Thread: Enough of this "Self-Defense" nonsense crap!!

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Originally Posted by imp

Oj is one pin in a haystack to other thousand of other non-black right/wrong cases.

Its just an idea.

A chinese guy kills an indian, lets make the jury x 2 chinese, x2 indian, x2 white, x2 black.

Its just a thought as to how and why the jury is sometimes selected that way.

I think it should always be the best person for the job regardless of race, BUT why not make it all equal.

Makes sense

Well it's tough to be 100% equal in terms of race because there are always tons of other factors that go into jury selection. It's a long process where each side is objecting and making concessions in terms of the jury selection, and race is usually very low on the priority list.

Take this case: it wasn't a matter of grabbing 7 whites and 7 blacks. The lawyers were more interested in how each member of the jury felt about gun laws - the logic being that someone who is 100% against firearms and possession laws would be much less likely to give this guy a fair shake than the average black guy who moderately pro-gun.

There have been cases where the potential jurors had to fill out questionaires upwards of 200 pages to determine if they were eligible. There are companies that specialize in jury selection and sell their expertise for a pretty penny. Its a complicated matter, not simply a matter of making sure there were an equal number of each race represented.

Good comeback.

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Originally Posted by TitoFan

If his sentencing helps to make even one trigger-happy, Neanderthal, macho moron think twice before emptying his gun at someone just 'cause they "pissed him off".... it will have served its purpose.

Yup, that's totally what anyone and everyone who owns a gun is.

Man oh man..... I went back over my post half a dozen times. Searched it with a fine-toothed comb. And I'll be damned if I just couldn't find anything in there saying that's what I said. Must be a special gift that allows you to "read between the lines."

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Originally Posted by TitoFan

If his sentencing helps to make even one trigger-happy, Neanderthal, macho moron think twice before emptying his gun at someone just 'cause they "pissed him off".... it will have served its purpose.

And I for one am quite pleased you who enjoy being "politically correct" can stereotype and berate people who are for the overwhelming part are PEACEFULLY exercising their Constitutional right.

And I'm pleased you're pleased. My mistake, though. I failed to see the fact that Michael Dunn is a "one-of-a-kind" piece of human excretement. Everyone else..... and I mean EVERYONE else...... is a perfectly sane, restrained, law-abiding citizen who is fully aware of the vast responsibility that comes with owning and carrying a firearm. Now that we have him off the streets, we have nothing more to worry about.

Michael Dunn was in the wrong, he made a very idiotic decision and put other lives in danger not only the teenager he killed. Most gun owners will agree with that. It's a far cry from the Martin-Zimmerman incident where 1 person WAS in actual fear for their life and used his firearm in a responsible manner but one that lamentably ended the life of another teenager.

When you say "If his sentencing helps to make even one trigger-happy, Neanderthal, macho moron" it reads like you believe that 100% of gun owners are "trigger-happy Neanderthal, macho morons" and THAT is my point of contention, but maybe you didn't mean it that way I was just going from past debates with you regarding gun control.

Originally Posted by TitoFan

And I'm pleased you're pleased. My mistake, though. I failed to see the fact that Michael Dunn is a "one-of-a-kind" piece of human excretement. Everyone else..... and I mean EVERYONE else...... is a perfectly sane, restrained, law-abiding citizen who is fully aware of the vast responsibility that comes with owning and carrying a firearm. Now that we have him off the streets, we have nothing more to worry about.

Well it also has to be acknowledged that Dunn is 47, so it's quite possible that Dunn has been a gun owner for the better part of 25 years or more without incident. The guy who shot someone to death in the movie theater was a 71 year old ex cop, so he had been carrying a gun on and off duty for half a century without incident. So when you look at it in that context, it really is a rare occurance.

One of the more infuriating points in the whole "Gun Control" debate is this...



Those are the same fucking rifles bar cosmetics, but ooooh one "looks" scary

"this jail is full of blacks and they all act like thugs... This may sound a bit
radical but if more people would arm themselves and kill these idiots when they're threatening you, eventually they may take the hint and change their behavior... the more time I am exposed to these people, the more prejudiced against them I become."

-Letter sent from Dunn in prison to his wife.

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

"this jail is full of blacks and they all act like thugs... This may sound a bit
radical but if more people would arm themselves and kill these idiots when they're threatening you, eventually they may take the hint and change their behavior... the more time I am exposed to these people, the more prejudiced against them I become."

-Letter sent from Dunn in prison to his wife.

WOW how completely ignorant can he be?

Definitely not what you want to put on paper while you're being charged for murdering a black youth after an argument.

I'm with Inuit, the more I read/learn about this guy, the more I'm glad he's going to spend the rest of his years in jail.

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Michael Dunn was in the wrong, he made a very idiotic decision and put other lives in danger not only the teenager he killed. Most gun owners will agree with that. It's a far cry from the Martin-Zimmerman incident where 1 person WAS in actual fear for their life and used his firearm in a responsible manner but one that lamentably ended the life of another teenager.

When you say "If his sentencing helps to make even one trigger-happy, Neanderthal, macho moron" it reads like you believe that 100% of gun owners are "trigger-happy Neanderthal, macho morons" and THAT is my point of contention, but maybe you didn't mean it that way I was just going from past debates with you regarding gun control.

Well of course I don't believe 100% of gun owners are trigger-happy, Neanderthal, macho morons... Lyle. But I also believe there's enough of them out there to create reasonable worry among law-abiding citizens. And speaking of law-abiding citizens, I wouldn't share a tear if someone took out Michael Dunn "Law-Abiding Citizen style".

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Originally Posted by TitoFan

And I'm pleased you're pleased. My mistake, though. I failed to see the fact that Michael Dunn is a "one-of-a-kind" piece of human excretement. Everyone else..... and I mean EVERYONE else...... is a perfectly sane, restrained, law-abiding citizen who is fully aware of the vast responsibility that comes with owning and carrying a firearm. Now that we have him off the streets, we have nothing more to worry about.

Well it also has to be acknowledged that Dunn is 47, so it's quite possible that Dunn has been a gun owner for the better part of 25 years or more without incident. The guy who shot someone to death in the movie theater was a 71 year old ex cop, so he had been carrying a gun on and off duty for half a century without incident. So when you look at it in that context, it really is a rare occurance.

Who knows how many times Dunn came close to using his gun in the past. Heaven knows he's got the twisted sort of personality that goes with gun ownership like gasoline and matches. He was a walking, ticking time bomb.... and it was an unfortunate carful of teenagers that drew the short straw. If it hadn't been them, it would've been someone else down the line.

A bigoted, white-trash, armed macho jerk trying to impress his girlfriend.... and a carful of loud, boisterous black youths. There was no way that wasn't going to happen.

Originally Posted by TitoFan

Who knows how many times Dunn came close to using his gun in the past. Heaven knows he's got the twisted sort of personality that goes with gun ownership like gasoline and matches. He was a walking, ticking time bomb.... and it was an unfortunate carful of teenagers that drew the short straw. If it hadn't been them, it would've been someone else down the line.

A bigoted, white-trash, armed macho jerk trying to impress his girlfriend.... and a carful of loud, boisterous black youths. There was no way that wasn't going to happen.

Ehhh I don't know if I buy the ticking timebomb thing. 1/4 of a century (or more) is a long time for a timebomb to be ticking. I don't believe for a second that guys like him, Zimmerman, the ex cop guy, ect are going out looking to shoot somebody - the consequences whether you're found guilty or not are way too much for that to be a desirable action. And who's wife is going to be impressed by you shooting someone? That sounds kinda far fetched.

I don't think this is anything for anyone to fear. I'd be more afraid of random gun violence, which is usually committed by illegal gun owners aka thugs and criminals.

If you look at all these instances, it was never just a guy shooting someone for no reason, just for the hell of it. The reasons were stupid, of course, but there were actions from the victims that escalated the situations. The guy in the movie theater threw something at his shooter. Does that mean he deserved to get shot? Absolutely not, but it can be considered assault and battery to throw something at someone, regardless of whether it is intended to inflict damage or not. Either way it was far from a classy move on that guy's part.

This kid that was shot apparently made threats towards Dunn and spooked him with something he said. Dunn obviously made the wrong choice in using his firearm, but again it's another case of a guy breaking the law and infringing on someone's rights.

Treyvon needs no explanation, he chose to turn around and actually assault and batter Zimmerman.

I think the biggest lesson that needs to be learned here is to mind your P's and Q's. You can't just threaten or assault someone. It's stupid. Does it mean you deserve to be shot? No, but you're going to get more situations like this.

I don't fear these instances if I'm the States because I know that if someone told me to turn down my music, I wouldn't threaten to kill them. If someone told me to turn my phone off in a movie theater, I wouldn't throw something at them. And if someone was following me and calling the cops on me, I wouldn't turn around and assault them. These are not reasonable reactions. Again, I don't feel that they deserved to be shot, but they definitely contributed in escalating the situation.

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

This kid that was shot apparently made threats towards Dunn and spooked him with something he said. Dunn obviously made the wrong choice in using his firearm, but again it's another case of a guy breaking the law and infringing on someone's rights.

This kid neither threw something at Dunn, nor did he turn around and assault Dunn. He was in a car with a group of other kids, and got shot to death. He did not break any laws, nor did he infringe upon Dunn's rights.

Like you, in today's society I would not provoke someone to the point where I would get shot. I would not throw an object at a perfect stranger, nor would I assault someone unless I was protecting myself or a family member. But Dunn was clearly in the wrong. And everything about his actions and words after the incident do nothing but reinforce the point of his being a bigoted, macho jerk who had no business ever owning or carrying a gun.

What's next? Person "A" shoots person "B" because he had a bad day at the office, and he felt person "B" mocked him and somehow bothered him? This is where we're headed if we continue to excuse assholes like Dunn. This is why I would put him away for life, which is he's hopefully headed, with no probability of parole. Some kind of message needs to be sent to other "would-be Dunns" out there. Having a gun on you carries with it an inmense responsibility. If you can't handle yourself in stressful situations, you have no business being allowed to own or carry a gun.