April 19, 2012, 12:31 PM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 25, 2011
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 378
|
I support and approve of the Stand Your Gound Law....In a public surrounding outside my home, when encountering danger to my health or life, I believe in retreating. BUT, if last resort is to fight back. I will....In my home, If anyone is not surely welcomed or an intruder...BANG!!!
__________________
"Keep your powder dry, and eyes on the target". -R. Lee Ermey |
April 19, 2012, 12:50 PM | #27 |
Junior member
Join Date: May 31, 2011
Posts: 180
|
the SYG laws protect the homeowner /shooter from being arrested when they are in the right. In the past people have been arrested and charged with murder and in a lot of cases excepted a lesser plea of man Slaughter to avoid a trial and the expenses.
|
April 19, 2012, 12:51 PM | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 8,270
|
I recall a case in my town where 4 young men confronted on young man in a park.The lone ,man fled,but was knocked down and was being beaten.The lone man had a Buck folding hunter knife in his pocket.He used it,and one of the attackers died.
All I have is what was in the paper,but for that the young man was sentenced to five years,the DA"He brought a knife to a fist fight".Seems like self defense to me,and the surviving attackers deserve jail time. A more recent case in my town,after an evening of drinking,a man decided to end his evening with a fight.One punch,the man who was hit died.Jail time,with good reason.I call it murder. Not specific to Z vs M,if you are carrying concealed ,IMO,it is a very good idea to not be in a position where an unarmed man would attack you with a beating. In other words,IMO,do not let your weapon give you courage to enter an altercation. I think most LEOs would agree scuffling on the ground is a good way to be shot with your own weapon.If an unarmed man is beating you senseless,you may have to shoot him to survive,but you will have shot an unarmed man. That is not a popular thing to do. An equal suggestion of restraint to those who think fists are a good idea.The guy you punch may shoot you dead. |
April 19, 2012, 12:54 PM | #29 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 7, 2010
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 802
|
Thank you barstoolguru for making that critical difference clear. It is one that many people overlook.
__________________
"Socialized Medicine is the Keystone to the Arch of the Socialist State.” -Vladimir Lenin "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson (An early warning to Obama care) |
April 19, 2012, 01:09 PM | #30 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
|
I'm glad that Illinois never put any "stand your ground" or "Castle Doctrine" verbiage in their justifiable homocide statute.
It's a decent law and it isn't easily targeted with inflamatory hyperbole. |
April 19, 2012, 01:12 PM | #31 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 6,141
|
Well, if nothing else, I guess everyone has a right to be wrong, if only momentarily. I often am.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds. |
April 19, 2012, 01:20 PM | #32 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,815
|
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
April 19, 2012, 03:45 PM | #33 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 12, 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,315
|
If your gift of situational awareness says a tactical retreat is what's appropriate to prevent the need to engage, please, beat your little feet. That will change your life a lot less than the gun option. Most of the action around my neighborhood involves multiple shooters. Repeat after me - I'm not Clint!
|
April 19, 2012, 03:54 PM | #34 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 3,942
|
The WSJ had an interesting article in yesterday’s print edition dealing with SYG laws. I tried to link to it, but it is in their subscription only section.
Basically the main point of the article was that several states including Georgia, South Carolina, Wisconsin and Florida, have or will have bills submitted to repeal these laws. Whether there is enough support to actually repeal these laws remains to be seen, but some supporters have agreed to consider tweaking them. Also, they pointed out that two states, Alaska and I believe Iowa, had SYG bills up for consideration in this legislative session, but failed to bring them to a vote. I hope we are not starting to see public opinion tilting away from legislation that protects and enhances the freedom of gun owners.
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman |
April 19, 2012, 04:30 PM | #35 |
Junior member
Join Date: May 1, 2010
Posts: 5,797
|
Training & use of force...
A major problem, in my opine, is the clear lack of focus or lack of skill training by many US gun owners RE: use of force, threat management, levels of force, etc.
Many US citizens buy a firearm, get ammunition, buy a case or a small safe then THAT'S IT! I read a article a few years ago in a gun press publication of a guy who carefully unloaded & a secured a COCKED, fully loaded .357magnum revolver an older neighbor left in a bedroom drawer for 20 years! These incidents & lack of proper(safe) methods will only allow left-wing and anti-2A groups to steamroll over gun owners/armed citizens in the next few years. More responsible license holders & gun industry members(FFL holders, gun club members, etc) should teach safe gun use to new owners/hunters and be in front of the issue. Classes & skill training cost $$$ but more armed citizens & 2A supporters should be aware of the laws, SOPs, safety, etc. ClydeFrog |
April 19, 2012, 04:42 PM | #36 | |||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,413
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
April 19, 2012, 06:30 PM | #37 | ||||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
For example, there was Mark Abshire in Oklahoma: Despite defending himself against multiple attackers on his own lawn in a fairly gun-friendly state with a "Stand Your Ground" law, he was arrested, went to jail, charged, lost his job and his house, and spent two and a half years in the legal meat-grinder before finally being acquitted. A SYG law may help you establish that you were in the right, but it's not a guarantee that you won't be arrested and have to establish that your use of force was justified. Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||||
April 19, 2012, 07:33 PM | #38 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 26, 2012
Posts: 1,066
|
"I read a article a few years ago in a gun press publication of a guy who carefully unloaded & a secured a COCKED, fully loaded .357magnum revolver an older neighbor left in a bedroom drawer for 20 years!"
Must be as safe as a .45 in Condition One then. It never went off, did it? Still... it's a good point. Willie |
April 19, 2012, 11:29 PM | #39 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 28, 2000
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 705
|
Frank Ettin, If you’ll notice, the statement you quoted was not an appeal to the Constitution if you allow it to be qualified by statements which you did not quote. It was a mention that the government of the US was forbidden by the Constitution to infringe upon the preexistent, inalienable, and natural rights of man. The intention was to momentarily sweep away the relevance of the law concerning the topic (discard the law as a red herring to focus on the moral aspects).
The Constitution is, as you stated, a red herring from the standpoint of one man violating another’s Constitutional rights because it regulates the government rather than the people. However, mentioning the Constitution was to point out that it recognized the rights of the people. The Constitution binds the government to act towards the people in the same way each of the people is bound by Natural Law to act towards each other. This suggests that the laws of this nation should mirror and reinforce a system of morality based upon the concept of individual liberty. IMHO, The founders drew upon sources far beyond English common law. I think it can be shown they drew heavily from their own sense of morality, which in turn was shaped by early enlightenment thinking that treated morality as a science to be examined through logic and confirmed by investigation of real examples. They examined legal theory and examples of applied law (with English common law by far the most prevalent) through the lens of the moral sciences. I firmly believe their goal was to create a government that would act as a moral entity would under Natural Law. I would further suggest that their view of Natural Law, as applied to morality, was stated concisely by John Locke : "Reason, which is that Law, teaches all Mankind, who would but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions."
__________________
Keep smiling ... it'll just make 'em wonder what you're up to... |
April 19, 2012, 11:45 PM | #40 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 28, 2000
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 705
|
Aguila Blanca
Stand your ground laws do not establish any rights. The Constitution recognizes and guarantees our inalienable rights (immunities) and establishes other rights with respect to the government which would not exist without the existence of the government (privileges). No law, government, or any other earthly authority granted you your inalienable rights. They are as much a part of you as your body or mind. The religious can thank God for being given them. The non-religious can be happy that they are part of their nature as human beings. Pursuit of happiness/ right to property - The right to property includes all things (both tangible and intangible) which you can call "yours" : from your personal desires, ideas, sense of honor, and religious beliefs to your body and material possessions. Pursuit of happiness includes your ability to extend your influence through these "things" by interaction with others. Among others, it includes the rights to free speech, to engage in commerce, and to peaceably assemble. The "pursuit of happiness" can be expressed as a right to growth in moral, spiritual, familial, social and financial concerns, but its aspects are innumerable. The pursuit of happiness is reliant upon the right to property, since without the right to property ownership is dissolved, and you cannot even own yourself. True citizenship becomes impossible and citizens are reduced to subjects. Self ownership is the essence of freedom and the only absolute freedom a person can rightfully have. (Until such time as he gets married, anyway…) "Property" in the Constitution was already mentioned. As an aside, the first right enumerated by the Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress:"That they are entitled to life, liberty, and property, and they have never ceded to any sovereign power whatever a right to dispose of either without their consent." I would submit that We the people of the United States, have still not ceded a right to dispose of these things without our consent.
__________________
Keep smiling ... it'll just make 'em wonder what you're up to... |
April 19, 2012, 11:51 PM | #41 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
Let's stay on topic.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
April 19, 2012, 11:53 PM | #42 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 28, 2000
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 705
|
Bluetrain, that’s kinda what I was getting at. Not quite the right to be wrong, but the right to have the freedom to make mistakes. Without that, there is no virtue in doing the right thing. We would be mindless creatures that were just following orders, and no better than ants.
Concerning my own mistakes, I can only hope that there is some virtue in striving to be right, making amends for mistakes, and asking forgiveness when there is no way to make amends. Otherwise, I probably deserve to get stepped on. An well, sorry if I offended you, or anyone else..
__________________
Keep smiling ... it'll just make 'em wonder what you're up to... |
April 20, 2012, 12:03 AM | #43 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
One is well advised to understand how things actually work in real life and to conduct oneself accordingly.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
April 20, 2012, 12:20 AM | #44 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 28, 2000
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 705
|
no argument there (Ignoratio elenchi ? .. just kidding ! )
but one can also strive to convince others to change laws which infringe upon liberties and hold onto those that preserve liberty. There are many people that don’t respond to a legal argument but do respond to moral basis of law argument, and vice-versa. Ok. Ok, I’ll shut up
__________________
Keep smiling ... it'll just make 'em wonder what you're up to... |
April 20, 2012, 07:50 AM | #45 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Ken Blackwell wrote an excellent piece explaining "Stand Your GRound" laws here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ken-bl...b_1414676.html I think it does a great job of explaining why they are a benefit and I think an overwhelming majority of Americans would agree. I think one problem though is few Americans understand how such laws work and the antis are using that confusion to lie about what Stand Your Ground laws cover. They are essentially using deception to try and get people to make a choice (for or against Stand Your Ground Laws). If they can get them to make that choice, even uninformed, the chances that they will rationalize and continue to support that choice regardless of later information go up. |
April 20, 2012, 08:11 AM | #46 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
In any case, it's unavoidable that the antis will do what they can to distort fact and intent. Heck, in this climate, they're grabbing for whatever fading relevance they can, and this is an opportunity for them to gain some mindshare. I'm not sure they'll have much success, but it's up to us (as usual!) to counter emotional distortions with calm facts.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
April 20, 2012, 10:03 AM | #47 |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
We can not forget that in the case of any contentious issue, your opposition will always use whatever ammunition is available and try to turn any event in public eye to their advantage if at all possible.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
April 20, 2012, 11:32 AM | #48 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 28, 2000
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 705
|
(Edited to remove response to deleted post)
IMO "no duty to retreat" is a far better way to state the same idea as "stand your ground" : Most people don't like the idea of the law forcing you to run away, especially when running away could put you in further danger. Yeah, I know "running away" isn't precise, but it's a easier to get the point across to those ruled by emotion.
__________________
Keep smiling ... it'll just make 'em wonder what you're up to... Last edited by animal; April 20, 2012 at 11:42 AM. |
April 20, 2012, 11:36 AM | #49 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
|
Quote:
|
|
April 21, 2012, 03:35 AM | #50 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 11, 2004
Location: Redwood City, Ca.
Posts: 4,114
|
Under SYG laws or "No Duty to Retreat laws" we still do have a duty or obligation to avoid a bad shooting. In other words we still have a duty to retreat if possible. There is a misconception that SYG will make a bad shooting somehow a good one.
There is also a misconception that "a duty to retreat" means that you cannot defend yourself. What Frank says here is about right... Quote:
tipoc |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|