Shotgun

Well, that would make it pretty easy to murder anyone you wanted to. Just carry a gun around, pick a fight with someone, and then shoot them in "self defense." That Texas guy who was posted about earlier in this thread wouldn't be in jail right now if the law allowed for this. The Florida Statute anticipates and explicitly allows shooting somebody in such a situation. The text of the statute includes some requirements but you absolutely can pick a fight with somebody, back off (or give the appearance of same) in some manner, and then shoot them and claim Stand your Ground. The hypothetical question that was asked, which this was in response to, did not have the aggressor backing off at any point.

Well, that would make it pretty easy to murder anyone you wanted to. Just carry a gun around, pick a fight with someone, and then shoot them in "self defense." That Texas guy who was posted about earlier in this thread wouldn't be in jail right now if the law allowed for this.

Following a link from the last link you posted: I also recall reading that at least one of the investigators wanted to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter from the beginning. Not sure why that didn't happen. (Probably would have avoided all the attention the case ended up getting, with perhaps a faster resolution.) And I agree it doesn't sound like a race crime. From the link you posted, one of the investigators said that Z had a hero complex but was not a racist. (Though the "hero complex" comment is not exactly helpful to his case.)

My neighbors have garage sales, parties, maybe even Bible study groups (I don't know) all the time. It doesn't seem to cause a problem around here, because we're all pretty respectful of each other. It seems this guy may have been bugging his neighbors for a while, and since he was also in violation of a bunch of city codes, the neighbors were able to do something about it. This site has a little more information about the backstory: http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2009-06-18/news/phoenix-police-raid-a-local-pastor-s-home-for-holding-church-services/ (kinda long - 3 pages)

Hey, you're the one who lives in that uber-liberal, anti-Christian state of Arizona. You're probably even the one who called the cops on this poor, persecuted Christian man.

Well, now we know how you spend your time when you're not posting on dz.com. At least you didn't accidentally post a porn link.

Llamas with Hats?

http://www.azfamily.com/outbound-feeds/yahoo-news/Phoenix-family-accused-of-building-church-in-backyard-to-be-jailed-159656195.html

Yep. Good reason to stay off of other people's property when you're in those states. And thanks; now I'm craving barbecue potato chips.

There is the crux of the whole sociological/Christian debate and disagreement. When does orientation toward anything not involve a behavior choice? Simply having the orientation is not, in and of itself, a behavior choice. But yeah, technically, an orientation toward anything will likely be followed by a behavior choice. But the majority of people in the fields of medicine, psychology, psychiatry, etc., do not view homosexual behavior as a behavior choice that requires therapy. The Christian part of the debate is only important if the individuals involved are (by choice) Christian and seeking a Christian answer.

I see. Thanks for clearing that up. Of course, "homosexual" refers to a sexual orientation. It's not a behavior choice, and it's not some type of mental illness that needs to be managed through therapy. (Though the stigma that society inflicts on homosexuals may push some of them into therapy.)

Well, except for that whole big field of behavior therapy.

For some people. And for some people, a lot of education creates even more inflated ego. Maybe there is a little bit of a pattern, but I think it's a pretty individual thing. The first example that comes to mind is medical doctors - I've met some whose egos are quite over-inflated because of their status/education, and I've met others who seem humbled by the position they are in. (And I'm certainly a lot more likely to trust the doctor who realizes and admits that he doesn't know everything.)

If one is seeking a sense of inflated self-importance, there are many places it can come from: education, religion, skydiving, "success," etc. But of course a lot of people find a sense of reverence and humility in those same things. (Not disagreeing with what you said; I realize you said "for some.")

My point was that these things would not be possible without "scientific stuff." So maybe "scientific stuff" does affect your life in a positive way? I didn't think otherwise. I was asking you a question, and I assumed your answer would be yes. And it's an example of how "science" can be used to help people deal with the types of problems you mentioned. (Not saying it's the only way to deal with those problems.)

Perhaps the next time you ride your motorcycle, you can reflect on the scientific minds who made such a thing possible. Assuming that riding affects your life in a positive way? You don't have to give up the Bible to appreciate science. And if you're not interested in science, there is no reason to waste your time trying to understand it. But if you stop to think about it, there are probably a lot of things that make your life more enjoyable or more comfortable, which are a result of the work of those who did choose to study science/math, etc. (And I think most of those people are studying it because they enjoy it, not because they're trying to disprove "God," or anything along those lines.) I know you've mentioned the DSM-IV a few times, which I assume you used when you worked in the field? This was largely put together by scientific-type people. Does it also make "little to no sense" to you? Do you think that people who study psychology/psychiatry can be of help to others who are dealing with life problems?

It's a very interesting case, perhaps because of the "greyness" of the situation. Though many seem to see it as black and white, but that's another aspect that I find interesting. I'm sure it sucks for everyone involved (well, maybe not the lawyers). I doubt he will be convicted of anything. Though at this point, I wonder if he can even get a fair trial, if it gets to that point. I still don't understand why the prosecutor chose to charge him with second-degree murder, unless there is a lot of evidence that hasn't been released, but it doesn't sound like that is the case.

I'm discussing a story that's in the news. I don't recall ever saying that I don't know anything about what happened. But, like everyone else who wasn't there, I only know what I have read in the news.

Which contradicts Z's account of what was said and done. So we don't know what actually happened at this point, one way or another. And the guy who got killed in Texas never called the police, but his shooter DID. What does that have to do with anything? (Aside from being another similarity between the two cases. )

Well, "looking for suspicious activity" might be a more appropriate description than "looking for trouble." I'm pretty sure that neighborhood watch programs stress that volunteers should only REPORT suspicious activity to law enforcement; NEVER investigate it on their own.

We don't know exactly why Zimmerman left his truck, getting himself further into the "situation," or that he did not start the confrontation. It's quite possible that his story is true, but we have no way of knowing. I guess one of the main differences in the two cases is that there is more known about what actually happened in the TX case. Oh, and Z didn't claim that he had LEFT the area; he said he was leaving the area. But the location where TM was shot does not either confirm nor contradict Z's claim.

People claim evolution as "the creator and designer of the universe"? I don't think I've ever heard that.

The end result of anything is death. Drink water long enough - death. Breath long enough - death. Eat tofu long enough - death. You're going to die of something no matter what. I'm not saying alcoholism is a good thing, but to say death is the reason it's bad is specious. That is just the way medical science describes the disease. OK, I've been following along here, and I think this is where the two of you started talking about two different things. I don't think quade was ever arguing that alcoholism isn't a disease. I think his point was that the end result of life is death. You're going to die whether you stop drinking or not. I think a better argument for giving up drug abuse is that you might live longer, or perhaps have a better quality of life. Of course, that is the point. Quade just goes around in circles playing dumb to create frustration. Like I said, entertaining to a point. Then he becomes pointless. He just argues to be arguing. Actually, you seemed to be the one who was not getting it, unless you were just playing dumb?

The end result of anything is death. Drink water long enough - death. Breath long enough - death. Eat tofu long enough - death. You're going to die of something no matter what. I'm not saying alcoholism is a good thing, but to say death is the reason it's bad is specious. That is just the way medical science describes the disease. OK, I've been following along here, and I think this is where the two of you started talking about two different things. I don't think quade was ever arguing that alcoholism isn't a disease. I think his point was that the end result of life is death. You're going to die whether you stop drinking or not. I think a better argument for giving up drug abuse is that you might live longer, or perhaps have a better quality of life.

I don't think it was even a 911 call. Seems like they said he had called the "non-emergency" number, or something like that. But it doesn't appear that he was still on the call when the confrontation happened (unfortunately - if he had been, it would be a lot more clear who started it).