Bay 12 Games Forum

... to a certain degree, yes.

Putting a battery not classified as rechargeable into a battery recharger is not one of those consequences. That's a consequence of... something else >_>

Couple pages back.

So, Zimmerman was tried for murder, correct? Was that a mistake? Could or would he have been found guilty of manslaughter or unlawful killing (or thier local equivalent, you crazy yanks with your degrees in murder) if tried for them? Should that have been the aim of the prosecution? Did they let the emotional nature of the case cloud thier judgement?

Tried on charges of second degree murder or manslaughter, actually. Found not guilty. It... it said so in the article you, yourself, linked.

But still, 20 years for not killing someone (circumstances complicated, clearly) compared to free for actually killing someone (circumstances complicated, clearly) makes the logical part of me shudder.

Mandatory sentencing can be a pretty screwed up thing, yes. That said, the situations are apparently not entirely comparable, and you probably shouldn't be considering the two in relation to one another

Th'law in question is pretty fucked up, yeah.

... no, no, I'm fairly sure they have at some point. Flashing lights, seizures, etc.

Yeah, latter case started being discussed with this post, for those interested.

Does anyone know of, like, a better article on the subject? That one was... frankly, bloody close to outright false on some things. Like the goddamn headline. She was apparently given 20 years for attempted murder, not for firing warning shots. Something a bit more actually informative would be nice... would check myself, but I should seriously be sleeping right now

If her children are in the house, then it makes sense to run back to the house.

... if they were in (immanent) danger, yes (and the article didn't say... I've personally known abusers that never touched a kid, for what little that's worth. And gods know that makes them no less of scum.), but that wouldn't have been covered by SYG stuff. Otherwise th'law holds (so far as I'm aware) that other venues (like calling the cops, ferex) must be attempted before lethal force is pursued (which the court decided was). Blazes if the article provides enough information to know if they were. About all we know -- and even that, not from the article itself -- is that the woman was sentenced for attempted murder. Not stuff related to self-defense, or issues related to warning shots. Maybe the woman chose was the right action to take. Couldn't say, given the information provided.

S'like... yeah, if the kids are in danger, you pull the gun and do what you have to. If they aren't, you don't -- a gun does not come out unless there is immanent and immediate danger, period. I've no clue if the kids were in danger, and apparently (for what it's worth) the court decided they weren't (or at least her lawyer decided not to attempt that angle).

I'm also not about to accept that we should expect her to carefully reason through the legal implications of her actions[...]

Ignorance is kinda' no excuse for breaking the law, et al. If you're a gun owner, you are legally (and, frankly, ethically) obligated to know and hold yourself to the laws related thereof at pretty much all times -- so yeah, reasoning through the legal implications of her actions is part of the (big damn) responsibilities of gun ownership. There's absolutely zero excuse to treat those things cavalierly or without due consideration. Situation can mitigate penalties*, but not the wrongness of the action. I couldn't say, given the information, whether her action was wrong, but the court decided it was and the information I'm currently aware of provides the possibility.

*And part of the problem in this case is the woman ran into the minimum penalty for attempted murder, thus meaning mitigating circumstances couldn't be considered in regards to sentencing. Mandatory sentencing is utter and complete bullshit, yes.

As for whether or not you should pull a gun and then not try to kill somebody with it... If that's how the law works, I have to say the law is wrong. It's a better deterrent when it is pointed at somebody than when it isn't. You shouldn't get it out if you're unwilling to kill somebody with it, but you shouldn't be obligated to try and kill the instant you draw.

You aren't (note warning, etc.). Fairly certain that not providing warning can itself be grounds for legal repercussion in some situations.

What's great is when you remember the days you could say that about a single megabyte.