Preparedness for a home invasion

[Ryujin]

Except zimmerman wasn't breaking the law. He had a right to be in his car. He had a right to exit his car. He had a right to walk through the neighborhood in the same direction as somebody else. He had a right to talk to somebody he met.

It all turned out to be a bad idea, but he wasnt breaking a law. Gangsters having guns were, whichh is why they dont have a right to self defense in Texas.

Sure, as long as the only witness you have to question is the guy who survived. The problem with things like "stand your ground" and "castle doctrine" is that you can seemingly initiate the incident, subsequently 'fear for your life', and then end that of another with near impunity.

 

[Umbran]

Except zimmerman wasn't breaking the law.

Correction - he wasn't found guilty of breaking the law. We have limited information on what actually happened, and one interpretation of the data is that Zimmerman threatened or initiated aggression - effectively committing assault, and thus taking him out of "stand your ground" territory.

Be careful of apples and oranges: You are comparing your third-person-omniscient knowledge of what is happening with the hypothetical gang member with the real case of Zimmerman, for which we do not have that omniscient viewpoint.

So, step back your view on that gang member. Reduce the information you have about him, and the case, to make it equivalent. "Gang member" is going to be difficult to actually prove in court, unless you get one of his fellow gang members to rat on him, so that's really not an issue. Say the weapon itself gets excluded from evidence, on procedural grounds. Or, perhaps more typical for the expected issue, the gang member doesn't have any prior convictions, and, knowing he's in a SYG state, figures he can go ahead and use a gun he legally owns! He is carrying the weapon legally! He can't use it in any robbery, but in any drug-deal gone bad, or in any confrontation with another gang, he may be able to claim SYG if he legally owns a weapon.

"I'm sorry, Your Honor, but I was minding my own business, when this guy came up and started tellin' me to get the heck off 'his turf'. I was just goin' to the corner store for some smokes, Y'r Honor. It looked like he was goin' for a knife, so I shot him."

 

[Kramodlog]

For all we know, Trayvor Martin was standing his grown cause he feared for his life. He just can't tell his side of the story.

 

[Janx]

Correction - he wasn't found guilty of breaking the law. We have limited information on what actually happened, and one interpretation of the data is that Zimmerman threatened or initiated aggression - effectively committing assault, and thus taking him out of "stand your ground" territory.

Be careful of apples and oranges: You are comparing your third-person-omniscient knowledge of what is happening with the hypothetical gang member with the real case of Zimmerman, for which we do not have that omniscient viewpoint.

So, step back your view on that gang member. Reduce the information you have about him, and the case, to make it equivalent. "Gang member" is going to be difficult to actually prove in court, unless you get one of his fellow gang members to rat on him, so that's really not an issue. Say the weapon itself gets excluded from evidence, on procedural grounds. Or, perhaps more typical for the expected issue, the gang member doesn't have any prior convictions, and, knowing he's in a SYG state, figures he can go ahead and use a gun he legally owns! He is carrying the weapon legally! He can't use it in any robbery, but in any drug-deal gone bad, or in any confrontation with another gang, he may be able to claim SYG if he legally owns a weapon.

"I'm sorry, Your Honor, but I was minding my own business, when this guy came up and started tellin' me to get the heck off 'his turf'. I was just goin' to the corner store for some smokes, Y'r Honor. It looked like he was goin' for a knife, so I shot him."

Taking the variables presented as gang members in a shootout, I haven't done that.

In any event, gang members very likely have priors. It is part of their initiation to join a gang as I've heard recently. So it's easier to prove (or at least accept for the purposes of the conversation as originally presented).

Furthermore, in Texas, that guy better have a CHL if he's goin to the corner store for some smokes. he can't have the weapon on him outside of his car or home. That's how they nail crooks for using a weapon to defend themselves. If the weapon was excluded, then he had no weapon in the eyes of the court and thus wasn't a SYG case. For it to be a SYG case, the weapon and its legality is part of the case.

Keep in mind, I have been referring to Texas self defense law (and stating that). Florida is its own jacked up gun laws problem.

 

[Ryujin]

Taking the variables presented as gang members in a shootout, I haven't done that.

In any event, gang members very likely have priors. It is part of their initiation to join a gang as I've heard recently. So it's easier to prove (or at least accept for the purposes of the conversation as originally presented).

Furthermore, in Texas, that guy better have a CHL if he's goin to the corner store for some smokes. he can't have the weapon on him outside of his car or home. That's how they nail crooks for using a weapon to defend themselves. If the weapon was excluded, then he had no weapon in the eyes of the court and thus wasn't a SYG case. For it to be a SYG case, the weapon and its legality is part of the case.

Keep in mind, I have been referring to Texas self defense law (and stating that). Florida is its own jacked up gun laws problem.

And therein lies one of the biggest problems; a country that doesn't have a national strategy with respect to firearms. Legally buy a firearm in another State and then own it illegally in another? Sure.

 

[Umbran]

In any event, gang members very likely have priors. It is part of their initiation to join a gang as I've heard recently.

All gangs are alike, now?

There was an issue in Texas recently with some Hell's Angels. While criminal records are common enough among them, my understanding is that the majority of the club does *not* have a criminal record.

 

[Ryujin]

All gangs are alike, now?

There was an issue in Texas recently with some Hell's Angels. While criminal records are common enough among them, my understanding is that the majority of the club does *not* have a criminal record.

Well operating a criminal organization in which all the members are "known to police" would seem counter productive to both continued operation and profitability. As you imply, no, they aren't all alike. There are several reasons why, for example, street-level drug operations tend to employ children.

 

[Joker]

For all we know, Trayvor Martin was standing his grown cause he feared for his life. He just can't tell his side of the story.

Why has no-one hired a medium to speak with him so he can give his testimony?

Am I the only one using my brain here?

 

[Ryujin]

Why has no-one hired a medium to speak with him so he can give his testimony?

Am I the only one using my brain here?

You have a situation in which only two people are directly involved. Physical evidence is inconclusive. It's not that Zimmerman proved his innocence, but rather that The State could not prove his guilt.

 

[sabrinathecat]

ninja: another mis-used word.
I explained tactics of using a door frame to reduce numbers.
I tried to imply that anyone who had the time and training to learn to use a sword would not be involved in home invasion: they'd either have too much money to be interested, or they'd have people to do that for them.

Yes, there is always the random factor. Sure, they might get lucky. They still either wouldn't get out of the house alive, or wouldn't live very long after leaving. Not unless they had near military grade body armor.