Nicky

He isn't being charged with manslaughter. He is being charged with murder.

What were their names, and where did this happen?

That liberty is the freedom to exercise one's rights. Without a government to protect individual rights, there is no liberty. Anarchy is the opposite of liberty, it is the state of affairs where individuals are subject to aggression and intimidation from everyone, and therefor have no rights. P.S. Franklin was right: He who trades liberty for security gets neither. The only way to achieve security is through a rights respecting government, a dictatorship doesn't provide security.

As for what the penalty should be, that depends on the particulars of the case. If there is provable disregard for human life (the accident wasn't the result of a freak ricochet, the two shooters could be reasonably expected to realize that firing in that direction is dangerous, but just didn't care), then they should both be charged with murder. Otherwise, only the shooter should be charged, and only with manslaughter.

I assume what happened was that the felony murder rule was applied (during the commission of a dangerous felony, any homicide, intentional or accidental, will be considered murder, and all the people charged with the felony will also be charged with murder). So, even though the Police did determine who's gun fired the shot (which they could do if they recovered the bullet), both were charged with murder in the second degree? Not sure if the charge would stick though. If the crime was a robbery or a kidnapping, then it would be cut and dried, but in this case it's not. So, it's possible that the prosecution instead decided to only charge the person who fired the bullet, and charge him only with manslaughter (which, if the felony murder rule doesn't apply - because reckless discharging of a firearm isn't considered a dangerous felony, is what the crime is).

Your points are getting more absurd by the minute. And you've pretty much proven that you're not an expert on guns. And you still haven't explained how two posts after declaring that there is no such thing as an accident, you declared something an accident.

The law of supply and demand.

You said that, with a firearm, all you have to do is look at where it's aimed before you pull the trigger, and you will always only hit the intended target. If a soldier, who has eyesight, fires his gun without looking where it is pointed, and shoots someone other than the enemy, shouldn't he be convicted of manslaughter? Or are you ready to admit that in a gunfight, it's not as simple as "look where the gun is pointed and there won't be any accidents"? According to this guy I talked to yesterday, the term "accident" is a device used to evade personal responsibility. So why use it to describe what happens when suppressing fire hits an unintended target? Couldn't the soldier delivering that suppressing fire just look at where he's shooting?

If you were some lost soul in search of any meaning for your life, chose a stranger at random and made her life the goal of your life to obsess over, then you could say that she's your ultimate value. You had no values, and now all your values trace back to her. If you fall in love someone so much that you value her life above everything else, then your love has a source: your values. It didn't just happen as a coincidence. Without your values, there would be no love. So she is not your ultimate value, she's only your value because of other values you held before, which cause you to love her. She may be your biggest, most important value, but not your ultimate value. The ultimate value is the source of all your other values.

What's an example of a planned society that went well? What's an example of a free society that didn't?

According to the law of supply and demand, greater demand for a commodity drives prices up. A subsidy for higher education means more students. More students means greater demand, greater demand means higher prices.

So friendly fire incidents should always be prosecuted, if a gun is involved? And if all accidental shootings can be avoided simply by looking at your target first, then what is the problem with a superior officer sending two squads into the same area of operations, without them being aware of each other?

Yes, but the thread is about accidentally shooting a bystander, not on purpose.

So, if you put a a trained soldier in a situation where he has to fire his weapon, but has friendlies/innocents close enough to shoot them, that's his commander's fault. But, if you put a civilian in a situation where he has to defend his life by shooting, and has friendlies/innocents close enough to shoot them, then it's his fault not the person's who put him in the sitaution?

Because I'm not looking to get into a wider debate about whether it is or not also a virtue "in reality". If we all insisted to make every answer about "reality", instead of sticking to discussing what Objectivism has to say on various topics, then every thread would turn into the same exact debate: is Objectivism right or wrong?

So how do they explain all the friendly fire incidents?

The words objective and subjective both refer to the methods used to understand and deal with reality. Just because something exists in the mind (is an understanding of some aspect of reality or some aspect of how one should act, in the context of reality, to achieve a goal) doesn't mean it wasn't the result of an objective process of creating it. An objective method involves applying logic (a field of study that starts out with the fundamental notion that there are no contradictions, and creates various methods of reasoning that avoid or eliminate contradictions in our understanding of something) to reality. A subjective one involves either introducing something arbitrary into the material we apply logic to, or inserting some arbitrary, invalid method into logic. I'll give an example of both an objective and a subjective method for coming up with a plan to achieve a goal: Let's say you want to be able to fly a group of people from point A to point B. That's your goal. You must study the relevant aspects of reality, and apply logic to them to figure out the easiest way to achieve your goal (build a plane that can handle the task). Your methods are objective. Now, let's say someone introduces something arbitrary into the equation. Not into logic, but only into the material you're working with: God -a being that can manipulate the known rules of reality and responds to prayer- is added to your material. Suddenly, the easiest way to achieve your goal, given this new material, is not a plane that works, but prayer. The way to come up with that method is subjective, because it fails to only rely on reality.

You haven't entertained the first one either. How exactly is he neglecting the dispatch? Here's the conversation, after you conveniently cut it off. Note how, during his supposed "pursuit", he manages not only to fool the dispatcher into thinking he stopped following Martin, but even gives his phone number and sets up a date with the cops. Helluva guy, to pursue a six foot +, athletic 17 yo. suspected criminal, while having a calm phone conversation with the Police and convincing them he stopped: And you really should entertain the second question as well. The dispatcher uses the term "follow" (which implies no physical action against Martin, just passive surveillance to guide the cops on the right path), and you're using the term "pursue" (which implies intent to capture).

What does "neglect the dispatch" mean? And how is it a hard fact that he "pursued" him, rather than just followed him?

It's consumer protection from fraud though (a rights violation), not general consumer welfare.

No, but there isn't one that says the opposite, either. Objectivism doesn't really cover this. The principle of property rights, by itself, doesn't answer your question. Look at it from the buyer's perspective: he also had his property taken under false pretenses (his money). Why wouldn't his property rights also be considered, when the government decides which victim should be compensated to what extent? There are several factors that should be considered, including what precautions both victims took to protect themselves and what could've been reasonably expected of them. It's not cut and dried that the theft victim should be fully compensated, and the fraud victim not at all.

In Objectivism, independence is a virtue. And the means to independence is to not be a follower your whole life. That's one of the ways you acquire the luxury of choosing your associates. So yes, there is something morally wrong with being a follower your whole life.

I would say that in this context the differences between the political principles implemented by a LFC country's laws (individual rights, including property rights) and those implemented by current laws (a mix between property rights and "general welfare") are irrelevant. In this particular context, current laws aim to protect property rights, just like those of a LFC country would. So, whatever current law says is probably what should happen.

If all else fails, point out how stupid solipsism sounds.

Where precisely are you getting the information that he approached him from? If it's from NBC, then you probably think he's also a racist. After all, on the tape they played, he's being way too eager to point out that the guy is black. You also wouldn't know that he sustained injuries, because they reported him to be uninjured after the incident. And you'd think Trayvon Martin was a 12 year old child, because that's the photo they used next to Zimmerman's mugshot, to illustrate how guilty he really is. Besides, you don't need stand your ground laws to be allowed to use self defense when someone is bashing your head into the pavement (which did happen, as proven by his injuries). So it doesn't need to apply, for him to be innocent. The point isn't just the specifics of the case, it was how it was handled. The Police conducted an investigation, determined that it was a case of self defense. The prosecutor who was supposed to handle the case agreed, did not file charges. It took racially motivated political pressure, including from the White House, and an intervention from the governor, to file these charges in spite of all the evidence that points to self defense. Later, the Police Chief was fired. Not for being incompetent, but for being "too divisive".