So I have a modest proposal, and no, it doesn't involve genocide.
I've seen the Tyvonne (Tyvek?) shooting that happened in Florida recently, absolutely beaten to death in the media. This guy that shot him, Zimmerman I think is his name, may or may not face any kind of punishment. For what may or may not have been a justified defense shooting.
That someone has the right to shoot someone if they are threatened with violence, I do not dispute. I'm down with that kind of cowboy shit.
That someone has the right to carry a firearm I also believe in.
Where the rubber meets the road though, is in how they use it, and when, and where. I know there are guidelines for this crap in all the state firearm carry laws.
And who, who do you use it on?
That's a sticky thing. As you might have seen above, I don't remember the kid's name. I'm not even going to look it up. He's dead. Plain and simple. There is no reason for me to know his name. I didn't know him, I didn't love him. But should he have been shot?
Let's make the assumption that he was threatening violence on that Zimmerman fella, because otherwise there is no real discussion, it would just be some degree of murder.
Assuming there was violence in the offing, should Zimmerman have shot him? Did the kid have a weapon? Does it matter? I've seen people get beaten to death with someone's bare hands (thanks internet!), so I know it can be done. Maybe this kid was a bad kid. Does that mean he deserved a death sentence?
Here's a really weird thought: Would it be better to let the kid beat on you some? Or just shoot him? What sort of an attack really deserves an armed response?
If you have a handgun, does it matter? After all, you could be disarmed, and the gun used against you.
So I guess I answered that one myself. If you have a gun, and you are attacked, you have to assume that the other person could get your gun and use it against you. Therefore, a lethal response is your only choice.
What if there are no weapons involved? Should you go for the kill? After all that is a major movie trope, one that gets reenacted in real life often as well; the bit about the guy coming after you again at a later date, and you don't do so well this time. Should you kill them preemptively?
Now that though, opens up some interesting doors. Kind of leads to a free for all of defensive killing, before there is even a fight!
I think it sucks. I have more questions than answers. To really turn the other cheek, one would have to not go armed to begin with I think.
I don't remember where I wanted to go with this when I started. Something about citations for improper gun use or some such. And here I am, at the sad conclusion, that if you carry a gun in public, you should just shoot everyone you see until you run out of ammo. Why? Because any one of them could attack you at any moment, and take your weapon from you, and use it to kill you instead.
There, that's why I don't carry. If I did, it would only lead to homicide! Otherwise, why carry one? A fashion accessory? Please.
Cheers, to preemptive homicide!
Oh, I forgot, one of the reasons I wanted to write about this, is what I read that a Facebook person said.
He said something to the effect of this: "That kid in Florida had been suspended from school multiple times, been caught with drugs, and had punched someone in the nose, breaking it. And you're telling me it was a mistake to shoot him? He deserved it!"
I was appalled to no end. I didn't even reply. How do you reply to something like that? It's like saying that if you've done something wrong, then there is no hope for you, you should just die. Right now.
If what he said is true, then I should have been shot around the age of 20.
But I didn't get shot. I lived on. I grew up, and saw the mistakes I made in life. I try to not make them again. I try to be a good person. I fail often, but I keep trying.
It's all you can do.
But that kid in Florida? He doesn't get a chance to be a better person, to learn from those mistakes. He had judgement passed on him, and died in a puddle of blood on the street, wearing his infamous hoodie.
And I can't even be troubled to remember his name.
I've seen the Tyvonne (Tyvek?) shooting that happened in Florida recently, absolutely beaten to death in the media. This guy that shot him, Zimmerman I think is his name, may or may not face any kind of punishment. For what may or may not have been a justified defense shooting.
That someone has the right to shoot someone if they are threatened with violence, I do not dispute. I'm down with that kind of cowboy shit.
That someone has the right to carry a firearm I also believe in.
Where the rubber meets the road though, is in how they use it, and when, and where. I know there are guidelines for this crap in all the state firearm carry laws.
And who, who do you use it on?
That's a sticky thing. As you might have seen above, I don't remember the kid's name. I'm not even going to look it up. He's dead. Plain and simple. There is no reason for me to know his name. I didn't know him, I didn't love him. But should he have been shot?
Let's make the assumption that he was threatening violence on that Zimmerman fella, because otherwise there is no real discussion, it would just be some degree of murder.
Assuming there was violence in the offing, should Zimmerman have shot him? Did the kid have a weapon? Does it matter? I've seen people get beaten to death with someone's bare hands (thanks internet!), so I know it can be done. Maybe this kid was a bad kid. Does that mean he deserved a death sentence?
Here's a really weird thought: Would it be better to let the kid beat on you some? Or just shoot him? What sort of an attack really deserves an armed response?
If you have a handgun, does it matter? After all, you could be disarmed, and the gun used against you.
So I guess I answered that one myself. If you have a gun, and you are attacked, you have to assume that the other person could get your gun and use it against you. Therefore, a lethal response is your only choice.
What if there are no weapons involved? Should you go for the kill? After all that is a major movie trope, one that gets reenacted in real life often as well; the bit about the guy coming after you again at a later date, and you don't do so well this time. Should you kill them preemptively?
Now that though, opens up some interesting doors. Kind of leads to a free for all of defensive killing, before there is even a fight!
I think it sucks. I have more questions than answers. To really turn the other cheek, one would have to not go armed to begin with I think.
I don't remember where I wanted to go with this when I started. Something about citations for improper gun use or some such. And here I am, at the sad conclusion, that if you carry a gun in public, you should just shoot everyone you see until you run out of ammo. Why? Because any one of them could attack you at any moment, and take your weapon from you, and use it to kill you instead.
There, that's why I don't carry. If I did, it would only lead to homicide! Otherwise, why carry one? A fashion accessory? Please.
Cheers, to preemptive homicide!
Oh, I forgot, one of the reasons I wanted to write about this, is what I read that a Facebook person said.
He said something to the effect of this: "That kid in Florida had been suspended from school multiple times, been caught with drugs, and had punched someone in the nose, breaking it. And you're telling me it was a mistake to shoot him? He deserved it!"
I was appalled to no end. I didn't even reply. How do you reply to something like that? It's like saying that if you've done something wrong, then there is no hope for you, you should just die. Right now.
If what he said is true, then I should have been shot around the age of 20.
But I didn't get shot. I lived on. I grew up, and saw the mistakes I made in life. I try to not make them again. I try to be a good person. I fail often, but I keep trying.
It's all you can do.
But that kid in Florida? He doesn't get a chance to be a better person, to learn from those mistakes. He had judgement passed on him, and died in a puddle of blood on the street, wearing his infamous hoodie.
And I can't even be troubled to remember his name.
Erik and i ran with some scenarios, and I was happy to figure out that all my responses meet up with the CCW laws - basically that until I feel my life is in imminent danger, I wouldn't pull it out. That means, if someone knocks me down, but doesn't come straight at me a second time, I don't pull it out. (I might get into a position where I could do so if I needed, mind you.) And that's because I do not want to pull out a gun unless I really feel that I am ready and am in enough danger to kill someone.
ReplyDeleteOn the case in question - what I really want is to have an investigation, have it go in front of a grand jury, and let them decide if there is a reason to have him in a trial. That's when justice begins for me. It's not clear cut enough for me to believe that he followed 'my' rule on when a gun should be pulled and ready to kill.
I think a lot of the stuff said in the press about the kid is just demonizing the victim as usual - because marijuana use = deserving death? No. (Though as you say, some people would think so, but I believe that's just a cover for his blackness deserving it)
Btw, we had some white friends pulled over leaving our neighbourhood the other day, for driving while white... they wanted to know what business they had here, because it couldn't possibly be innocent. They searched their car and told them that this area is a hotbed of heroin use...(!!) I've never seen that, but hey, it's a good excuse to pull people over for being in the "wrong" area.
I just don't have a real high opinion of the average person as far as being in possession of a gun. I too hope that the case is fully investigated, away from the glare of media. At which time the results could be shared.
Delete