm or prohibited handgun can reasonably be justified for protecting the individual or other individuals from death or grievous bodily harm.
IF all of those conditions are met, then you may be able to get a permit to carry a restricted or prohibited handgun. Maybe. It's still up to the Chief Firearms Officer. They are also specific conditions - you can't just generally be worried and want to carry a gun, it requires you to identify a specific threat which the police cannot counter and for which a gun is reasonably justified. This is a very exceptional, high threshold. Moreover, the permit must require the person to use a holster - it does not authorize concealed carry (subpara 6b, Authorizations to Carry Regulations).
Could George Zimmerman have had such a permit if the incident occurred in Canada? There isn't a snowball's chance in hell. These permits are not typically available to the general public, and they are generally quite rare.
With few very specific, very rigid exceptions, Canadians cannot carry or concealed carry restricted/prohibited firearms in a public place. We also cannot transport or store them loaded and unsecured, nor possess or handle any class of firearm in a manner considered unsafe to the general public - and our police forces very much consider anyone carrying a loaded firearm around in public who is not in an area where hunting or target shooting is expressly permitted to be handling them in a manner unsafe to the general public.
-
Regarding gun permits in Germany: Zimmerman wouldn't have been able to obtain a permit, much less a carry permit at all.
The following regulations apply:
- age of majority (18 years) (§ 4 WaffG)
- trustworthiness (§ 5 WaffG)
- personal adequacy (§ 6 WaffG)
- expert knowledge (§ 7 WaffG) and
- necessity (§ 8 WaffG)
§4 is self-explanatory.
§5 means that someone who has been sentenced to jail for a crime in the past ten years is automatically considered untrustworthy. Same goes for persons where strong indications are present that they lack the necessary discipline to handle a gun responsibly; a lack of secure storage for the gun is one example of this.
Edge cases, where individual judgements may be made, are for people who have been sentenced for a crime without jail time in the past 5 years, former members of associations and parties that were disbanded due to their anti-constitutional activities, people who were specifically working to undermine our democratic order through force or threat of force.
§6 says that people who are legally incapacitated (People who need a legal guardian, basically), addicted to alcohol or stronger drugs, or mentally ill, or in any other way liable to be a threat to themselves and others may not own a gun. Persons under 25 years of age who wish to purchase a firearm need an official certificate of competency, no exceptions.
§7 amounts to a necessity for any prospective gun owner to prove that he has been instructed in proper firearm use and maintenance.
§8, necessity. You absolutely need to prove that you need the gun. A necessity is assumed present if you're a hunter, are a competitive shooter, a collector, an expert for firearms and munitions, a gun store owner or gunsmith, in the protection business or there's a clear and present danger to your life. You also need to prove that the guns you want to own are fit for purpose.
In order to actually own a gun, you need two things. One, a permission to purchase. Two, a permission to own. Both of these are subject to the regulations above. When you do purchase a gun, it has to be registered with the appropriate authorities.
Openly carrying a gun is absolutely prohibited unless you are currently on the job, or transporting it from your home to a shooting stand or similar (in which case you also need to separate the gun and its ammo).
EDIT: Zimmerman would have problems with proving his personal competency and responsibility, given his record. He would very definitely not be able to show a need to own a gun, and even if he somehow got past THAT hurdle, he would not be allowed to carry a gun, openly or concealed, in public.
-
Regarding gun permits in Germany: Zimmerman wouldn't have been able to obtain a permit, much less a carry permit at all.
The following regulations apply:
- age of majority (18 years) (§ 4 WaffG)
- trustworthiness (§ 5 WaffG)
- personal adequacy (§ 6 WaffG)
- expert knowledge (§ 7 WaffG) and
- necessity (§ 8 WaffG)
§4 is self-explanatory.
§5 means that someone who has been sentenced to jail for a crime in the past ten years is automatically considered untrustworthy. Same goes for persons where strong indications are present that they lack the necessary discipline to handle a gun responsibly; a lack of secure storage for the gun is one example of this.
Edge cases, where individual judgements may be made, are for people who have been sentenced for a crime without jail time in the past 5 years, former members of associations and parties that were disbanded due to their anti-constitutional activities, people who were specifically working to undermine our democratic order through force or threat of force.
§6 says that people who are legally incapacitated (People who need a legal guardian, basically), addicted to alcohol or stronger drugs, or mentally ill, or in any other way liable to be a threat to themselves and others may not own a gun. Persons under 25 years of age who wish to purchase a firearm need an official certificate of competency, no exceptions.
§7 amounts to a necessity for any prospective gun owner to prove that he has been instructed in proper firearm use and maintenance.
§8, necessity. You absolutely need to prove that you need the gun. A necessity is assumed present if you're a hunter, are a competitive shooter, a collector, an expert for firearms and munitions, a gun store owner or gunsmith, in the protection business or there's a clear and present danger to your life. You also need to prove that the guns you want to own are fit for purpose.
In order to actually own a gun, you need two things. One, a permission to purchase. Two, a permission to own. Both of these are subject to the regulations above. When you do purchase a gun, it has to be registered with the appropriate authorities.
Openly carrying a gun is absolutely prohibited unless you are currently on the job, or transporting it from your home to a shooting stand or similar (in which case you also need to separate the gun and its ammo).
EDIT: Zimmerman would have problems with proving his personal competency and responsibility, given his record. He would very definitely not be able to show a need to own a gun, and even if he somehow got past THAT hurdle, he would not be allowed to carry a gun, openly or concealed, in public.
Croatia
Outside the hunting grounds or shooting ranges, hunting and sporting weapons may be carried only in suitable holsters or cases and may not be loaded.
Source: http://www.poa-iss.org/CountryProfiles/CountryProfiles.aspx
For the record, our laws are similar to german ones except if you've been sentenced = no gun permit, ever and if you were involved in any domestic abuse cases also.
Also, one of the requirements dictate fitness of health as well and 21 years old.
Concealed carry is mandatory if you wish to carry a weapon as a civilian (and i quote: "Weaponry of categories B, C and D are not to be made visible to the general public, nor is it allowed to be worn in a way that can be construed as disturbing to the general public." ) ,unless you are a police officer with a permit or work in security and have proper permission, in both cases, the weapon must be visible.
i do not know how its around the world but here apparently the classes are as such:
A: any fully automatic or explosive weaponry - completely restricted
B: semi-automatic or single-shot everything that can be construed as a "gunpowder-using firearm" - requires permit and notification of local police
C: spring-rifles, gas rifles and similar with either kinetic energy above 10.5J, pellet speed above 200m/s, or above 4.5mm calibre, bows above 450N pull strength, flintlocks, wheellocks, any other form of fully manual loading rifle or such - requires notification of local police
D: everything that doesnt fit above and includes most knives and such. altough you are forbidden from carrying a knife with a blade over 5 cm's in length as well if memory serves - no notification required, freely availible, but not allowed to wear openly.
-
Austria
Source: http://www.poa-iss.org/CountryProfiles/CountryProfiles.aspx
Aside from you not directly linking to Austria itself (COME ON DUDE, it's like you are intentionally making this inconvenient to make it harder for me to reply here it is (http://www.poa-iss.org/CountryProfiles/CountryProfileInfo.aspx?Acc=M&CoI=12)) this entire page is NOT about individual firearm ownership, it's about firearms trade on a nation wide scale (Like on how Qadaffi got himself a bunch of M113s type of scale). It contains NO information at all on individual carry laws.
Belgium
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm
See above - also, this data is a survey neatly placed into a 1997 ms Acces database file, which I do not have the skills to open or use - You have got to do better then that.
Bulgaria
*snip*
Source: http://www.poa-iss.org/CountryProfiles/CountryProfiles.aspx[/quote]
Incorrect citation at best. See Austria.
Croatia
*snip*
Source: http://www.poa-iss.org/CountryProfiles/CountryProfiles.aspx
Aside from the incorrect citation, that sounds like a NOT ALLOWED to me. An unloaded firearm is as an effective self defence as my hardened mobile telephone.
Cyprus
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm
Incorrect citation.
Czech Republic
*snip*
In the Czech Republic, private possession of handguns (pistols and revolvers) is permitted only with special authorisation (source) (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/czech-republic). It is debetable wether or not this would have been obtained in this case.
Estonia
*snip*
Source: http://www.legaltext.ee/en/andmebaas/ava.asp?m=022
Ooh. So you need a permit, and you can only carry the weapon without ammunition, which must be concealed in such a way that they can not be stolen? In this case, the victim could have run away before the perpetrator even had drawn his gun.
According to my source (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/estonia), The perpetrator would need to have been trained in the use of the gun, and has to go trough many many background checks, including criminal, medical, mental, and military. He also needs a good reason, and since Estonia has an adequate police force, his reason for "protecting the neighborhood" would most likely not apply.
France
*snip*
Source: http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000005618597&dateTexte=vig#
The law which you quoted says "PROHIBITED" unless special requirements are met. I assume you are familiar with the phrase prohibited?
According to my source (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/france), handgun ownership in france is prohibited with only narrow exemptions (such as being a target shooter or a security guard).
Germany
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm
Greece
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm
Hungary
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm
Incorrect citations, see Austria.
Ireland (Republic of)*snip*
Source: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1925/en/act/pub/0017/index.html[/quote]
The law itself says that it is not allowed to carry firearms except with a permit. [http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/ireland]according to my source[/url]:
(2) The conditions subject to which a firearm certificate may be granted are that, in the opinion of the issuing person, the applicant --
(a) has a good reason for requiring the firearm in respect of which the certificate is applied for,
(b) can be permitted to possess, use and carry the firearm and ammunition without danger to the public safety or security or the peace,
(c) is not a person declared by this Act to be disentitled to hold a firearm certificate,
(d) has provided secure accommodation for the firearm and ammunition at the place where it is to be kept,
(e) where the firearm is a rifle or pistol to be used for target shooting, is a member of an authorised rifle or pistol club,
(f) has complied with subsection (3),
(g) complies with such other conditions (if any) specified in the firearm certificate, including any such conditions to be complied with before a specified date as the issuing person considers necessary in the interests of public safety or security, and
(h) in case the application is for a restricted firearm certificate --
(i) has a good and sufficient reason for requiring such a firearm, and
(ii) has demonstrated that the firearm is the only type of weapon that is appropriate for the purpose for which it is required
The last bit is crucial. Ireland has a very capable police force, which themselves do not always carry firearms. If the police can do without them, so can a neighbourhood watch.
Latvia
*snip*
Source: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/latvia
[/quote]
Same source also explains how hard it is to get a licence - see ireland.
Liechtenstein
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm
Incorrect citation
Lithuania
*snip*
Source: http://www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter3/dokpaieska.showdoc_e?p_id=365738&p_query=&p_tr2=
From the same source, article 1 to 5 which you FAILED TO QUOTE tell a tale:
1. Police institutions shall issue permits to acquire weapons classified in Categories A, B and C to natural persons, legal persons registered in the Republic of Lithuania (except entities having a special status, state institutions of criminal expert examination).
2. Permits to acquire weapons classified in Categories A, B and C shall be issued to:
1) natural persons who have the right to acquire weapons of such categories;
2) legal persons, registered in the Republic of Lithuania, who have obtained the licenses specified in subparagraphs 1, 5 and 6 of paragraph 1 of Article 19 of this Law, and who have the right to acquire weapons classified in such Categories;
3) legal persons, registered in the Republic of Lithuania, who carry out professional activities and have the right to acquire weapons classified in such categories;
3. Upon the receipt of applications for the acquisition of weapons, police institutions shall carry out checks with the view of establishing whether the persons who apply for permits to acquire weapons are not subject to the restrictions established by this Law. Checks shall be carried out and decisions concerning the issuance of a permit made not later than within 45 days of the submitting of the application.
4. Persons who have valid permits to carry weapons or permits to hold weapons shall be issued permits for new weapons by police institutions not later than within 5 days of the submitting of the application. Repeated checks indicated in paragraph 3 of this Article shall not be carried out.
5. Refusal to issue a permit must be grounded. An applicant or a person authorised by him shall be entitled to appeal against the refusal to issue a permit to the Commissar General of the Police who must, not later than within 30 days, make a decision concerning the issuance of a permit to acquire a weapon. An applicant who has not received a satisfying reply or who has not received any reply, may appeal to the court against the refusal to issue a permit to acquire a weapon.
As in, only under special circumstances, which would not have been applied in the perpetrators case.
Moldova
*SNIP*
Source: http://www.seesac.org/uploads/armslaws/moldova.pdf
that quote of yours only states what one can do WITH a license, not how one OBTAINS the licence.
However, that licence may be granted for reasons of self defence, so there you go. In this one (1) case, it is likely that the accusant is allowed to have a weapon on him.
Monaco
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm
Montenegro
Physical person may carry weapons on the ground of weapon permit and possess it on the basis of permit to carry it.
Source: http://www.poa-iss.org/CountryProfiles/CountryProfiles.aspx
Poland
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm
Incorrect citations
Romania
*snip*
Again, license and permit required.
Serbia
*snip*
Serbia is not part of the European Union.
Slovakia
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm
Slovenia
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm
Spain
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm
Sweden
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm
Incorrect citations
Switzerland
Carrying of arms
1 Any person who carries an arm in a place accessible to the general public or who transports an arm must hold a licence to carry arms. The holder of this licence must keep it on him and present it upon request to the police or customs authorities. Art. 28, para. 1 is reserved.
2 A licence to carry arms is issued to any person who fulfills the following conditions:
a. no objection can be raised against the person for any of the reasons as referred to in art. 8, para. 2;
b. the person plausibly establishes that he needs an arm to protect himself or third parties or objects against a tangible danger;
c. the person has passed an examination attesting to the fact that he is capable of handling an arm and knows the legal provisions regarding the use of arms; the Federal Police and Justice Department lays down examination regulations.
3 The licence to carry arms is issued by the competent authority of the Canton of ordinary residence for a given type of arm for a maximum period of five years. It is valid throughout Switzerland and fees may be payable. The persons ordinarily resident abroad must obtain it from the competent authority of the Canton by which they intend entering Switzerland.
Source: http://www.un-casa.org/CASACountryProfile/NationalLegislation/[email protected]
[/quote]
See bolded part. Debatable whether or not the accusant would have been able to explain that there was an adequate danger (indeed, this whole upheaval is that the victim did NOT posses any kind of danger, and it is unlikely that a licence based on such grounds would be granted, seeing as Switzerland has a very capable police force
Turkey
Source: http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/
Ukraine
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm
Incorrect citations.
Though as previously mentioned, I could not find information for a number of European states, such as Andorra, Denmark and Italy.
Gunpolicy.org has all of them. Not that it would help you, given your complete inaduquacy to actually read the sources you quoted.
-
Croatia
*snip*
Source: http://www.poa-iss.org/CountryProfiles/CountryProfiles.aspx
Aside from the incorrect citation, that sounds like a NOT ALLOWED to me. An unloaded firearm is as an effective self defence as my hardened mobile telephone.
Wrong. Look a post above yours.Concealed carry mandatory, allowed to carry loaded, as uneasy as that makes me now...
I need to read our actual laws on the topic, i'm getting mixed info from foreign sites, compared to info i sourced from domestic sites, apologies up front.
also, the gunpolicy.org statistics for my country make me a bit... scared.
[edit]gunpolicy.org and subsequently poa-iss.org are referencing something that is not the current gun law in croatia.
the current gun law has been brought into power on 6. June 2007. , with corrections and modifications subsequently on 12. December 2008. and 22. May 2012.
The second modification is on the topic of hunting weapons and irrelevant to the topic at hand. (among other things and translating the whole law would be pointless)
the "Arms act" listed on the poa-iss.org site is a translation of the old law with some... issues in regards of signees quoted and such.
the law itself however, states the following:
Link to the law, in Croatian (http://narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/298395.html)
2. Korištenje oružja
Članak 32.
Vlasnik oružja dužan je oružje održavati u ispravnom stanju, pravilno i pozorno rukovati njime.
Oružje je zabranjeno upotrebljavati na javnim mjestima ili na mjestima gdje se može ugroziti sigurnost građana.
Lovačko oružje ne smije se upotrebljavati izvan lovišta, civilnih strelišta ili drugih mjesta određenih za vježbe gađanja.
Športsko oružje ne smije se upotrebljavati izvan civilnih strelišta ili drugih mjesta koja su određena za vježbe gađanja.
Iznimno od odredbe stavka 4. ovoga članka, zračno oružje i luk smiju se upotrebljavati i na mjestima koja su po svom položaju ili po poduzetim mjerama osiguranja takva da se ne može ugroziti sigurnost građana.
Zračnim oružjem te lukom smiju se koristiti i djeca starija od 11 godina na športskim strelištima i na drugim mjestima određenim i uređenim za vježbe gađanja pod nadzorom trenera koji ispunjava opće i posebne uvjete iz članka 10. ovoga Zakona i uvjete propisane posebnim propisom o športu.
Oružje je zabranjeno dati na uporabu djeci, osim prema odredbama ovoga Zakona.
Kratko i dugo lovačko i dugo športsko oružje mora se izvan lovišta, odnosno strelišta prenositi u odgovarajućim navlakama ili kovčezima nenapunjeno, a kratko športsko oružje zaključano u navlakama ili kovčezima.
Layman's translation as follows:
2. Weapon use
Article 32.
The owner of the weapon is required to keep the weapon in working condition and to handle it with proper care.
It is not allowed to use the weapon in public places, or in places where the safety of the greater public can be put at risk.
Hunting weapons are not allowed to be used outside of hunting grounds, civilian shooting ranges or other places set for use for target practice.
Sport weapons cannot be used outside civilian shooting ranges or other places set for use for target practice.
In exception to the decision of line 4 of this article, air weapons and bow can be used in places which are by their position and safety measures undertaken such that public safety cannot be put at risk.
Air weapons and bows can be used by children older than 11 at sport shooting ranges and other places set and equipped for shooting practice under oversight of a trainer which fulfills general and special requirements from article 10. of this Law and requirements set out by the special specification of sport.
Weapons are not allowed to be handled to children, unless by decisions made in this Law.
Short and long hunting and long sports weapons, outside hunting grounds and shooting ranges, must be carried in appropriate covers or lockers unloaded, and short sports weapons must be locked in covers or lockers.
I tried to translate to the best of my knowledge of english and i think that i got the meaning across properly.
In short, from what i know of gun laws here in general, concealed carry has been mandatory since the country exists and you are allowed to carry a loaded firearm.
Technically the law allows you to carry a fully loaded flintlock pistol around without a permit if you can keep it out of public sight (and you notified the local police authority that you own it).
:p
-
Croatia
*snip*
Source: http://www.poa-iss.org/CountryProfiles/CountryProfiles.aspx
Aside from the incorrect citation, that sounds like a NOT ALLOWED to me. An unloaded firearm is as an effective self defence as my hardened mobile telephone.
To be fair the terms buttstroke and pistol whip don't exist because firearms are as ineffective as a cellphone in melee. I know I wouldn't want my skull clocked with a 1911. :P
-
Croatia
*snip*
Source: http://www.poa-iss.org/CountryProfiles/CountryProfiles.aspx
Aside from the incorrect citation, that sounds like a NOT ALLOWED to me. An unloaded firearm is as an effective self defence as my hardened mobile telephone.
To be fair the terms buttstroke and pistol whip don't exist because firearms are as ineffective as a cellphone in melee. I know I wouldn't want my skull clocked with a 1911. :P
Maybe some of you are too young to remember brick phones, but I certainly wouldn't want to be clocked with a couple kinds of cellphone, either :P
-
Croatia
*snip*
Source: http://www.poa-iss.org/CountryProfiles/CountryProfiles.aspx
Aside from the incorrect citation, that sounds like a NOT ALLOWED to me. An unloaded firearm is as an effective self defence as my hardened mobile telephone.
To be fair the terms buttstroke and pistol whip don't exist because firearms are as ineffective as a cellphone in melee. I know I wouldn't want my skull clocked with a 1911. :P
Maybe some of you are too young to remember brick phones, but I certainly wouldn't want to be clocked with a couple kinds of cellphone, either :P
Cellphone? Gimme a rotary and I could stove in a knight's helm. Its got the added bonus of making a pleasant sonorous ring on contact.
-
Croatia
*snip*
Source: http://www.poa-iss.org/CountryProfiles/CountryProfiles.aspx
Aside from the incorrect citation, that sounds like a NOT ALLOWED to me. An unloaded firearm is as an effective self defence as my hardened mobile telephone.
To be fair the terms buttstroke and pistol whip don't exist because firearms are as ineffective as a cellphone in melee. I know I wouldn't want my skull clocked with a 1911. :P
My cellphone is pretty damn hard, shock resistent, and water proof. You can use it to beat someones skull to bloody bits and then call the police to pick him up afterwards :P.
It is not allowed to use the weapon in public places, or in places where the safety of the greater public can be put at risk.
Does that mean that the man who shot that other dude wasn't allowed to use the gun in such circumstance? The street sounds like a public place to me.
-
Austria
Source: http://www.poa-iss.org/CountryProfiles/CountryProfiles.aspx
Aside from you not directly linking to Austria itself (COME ON DUDE, it's like you are intentionally making this inconvenient to make it harder for me to reply here it is (http://www.poa-iss.org/CountryProfiles/CountryProfileInfo.aspx?Acc=M&CoI=12)) this entire page is NOT about individual firearm ownership, it's about firearms trade on a nation wide scale (Like on how Qadaffi got himself a bunch of M113s type of scale). It contains NO information at all on individual carry laws.
Belgium
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm
See above - also, this data is a survey neatly placed into a 1997 ms Acces database file, which I do not have the skills to open or use - You have got to do better then that.
Bulgaria
*snip*
Source: http://www.poa-iss.org/CountryProfiles/CountryProfiles.aspx
Incorrect citation at best. See Austria.
Croatia
*snip*
Source: http://www.poa-iss.org/CountryProfiles/CountryProfiles.aspx
Aside from the incorrect citation, that sounds like a NOT ALLOWED to me. An unloaded firearm is as an effective self defence as my hardened mobile telephone.
Cyprus
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm
Incorrect citation.
Czech Republic
*snip*
In the Czech Republic, private possession of handguns (pistols and revolvers) is permitted only with special authorisation (source) (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/czech-republic). It is debetable wether or not this would have been obtained in this case.
Estonia
*snip*
Source: http://www.legaltext.ee/en/andmebaas/ava.asp?m=022
Ooh. So you need a permit, and you can only carry the weapon without ammunition, which must be concealed in such a way that they can not be stolen? In this case, the victim could have run away before the perpetrator even had drawn his gun.
According to my source (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/estonia), The perpetrator would need to have been trained in the use of the gun, and has to go trough many many background checks, including criminal, medical, mental, and military. He also needs a good reason, and since Estonia has an adequate police force, his reason for "protecting the neighborhood" would most likely not apply.
France
*snip*
Source: http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000005618597&dateTexte=vig#
The law which you quoted says "PROHIBITED" unless special requirements are met. I assume you are familiar with the phrase prohibited?
According to my source (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/france), handgun ownership in france is prohibited with only narrow exemptions (such as being a target shooter or a security guard).
Germany
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm
Greece
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm
Hungary
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm
Incorrect citations, see Austria.
Ireland (Republic of)*snip*
Source: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1925/en/act/pub/0017/index.html[/quote]
The law itself says that it is not allowed to carry firearms except with a permit. [http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/ireland]according to my source[/url]:
(2) The conditions subject to which a firearm certificate may be granted are that, in the opinion of the issuing person, the applicant --
(a) has a good reason for requiring the firearm in respect of which the certificate is applied for,
(b) can be permitted to possess, use and carry the firearm and ammunition without danger to the public safety or security or the peace,
(c) is not a person declared by this Act to be disentitled to hold a firearm certificate,
(d) has provided secure accommodation for the firearm and ammunition at the place where it is to be kept,
(e) where the firearm is a rifle or pistol to be used for target shooting, is a member of an authorised rifle or pistol club,
(f) has complied with subsection (3),
(g) complies with such other conditions (if any) specified in the firearm certificate, including any such conditions to be complied with before a specified date as the issuing person considers necessary in the interests of public safety or security, and
(h) in case the application is for a restricted firearm certificate --
(i) has a good and sufficient reason for requiring such a firearm, and
(ii) has demonstrated that the firearm is the only type of weapon that is appropriate for the purpose for which it is required
The last bit is crucial. Ireland has a very capable police force, which themselves do not always carry firearms. If the police can do without them, so can a neighbourhood watch.
Latvia
*snip*
Source: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/latvia
[/quote]
Same source also explains how hard it is to get a licence - see ireland.
Liechtenstein
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm
Incorrect citation
Lithuania
*snip*
Source: http://www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter3/dokpaieska.showdoc_e?p_id=365738&p_query=&p_tr2=
From the same source, article 1 to 5 which you FAILED TO QUOTE tell a tale:
1. Police institutions shall issue permits to acquire weapons classified in Categories A, B and C to natural persons, legal persons registered in the Republic of Lithuania (except entities having a special status, state institutions of criminal expert examination).
2. Permits to acquire weapons classified in Categories A, B and C shall be issued to:
1) natural persons who have the right to acquire weapons of such categories;
2) legal persons, registered in the Republic of Lithuania, who have obtained the licenses specified in subparagraphs 1, 5 and 6 of paragraph 1 of Article 19 of this Law, and who have the right to acquire weapons classified in such Categories;
3) legal persons, registered in the Republic of Lithuania, who carry out professional activities and have the right to acquire weapons classified in such categories;
3. Upon the receipt of applications for the acquisition of weapons, police institutions shall carry out checks with the view of establishing whether the persons who apply for permits to acquire weapons are not subject to the restrictions established by this Law. Checks shall be carried out and decisions concerning the issuance of a permit made not later than within 45 days of the submitting of the application.
4. Persons who have valid permits to carry weapons or permits to hold weapons shall be issued permits for new weapons by police institutions not later than within 5 days of the submitting of the application. Repeated checks indicated in paragraph 3 of this Article shall not be carried out.
5. Refusal to issue a permit must be grounded. An applicant or a person authorised by him shall be entitled to appeal against the refusal to issue a permit to the Commissar General of the Police who must, not later than within 30 days, make a decision concerning the issuance of a permit to acquire a weapon. An applicant who has not received a satisfying reply or who has not received any reply, may appeal to the court against the refusal to issue a permit to acquire a weapon.
As in, only under special circumstances, which would not have been applied in the perpetrators case.
Moldova
*SNIP*
Source: http://www.seesac.org/uploads/armslaws/moldova.pdf
that quote of yours only states what one can do WITH a license, not how one OBTAINS the licence.
However, that licence may be granted for reasons of self defence, so there you go. In this one (1) case, it is likely that the accusant is allowed to have a weapon on him.
Monaco
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm
Montenegro
Physical person may carry weapons on the ground of weapon permit and possess it on the basis of permit to carry it.
Source: http://www.poa-iss.org/CountryProfiles/CountryProfiles.aspx
Poland
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm
Incorrect citations
Romania
*snip*
Again, license and permit required.
Serbia
*snip*
Serbia is not part of the European Union.
Slovakia
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm
Slovenia
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm
Spain
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm
Sweden
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm
Incorrect citations
Switzerland
Carrying of arms
1 Any person who carries an arm in a place accessible to the general public or who transports an arm must hold a licence to carry arms. The holder of this licence must keep it on him and present it upon request to the police or customs authorities. Art. 28, para. 1 is reserved.
2 A licence to carry arms is issued to any person who fulfills the following conditions:
a. no objection can be raised against the person for any of the reasons as referred to in art. 8, para. 2;
b. the person plausibly establishes that he needs an arm to protect himself or third parties or objects against a tangible danger;
c. the person has passed an examination attesting to the fact that he is capable of handling an arm and knows the legal provisions regarding the use of arms; the Federal Police and Justice Department lays down examination regulations.
3 The licence to carry arms is issued by the competent authority of the Canton of ordinary residence for a given type of arm for a maximum period of five years. It is valid throughout Switzerland and fees may be payable. The persons ordinarily resident abroad must obtain it from the competent authority of the Canton by which they intend entering Switzerland.
Source: http://www.un-casa.org/CASACountryProfile/NationalLegislation/[email protected]
[/quote]
See bolded part. Debatable whether or not the accusant would have been able to explain that there was an adequate danger (indeed, this whole upheaval is that the victim did NOT posses any kind of danger, and it is unlikely that a licence based on such grounds would be granted, seeing as Switzerland has a very capable police force
Turkey
Source: http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/
Ukraine
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm
Incorrect citations.
Though as previously mentioned, I could not find information for a number of European states, such as Andorra, Denmark and Italy.
Gunpolicy.org has all of them. Not that it would help you, given your complete inaduquacy to actually read the sources you quoted.
[/quote]
Gunpolicy.org is one of the main sources I used, and it corroborates everything I said. Go ahead and check for yourself: http://www.gunpolicy.org/
And gunpolicy.org doesn't have information for a number of countries, such as the ones I mentioned (Andorra, Denmark, Italy, etc.). Check for yourself, there is no data available on those nations laws. You can't just ignore inconvenient facts by saying "incorrect citation," when the nations laws themselves, the United Nations and GunPolicy.org all show that the right to carry is legal.
You keep saying "a permit is required to carry in this country," as if that means anything. A permit is required to carry a handgun in Florida as well, a permit that George Zimmerman obtained legally. If Zimmerman had a carry permit in say, Sweden, or any other country and that list, then he could legally carry his firearm.
-
Is Portugal not part of the EU now?
-
Are you even reading what other people are writing.
Carry permits are incredibly rare in Europe, and a lot of countries restrict them to people who have a really really good reason to have them. You've also ****ed up the quote chain, making distinguishing what you are saying almost impossible to make out.
-
Tip: Bottom three paragraphs are from Nakura.
-
Tip: Bottom three paragraphs are from Nakura.
Oh, I know that. But I only found that out after scrutinizing the massive post he quoted. That's bad. That he didn't even make a point is even worse.
-
Tip: Bottom three paragraphs are from Nakura.
Oh, I know that. But I only found that out after scrutinizing the massive post he quoted. That's bad. That he didn't even make a point is even worse.
The post wasn't directed at you personally btw, but for anyone who scrolls down the latest posts, so they'll see that first and save themselves some time.
Newb mistake with the quote system I expect. I did that too early on.
-
*snip*
It's also usually a good idea to cut out some part of a quote chain once they start getting big. It gets a bit hard to read after a while. Especially if your answer is not much more than a couple of small paragraphs.
-
It is not allowed to use the weapon in public places, or in places where the safety of the greater public can be put at risk.
Does that mean that the man who shot that other dude wasn't allowed to use the gun in such circumstance? The street sounds like a public place to me.
From what i remember of previous cases of that stuff happening over here, in general using a firearm in self-defence against someone who is not threatening you with a firearm construes as "over-use of force".
Why? Becuase its almost the same deal as if you are a professional martial artist. If they dont back down after the third verbal warning, they are fair game.
(in short, if threatened, yes, you are effectively permitted to brandish the weapon in an effort to intimidate right back and are sort-of required to warn. not 100% sure on that one. it is still however considered extremely bad form to shoot the offender if he was not brandishing a gun of his own)
also, yes, i am very, very aware of the holes that puts in the law and what "word of mouth" entails in cases like that.
in short, comparing it to the american case: "gross overuse of force" or "vigilantism"
(which for the record is very very very illegal here. citizens arrest exists, but is very rarely used because of the caveats involved)
-
Gunpolicy.org is one of the main sources I used, and it corroborates everything I said. Go ahead and check for yourself: http://www.gunpolicy.org/
And gunpolicy.org doesn't have information for a number of countries, such as the ones I mentioned (Andorra, Denmark, Italy, etc.). Check for yourself, there is no data available on those nations laws. You can't just ignore inconvenient facts by saying "incorrect citation," when the nations laws themselves, the United Nations and GunPolicy.org all show that the right to carry is legal.
You keep saying "a permit is required to carry in this country," as if that means anything. A permit is required to carry a handgun in Florida as well, a permit that George Zimmerman obtained legally. If Zimmerman had a carry permit in say, Sweden, or any other country and that list, then he could legally carry his firearm.
Gunpolicy.org is nto the main source you used in that post, and it does not correborate everything you said. In fact, it correberates what I said. I even quoted and everything - You need to start reading my posts.
Incorrect citation means quite simply that you did not cite properly - If you only link to a general site which may or may not contain any information then you are doing it wrong. You are making the statements, so you will have to put some work into making those statements veriable. I don't have to do that for you (link DIRECTLY to the source. Like I did). And with some of those "Citations" you didn't actually cite anything.
If you had taken the time to fully read my post, you would also have noticed that I quoted the requirements for the permit - which, across european countries, are extremely harsh. All the countres that require a permit to obtain a handgun also require a person to have a good reason to own one, which is in almost every case you to be a professional hunter/target shooter/security gaurd. "Protecting the neighborhood" is not a valid reason, and even if it was, you would not need a gun to do so (Governments make damn sure that they have the "Monopoly on violence")
-
Never explain to malice what can be described to incompetence...
And gunpolicy.org doesn't have information for a number of countries, such as the ones I mentioned (Andorra, Denmark, Italy, etc.)
This is the link to Italy: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/italy
This is the link to denmark: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/denmark
This is the link to andorra: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/andorra
Notice a pattern? Also notice how those countries are in the drop down box by "Find gun policy facts"?
I am sorry, but if you are not able to find that even though you've used gun policy a lot like you claim, then it is a suprise you were able to find this forum in the first place. Therefore, I ascribe this to malice and say that you are an open lair. That is not going to improve your points in my eyes.
But anyway, now that we are busy
Italy only allows handguns via special authorisation (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/italy)
Portugal only allows handguns via special authorisation (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/portugal)
Denmark only allows handguns via special authorisation (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/denmark)
Andorra is not part of the European Union (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andorra). Indeed, the gunpolicy.org link has suprisingly few information on firearm regulation in this. Since Andorra is a very small country, it is safe to assume it has no laws on this. However, andorra is a VERY small country (60,000 inhabitants) and therefore does not have it's own law enforcement - it's being regulated by France and Spain. Considering France's and Spain's stance on firearms, it's safe to asume that Martin would not be allowed to carry a firearm.
And do you really think that you know the laws of a country better then people who actually live there, and better then the actual laws themselves say? That is what you are claiming, and honestly, I don't think it's going to make you any friends around here.