Stand your ground laws...

[CaptainHaplo]

OK, first off - this is NOT going to be a Martin v Zimmerman retread thread. Moderators, if people start changing the focus, please delete the posts they make.

Now - the AG and the President are suggesting that we get rid of stand your ground laws - requiring a person to not use legal force when threatened - whether they have a "safe exit or retreat" or not. What say you all - and WHY?

[Ducimus]

I think its pretty simple. It fits in with their anti-gun agenda, and it's a politically convenient diversion from other issues.

[Red October1984]

I believe we have the right to defend ourselves no matter the situation.

If I'm standing on a street corner and somebody tries to rob me, I'm sure as hell going to fight back. If I'm in my house, I'll fight back. (Missouri Castle Doctrine FTW!) I don't care where it is. If I'm attacked or I fear for my life, I'll do what's necessary. That doesn't mean I'll like it. Who goes out and wants to shoot somebody. But if somebody kicks in my door at 2am, it'll likely be the last door they kick in.

If they endanger me or anybody around me, i'll send them a present at 2000 FPS.

That's about all I can say on that. :yep:

I think its pretty simple. It fits in with their anti-gun agenda, and it's a politically convenient diversion from other issues.

+1

They're just looking for distractions from Benghazi, Economic Issues, the debt, etc.

[soopaman2]

This is an anti gun thing.

I even bet they will work in Trayvon Martin, and Turning GZ into a criminal despite being exonerated in a court of law.

What most the rubes and idiots don't know is GZ did not try for a SYG defense.


The world would be so much better if people relied less on talking heads and pundits.

It is hard to get guns in my state, I am NOT giving mine up.

I kill paper. Paper is so evil it must be filled with holes. I spend money on rounds to make holes in paper.

I must have my guns taken away!

Shame I am about to buy a handgun that fires a shotgun shell.

(the Judge)

I should be beaten and killed for being a barbarian.


Edit: Holder can sit and spin, he had no problem with assault weapons to Mexican Cartels.

[Sailor Steve]

This is an anti gun thing.

I even bet they will work in Trayvon Martin, and Turning GZ into a criminal despite being exonerated in a court of law.

What most the rubes and idiots don't know is GZ did not try for a SYG defense.
Did you even read the opening post? This is not about that case, it is about Stand Your Ground laws. Period.

[Platapus]

Use of lethal force should be a very last resort. Every other reasonable escape should be necessary. No state requires a person to place themselves in jeopardy when deciding to defend themselves using lethal force. Stand your ground laws can give people the wrong idea about last resorts.

With the authority to own weapons comes a greater responsibility for their use. This includes the responsibility not to allow situations to escalate and the responsibilty to de-escalate. Ego and pride should not enter into the decision. In some past instances, I am not sure that ego/pride did not play a part.

Existing self-defense laws in states that do not have a "stand your ground" clause, address this reasonably.

As I have posted before, anyone owning a gun for self-defense needs to read "In the Gravest Extreme" by Massad F. Ayoob It is an eye opening book on the realities of self-defense with firearms. :yep:

[Bubblehead1980]

Left wing types think that there is no right to self defense, be it against a thug or the government.They believe the proper means to self defense against any threat, guns, are not a right, even though it is an actual right guaranteed by the constitution. Obama is a legitimate racist(read his book Dreams from My Father) and put that with all his actions on race since.Always, the non black guy is wrong in his eyes.Henry Louis Gates became disorderly with a police officer and was arrested, racist cop in obama's eyes who "acted stupidly" , not the fact his friend broke the law and was arrested as anyone else would be. Ordered Eric Holder to no prosecute Black Panthers for voter intimidation after taking office in 2009, even though there was clear, undisputed evidence.

Shirley Sherrod incident, defended her, even thought she admitted racism. Just a long string of his racist behavior.Obama is now being even more racist by playing up the victim mentality "could have been me", guess what, in right circumstances back then it could have been because obama was a punk then just like he is now, and would have acted much like Traygone, resulting in someone defending themselves.Going on what he described as his mindset in his book, he was a little punk with a victim attitude that dislikes white people, who he sees as oppressors.Basically, same thing is now, nothing has changed.

Stand your grand worked here, very well.This is the intent and so tired of people saying "last resort" , it was a last resort.Let some punk attack you, bash your head in pavement and see if you don't think it's a last resort.Honestly, if you dont see using your gun as an option then, you're an idiot.

[soopaman2]

Did you even read the opening post? This is not about that case, it is about Stand Your Ground laws. Period.


That case, like it or not, brought that law into the forefront, my mention of it is relevant.

I am not calling you out on anything, we resolved that earlier, calm down.


Or will I forever be bitched at when mentioning those 2 names in reference to anything, even if relevant?

No one would give a flying screw about SYG if it wasn't for the Zimmerman case, take a step back.

[AVGWarhawk]

Whatever happened to equal force?

[Skybird]

A big problem I became aware of when reading about it today, is the obvious inconsistency, or better the mutual contradiction between certain US laws, namely in Florida.

There they have the stand your ground law. And also the 10-20-life rule, meaning that any situation where subjects draw a firearm, automatically must get 10 years, and must get 20 years automatically when not only drawing a weapon but also firing it - where it does not matter whether the subject shot into the air as a warning or aimed at a person. When during the firing the person fired at gets killed or even just wounded by the shot, the subject must get 25 years or life.

This led to a series of bizarre rulings in recent years. Where you have the right to shoot and kill somebody under circumstances where stand your ground applies, but using your weapon for a warning shot can earn you 20 years or life. And actually, that is not just a theoretical possibility, but common practice:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2013/07/15/florida-unjust-gun-laws/WO6ZKI2VS19rDD6cIbUPjN/story.html


How could Marissa Alexander, a 31-year-old mother of three, receive a 20-year prison sentence for firing a bullet into a wall near her abusive ex-husband, even though no one was harmed?

(...)

Ronald Thompson, 62, a disabled veteran, fired two shots into the ground to protect an elderly woman from her violent 17-year-old grandson. State Attorney Angela Corey — the same prosecutor in the Zimmerman case — charged him with four counts of aggravated assault. Thompson was sentenced to 20 years in prison, a punishment that the judge in the case called a “crime in itself.” (He is currently awaiting a new trial.)

Orville Lee Wollard, a former auxiliary police force member, shot a bullet into the wall to scare away his daughter’s abusive boyfriend. Prosecutors offered him probation. But he wanted to be exonerated at trial. Now he’s serving 20 years.

Erik Weyant, 22, fired shots in the air to disperse a group of drunk men who accosted him in a parking lot outside a bar and blocked his car. No one was hurt. But he’s in for 20 years.

In many cases, the fact that they chose to fire a warning shot, instead of aiming to kill, was used as evidence against them at trial, said Greg Newburn of Families Against Mandatory Minimums. If you were truly in fear of your life, the logic goes, you would aim at the chest, not the wall.

Florida lawmakers, in their infinite wisdom, began to notice that a lot of people were getting severely punished simply for defending themselves. But instead of repealing the Draconian measure, they passed another one: the “stand your ground” law.


Fan-tas-tic. Those people get their lives messed up and stolen from them for scaring away attackers without harming anyone, but George Zimmerman kills an unarmed one and walks away freely without even formally being held responisble for an act of misjudgement of the situation, not to mention the possibility that it simply was slaughter caused by subliminal racism, as some people claim.

Rally, those Florida laws are fan-tas-tic.

[garren]

I bet you if an unarmed person assaulted a cop bad enough the cop would shoot them, black or white, man or woman. Especially if it's a female cop dealing with a male suspect that assaults her and pins her down on the ground and starts bashing her skull against the concrete after breaking her nose.

So is it just us citizens who won't have the right to defend ourselves and only those government folks?

[CaptainHaplo]

It is important to note that in the case of Marissa Alexander, Stand Your Ground was not allowed because of 2 factors.

1) Alexander - after fighting with her husband, went and retrieved the firearm from her garage, then returned to the fight. She didn't "stand her ground" - she retreated, armed herself and purposefully re-engaged offensively. Thus "stand your ground" did not apply.

(The fact she claimed she fired at the ceiling and the bullet hole was at the level of an adult's head - didn't help her much.)

2) In the case of Alexander - as well as the cases of many others who tried to use the law as a shield after discharging a weapon - lethal, or potentially lethal force is allowable ONLY if you are in fear of great bodily injury or death. If your in that kind of fear - your not going to shoot at the ceiling, the wall, etc. People who fire their guns hoping to "scare" and stop an altercation - are not doing so within the confines of SYG.

[AVGWarhawk]

I bet you if an unarmed person assaulted a cop bad enough the cop would shoot them, black or white, man or woman. Especially if it's a female cop dealing with a male suspect that assaults her and pins her down on the ground and starts bashing her skull against the concrete after breaking her nose.

So is it just us citizens who won't have the right to defend ourselves and only those government folks?

Kind of a nutty question. If you are assaulting a cop is that defending yourself? Sounds like resisting arrest to me. But lets take that with a grain of salt. We understand police get out of hand with the batons, etc. Not much you can defend yourself with if you are battered by baton welding police. One is kind of subdued quickly in that situation.

[CaptainHaplo]

With all that said - does anyone but me find it somewhat ironic that Holder and Obama are trying to get rid of a law that - when invoked in court - has allowed more black defendants (both % wise and in sheer numbers) in Florida go free after a shooting than whites?

Overall, black defendants went free 66 percent of the time in fatal cases compared to 61 percent for white defendants
http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/race-plays-complex-role-in-floridas-stand-your-ground-law/1233152

Stand your ground laws - when invoked and enforced properly - save lives - without regards to race. How is that a bad thing?

[Jimbuna]

Whatever happened to equal force?

Probably not equitable enough for some.

[soopaman2]

Being from a state not allowing either laws (what I call a "bend over and take it state")

What is the difference between SYG, and Castle Doctrine?
or is it 2 fancy names for the same thing? Both could apply to personal property defense.

[Bubblehead1980]

Kind of a nutty question. If you are assaulting a cop is that defending yourself? Sounds like resisting arrest to me. But lets take that with a grain of salt. We understand police get out of hand with the batons, etc. Not much you can defend yourself with if you are battered by baton welding police. One is kind of subdued quickly in that situation.


Well, if a cop is acting unjustly, you have the right to defend yourself if you are in fear of your life or great bodily harm since committing a crime under the color of authority is also a crime.However, it's rolling the dice because police are automatically assumed to be the good guys , it's an uphill battle and better make damn sure you are in the right, but there have been cases where people have had charges dropped or found not guilty for defending themselves against police going too far.

[AVGWarhawk]

Well, if a cop is acting unjustly, you have the right to defend yourself if you are in fear of your life or great bodily harm since committing a crime under the color of authority is also a crime.However, it's rolling the dice because police are automatically assumed to be the good guys , it's an uphill battle and better make damn sure you are in the right, but there have been cases where people have had charges dropped or found not guilty for defending themselves against police going too far.

That is why I stated one is subdued quickly when the batons are involved. Not much time to SYG. More likely on the ground a bloody mess. But, yes, cops get in trouble for it(in most cases). Either way, one knock to my head and SYG means nothing. I'm out cold.

[Bubblehead1980]

Being from a state not allowing either laws (what I call a "bend over and take it state")

What is the difference between SYG, and Castle Doctrine?
or is it 2 fancy names for the same thing?


Castle doctrine says your home is your castle, someone enters it unlawfully, you are not required to retreat but may use forced, up to and including deadly force to defend your "castle". Before this, people were expected to avoid a confrontation if possible.The law came about because idiot prosecutors charged people with shooting burglars.

Stand your ground is an extension of castle, saying if out in public and attacked, youre not required to retreat, you may defend yourself.Basically, these laws were meant to protect citizens from idiot prosecutors like Angela Correy.This is why Zimmerman was not charged by the State Attorney(District Attorney in other places) after the police investigated, because the evidence screamed self defense and they followed the law.Only after politics and ignorant masses got involved did it turn into the cluster it currently is.

[CaptainHaplo]

What is the difference between SYG, and Castle Doctrine?

Good question!

While they are similar, there are differences. Like all other laws - codified or not - each state sees things differently. However there are some general differences.

First, Castle doctrine generally applies to your home, car, etc - a location that belongs to you. While some states allow the doctrine to be used more like SYG - as in its available if your legally at any location, most do not. SYG can be anywhere in the state that allows it.

Second, Castle doctrine does not always require you to be in fear of injury or death - again depending on the State. Some allow you to use it in defense of your property. SYG is ONLY usable in fear of injury or death.

Third, the person you use it against must be committing a crime of some sort - like assault, breaking and entering, arson, theft etc. That crime itself may not be directly what causes you to be worried about your safety.

Generally speaking, the CD successfully used also provides full civil immunity - so the person breaking into your house that you shoot - can't sue you for medical bills, etc.

CD can not be used to justify an action if you were the instigator of the matter. If you hit someone in the head as they walk past your house, steal their wallet and then run inside and they break down your door to get at you, so you shoot them - you cannot avail yourself of CD. Your actions in initiating the matter do not have to be criminal to negate your use of CD.

You must be in your location legally, not a fugitive yourself or aiding one, not performing a criminal act at the time, etc.

[soopaman2]

Excellent, thanks guys.

I would think all states need a law to protect victims of crimes who fight back, but northern states uh...


Here they told me to call the police and hide, not discharge my rifles or handgun.

Hide?

Can't reach a phone? Shoot a gangbanger? I am tried on manslaughter, and sued by an angry family.

Blame the victim, my skirt was too revealing, thats why I got raped/ Forget the fact he assaulted me or climbed in my window, I hate this craphole sometimes.

"yo what time is it" wham! in the face as you look at your watch!

Had that happen in a subway a few times....

[Tribesman]

The main problem with SYG and castle laws is too many people are complete idiots, too many people are paranoid, and too many people have fear derived from a perception of crime that is out of kilter with reality.

[CaptainHaplo]

Excellent, thanks guys.

I would think all states need a law to protect victims of crimes who fight back, but northern states uh...

Well - have a read if you like...
http://rense.com/general76/univ.htm

Private firearms: Stopping 2.5 million crimes a year.

Well, if you can defend yourself, your not properly at the mercy of the gub'ment, are you? Your not relying enough on big bro to protect you.

And don't look at facts about guns..... Believe the myths:
http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. " --Thomas Jefferson

[Armistead]

The Martin case is a bad example of stand your ground, more self defense. We just had a case where a white man caught two men robbing his barn, He said it was dark and one charged him, he shot him dead, the other ran. The one that ran was caught and said the man simply shot out of nowhere, no warning, command, etc. The Sheriff believed the man, no charges and said he stood his ground on his property.

I prefer the Castle laws, but I think they apply more to your personal property. If in public and you can safely retreat before using force, I think you should. Now, if someone trying to rob you, that's different.

It's tough, fight break out all the time, it would be dangerous every time someone got a slap to claim stand your ground, fear for life and blow people away.

[garren]

Kind of a nutty question. If you are assaulting a cop is that defending yourself? Sounds like resisting arrest to me. But lets take that with a grain of salt. We understand police get out of hand with the batons, etc. Not much you can defend yourself with if you are battered by baton welding police. One is kind of subdued quickly in that situation.

Are you saying unarmed citizens who attack cops with their hands should be shot? Then there's nothing wrong with what Zimmerman did.

But there have been some dirty cops do some pretty dirty things.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1293mS_7xE

and this one is just crazy...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6b1QLR5LfjE&lc=SZEAbhMbrHLCMx6Bqnwvlj8EUFv-CcGAr7jSCGCSS1U

[Red October1984]

Are you saying unarmed citizens who attack cops with their hands should be shot?


Well, if a guy knocks a cop flat with his bare hands and turns to the next one, the next cop or even the one who was assaulted (if possible) needs to take action.

If that means shooting him, well...he shouldn't have assaulted a cop in the first place.

[Sailor Steve]

I would think all states need a law to protect victims of crimes who fight back, but northern states uh...
I think you should amend that to "northeastern states". Montana and Wyoming are also northern states, as is Vermont. :sunny:

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Now - the AG and the President are suggesting that we get rid of stand your ground laws - requiring a person to not use legal force when threatened - whether they have a "safe exit or retreat" or not. What say you all - and WHY?

As a rule, an established government does not really want the people to have rights. That's the blunt truth based on human nature and self-interest. Sometimes, a revolutionary government made based on idealism may promote such ideas for awhile (it also helps get the support), but once it is established, not so much.

Nevertheless, as an idea for discussion by the people, it is not to be automatically dismissed.

First, let's revert to the fundamentals. Humans do not so much have an "inherent right" to self-defense as they have one to reasonable security. The argument of a right to self-defence is but an invocation of the right to security, and may be denied if allowing self-defence is anti-thetical to security.

Before we had governments and laws, everyone had the right to self-defence. Heck, everyone had the unfettered right to using violence to resolve disputes, only limited by the strength of their musculature.

Nevertheless, eventually most peoples decided that this unfettered right to using violence is not the best path to security, so now we have laws. To give the laws some teeth, we have police (or equivalent organ). With that, we have handed almost all our rights of violence to the police.

So why do we need self-defence? Self-defence, more than anything else, is an acknowledgment of the limitations of the police, be it their speed of reaction, or in the worst case the possibility of them abusing their powers.

In the end, it is all in what the people are willing to accept. The wider they make the self-defense law, the more they are willing to tolerate a few abuses (like I think GZ is guilty of). The narrower they make it, the more they are willing to tolerate a few innocents dying because the police cannot make it.

Every once in a while, such attitudes should be resampled and a new decision taken. Thus, Obama's proposal is not really wrong.

[CaptainHaplo]

soopa - NC (where I live) is one of the few states that I know of that has codified the Castle Doctrine. What is even better it is the only state that I know of that not only allows the Castle Doctrine to be used in your home of vehicle, but also at your workplace (provided your employer does not restrict your right to carry on their property).

If you really want to get a feel for the Castle Doctrine, take a read:
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Sessions/2011/Bills/House/PDF/H650v6.pdf

Its right at the top - Section 1.

[Sailor Steve]

Utah's version has been on the books for almost thirty years.
http://www.le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE76/htm/76_02_040500.htm

[Platapus]

Being from a state not allowing either laws (what I call a "bend over and take it state")




If you are really in New Jersey, as your profile states, then you might want to read New Jersey Statute 2C:3-4 Use of force in self-protection. Especially paragraph b2bi and paragraph b2c1 and paragraph b3.

[CaptainHaplo]

Good info from both Sailor Steve and Platapus!

So lets get back on track - at what point SHOULD one have a duty to retreat, and at what point should one have the right to use lethal force?

Should you have to retreat if your in your home and someone is stealing your stuff?

Should you have to retreat if they have a knife and are advancing?

Lots of situations - so lets see if we can come up with a consensus on when retreat is called for and when SYG should be used.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

So lets get back on track - at what point SHOULD one have a duty to retreat, and at what point should one have the right to use lethal force?

My personal feeling is for a very strong castle doctrine. When you are at home, you should be the master. In fact, I won't mind illegal entry into the house proper being the borderline of using lethal force.

Even the example of a person who doesn't understand the language does not phase me here because most cultures recognize the importance of the home, and not actually stepping in until permission is explicitly granted.

As for when you are outside the home, I believe a very strong Duty to Retreat should apply.

[Platapus]

So lets get back on track - at what point SHOULD one have a duty to retreat, and at what point should one have the right to use lethal force?

First of all, a citizen should not be allowed to administer a punishment in excess of what the courts can assign after a successful conviction of a crime.

Someone stealing my TV? Do the courts assign execution for burglary? No, therefore, I, as a citizen, should not be allowed to "execute" someone for simply stealing my TV no matter how much I like that TV.

States do have the authority to execute/imprison for life, those who commit murder. Therefore, I, as a citizen should be allowed to "execute" someone who is trying to murder me/my family.

Those two extremes are pretty easy to understand even if you disagree with them. But where is "the line" between these?

There is a lot of room between actual attempted murder and burglary. Where is the line? That's a toughie. Who gets to decide?

Well, the citizen who decides to shoot in self-defense gets to decide. And the citizen needs to be held accountable for their decision.

This is why, in my opinion, self-defense should always be an Affirmative Defense. In many states this is already the fact of law. A person, who kills someone in self-defense should be required to prove the case of self-defense. Affirmative defenses can be considered an exception to "presumed innocent until proven guilty".

In any case, all self-defense killings must be investigated as homicides in order to gather evidence and a hearing (Grand Jury) needs to be held to determine whether this homicide was or was not justified.

All the police know is that someone has been killed. It may be self-defense, it may be Murder. Who knows?

I do not want the police to have the authority to decide, on the spot, with out collecting evidence that the killing was justified. This is not a decision to be made quickly.

I also believe that armed citizens need to be required to take reasonable actions to remove the threat of violence. In many states this is already a fact of law. In none of those states is an armed citizen required to place themselves in additional danger. Reasonable is the key term.

"I heard someone break in to my garage. I got my handgun, went outside and entered the side door to my garage. I shot the guy in the process of stealing my car" - not justified.

"I heard someone break in to my house. I got my family in one of the bedrooms, and I called 911. When the burglar entered my bedroom, my family did not have anywhere else to retreat to, so I shot the intruder." - Justified.

I have been a gun owner for 30 years. I keep guns especially for home defense. I was once burglarized in Utah and I found the guy in my apartment! My gun is to be used only in the absolute last resort after all other reasonable measures are taken, including my running away crying like a little girl if necessary. :wah:

Nothing that I own is worth killing someone over. Only when I perceive that not only is there significant threat to me/my family AND there there are no reasonable options open, would I ever consider using my weapon.

I would expect to be arrested, interrogated, and subject to a hearing to determine if my shooting was justified. If it was justified, it should not be too terribly hard to prove... unless you have an unethical state prosecutor (is that redundant?) :D

[soopaman2]

If you are really in New Jersey, as your profile states, then you might want to read New Jersey Statute 2C:3-4 Use of force in self-protection. Especially paragraph b2bi and paragraph b2c1 and paragraph b3.

Yeah, Im in Jersey. Area code 732.

http://law.onecle.com/new-jersey/2c-the-new-jersey-code-of-criminal-justice/3-4.html

I am not screaming warnings to disarm. I am unloading.

That is if my dog does not eat him.

The duty to retreat is what bothers me, and a certain man in Florida woulda been strung up here.

Like I said, a bend over and take it state, considering how well armed the gangs are here.

Sure in your home you are king, even then you have to scream out warnings, but on the street, you are screwed, as you have the duty to retreat here.

I never want to shoot a man at all, for the record.

[CaptainHaplo]

http://law.onecle.com/new-jersey/2c-the-new-jersey-code-of-criminal-justice/3-4.html

Actually that section does not require you to demand they disarm. It gives you the choice - you can either be in fear of your life/injury/harm to another OR you can demand they disarm.

It specifically says OR, not AND.

Still - that is similarly written to the way the law here used to be (a long time back). Under that - if you shoot someone - make sure they drop before they run out the door - if they expire outside your home or escape your going to face charges or get sued.....

[les green01]

In Missouri you got the castle law also if you fear for your life or if you fear for someone else life,i remember seeing on the news several years back where a ex chase a woman for miles until her car gave out then in front of a crowd of people stab her like 50 times course kill her no one in that crowd did anything screw that crap.Last month my dad was coming home from a square dance seen a house being broke into he calls county,county don't show up until noon the next day and that's only 20 minutes away driving the speed limit!Next I'm not going bet my life or a family member life on someone breaking into my home maybe stoping at stealing a tv set or going farther no suree i'm going pump one round or a arrow in the person chest and im not going care what the person in the white house think about doing it.if someone bashing my head into the pavement and not stoping and I can reach for my 45 or 44 mag i'm going do it if I see someone being attack with a knife im not going just stand there im going shoot the bastard period.

[garren]

In Missouri you got the castle law also if you fear for your life or if you fear for someone else life,i remember seeing on the news several years back where a ex chase a woman for miles until her car gave out then in front of a crowd of people stab her like 50 times course kill her no one in that crowd did anything screw that crap.Last month my dad was coming home from a square dance seen a house being broke into he calls county,county don't show up until noon the next day and that's only 20 minutes away driving the speed limit!Next I'm not going bet my life or a family member life on someone breaking into my home maybe stoping at stealing a tv set or going farther no suree i'm going pump one round or a arrow in the person chest and im not going care what the person in the white house think about doing it.if someone bashing my head into the pavement and not stoping and I can reach for my 45 or 44 mag i'm going do it if I see someone being attack with a knife im not going just stand there im going shoot the bastard period.


That's the longest sentence I've ever read. :o

[Platapus]

That's the longest sentence I've ever read. :o

Four sentences. :)

[Father Goose]

no suree i'm going pump one round or a arrow in the person chest

I had trouble getting past the image of les standing in his living room shooting an intruder with an arrow! :o

[garren]

I had trouble getting past the image of les standing in his living room shooting an intruder with an arrow! :o


Me too. I think the intruder would have a heart attack first though if it was anything like this... :har:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_h957K6FqoCA/TUBjAjTpjLI/AAAAAAAAAHY/qyJiKcewP4w/s1600/sexy_cupid_fail_epicloserscom.jpg

[Red October1984]

In Missouri you got the castle law also if you fear for your life or if you fear for someone else life,i remember seeing on the news several years back where a ex chase a woman for miles until her car gave out then in front of a crowd of people stab her like 50 times course kill her no one in that crowd did anything screw that crap.Last month my dad was coming home from a square dance seen a house being broke into he calls county,county don't show up until noon the next day and that's only 20 minutes away driving the speed limit!Next I'm not going bet my life or a family member life on someone breaking into my home maybe stoping at stealing a tv set or going farther no suree i'm going pump one round or a arrow in the person chest and im not going care what the person in the white house think about doing it.if someone bashing my head into the pavement and not stoping and I can reach for my 45 or 44 mag i'm going do it if I see someone being attack with a knife im not going just stand there im going shoot the bastard period.

Castle Doctrine :yeah:

The Great State of Missouri :yeah:

Love living here.

I had trouble getting past the image of les standing in his living room shooting an intruder with an arrow! :o

I can picture Frau doing that though...followed by an epic display of martial arts

[CaptainHaplo]

First of all, a citizen should not be allowed to administer a punishment in excess of what the courts can assign after a successful conviction of a crime.

If that is what you believe, then you have to recognize that in states that do not allow for capital punishment, there would be no situation in which lethal force would be justified then.

Someone stealing my TV? Do the courts assign execution for burglary? No, therefore, I, as a citizen, should not be allowed to "execute" someone for simply stealing my TV no matter how much I like that TV.

Ok - so your saying that your just going to sit there on your couch waiting for 5-0 to show up as they tote your stuff out the door? Really? If not - what are you going to do? Are you going to act in any way to stop them, or will you retreat even though you do not - based on their actions - have a reason to fear them?

States do have the authority to execute/imprison for life, those who commit murder. Therefore, I, as a citizen should be allowed to "execute" someone who is trying to murder me/my family.

Hold on there - if your going to equate life in prison with execution - we have to go back to the above situation of someone stealing your TV. You see, 24 states have some form of "habitual offender" law - the so called three strikes law - in which those convicted of multiple serious crimes - not necessarily violent ones - in which the offender is then in jail on a mandatory life sentence. So - if a life sentence equates to execution, as it appears you are stating - then it is very possible (depending on a prior record) that the state would upon conviction incarcerate that criminal stealing your tv for life. Thus - you should have the right to execute them according to your argument.

Those two extremes are pretty easy to understand even if you disagree with them. But where is "the line" between these?

I do understand what your saying. I am in part playing devils advocate here.

There is a lot of room between actual attempted murder and burglary. Where is the line? That's a toughie. Who gets to decide?

Well, since in the eyes of the law the burglar may be looking at a life sentence anyway, and the fact that he is in your home, taking your stuff, means you do. Historically, we are given the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (which is defined by most as the right to own property - aka stuff - and gain the benefits thereof.). Now in the above scenario, the burglar wants to probably keep his life, and you want to keep yours. However, he is risking his life (possibly yours too) and liberty by committing a crime, and he is also infringing on your right to your stuff. So he is abrogating the responsibilities inherent in our rights and thus is no longer entitled to them. This is the very concept upon which the judicial system allows incarceration - a deprivation of liberty. A person's rights end when they infringe on another's rights.

Well, the citizen who decides to shoot in self-defense gets to decide. And the citizen needs to be held accountable for their decision.

So your saying that a person should be held accountable for acting to protect their own life or wellbeing - or the life or wellbeing of another?

This is why, in my opinion, self-defense should always be an Affirmative Defense. In many states this is already the fact of law. A person, who kills someone in self-defense should be required to prove the case of self-defense. Affirmative defenses can be considered an exception to "presumed innocent until proven guilty".

This is also why many states allow for the use of legal, lethal force when someone is breaking/entering in your home - aka the Castle Doctrine. The presence of someone committing a crime in that case precludes the necessity of an affirmative defense - because in the criminal act is an abrogation of their rights.

However, many states do require that in the case of self defense outside your own "castle" (however that is defined by the state), you must be in "reasonable" fear of serious bodily harm or death. Thus creating the "affirmative defense" you mentioned. However, do you note that you do NOT need to necessarily be in fear of your life to take the life of another at that point? You need only reasonably fear serious bodily injury - and it is the jury that decides whether that fear is reasonable.

In any case, all self-defense killings must be investigated as homicides in order to gather evidence and a hearing (Grand Jury) needs to be held to determine whether this homicide was or was not justified.

Ok, I have to call you on that one. The "grand jury" system is seriously flawed. Did you know that the indictment rate of the system is 98+%? The reason is that the person being indicted is not allowed to offer any evidence or testimony - it is only what the prosecution brings to the table. If the system allowed for more than one side, I might agree - but it doesn't.

All the police know is that someone has been killed. It may be self-defense, it may be Murder. Who knows?

Lets go back to your tv burglary situation. Maybe the burglar wanted your silverware too and grabbed a big ole knife while he got it - and that made you scared so you shot and killed him. Or maybe you just shot and killed him as he unhooked your tv. Either way - guess what. The cops know he was in your house stealing your stuff. Again, Castle doctrine.

But lets say it wasn't in your home. Let's say you were walking down the street and some punk tries to mug you. He has a knife, and you shoot him dead. Cops get there and gee - the dead guy has a knife in his hand and a bullet in his chest. There might be witnesses, there might not. Were you justified? Maybe they should take a year+ of your life to have you facing murder charges - "just to be sure"? Is that what you would prefer? Heck, maybe you should have him stick you once before you shoot him just to make sure your "affirmative defense" needs are met - just hope he doesn't hit anything vital.

Again - someone commiting a criminal act has already abrogated their rights - so all your doing is protecting your own.

I do not want the police to have the authority to decide, on the spot, with out collecting evidence that the killing was justified. This is not a decision to be made quickly.

I don't believe that anyone is suggesting any such incident should not be investigated - but the idea that it should automatically require you to prove you acted in self defense doesn't fly. Let the evidence lead where it leads - and if you did act in self defense - you won't have to prove it because the evidence will do so for you. AKA - the knife in the dead mugger's hand.

I also believe that armed citizens need to be required to take reasonable actions to remove the threat of violence. In many states this is already a fact of law. In none of those states is an armed citizen required to place themselves in additional danger. Reasonable is the key term.

So you feel that in the case of a mugging - its give up your goods at knifepoint? Ok - the sad thing is - you can identify your mugger - and he doesn't want that - so even doing so your still likely to get a knife in your belly. How are you supposed to "remove the threat of violence" in a case like that?

"I heard someone break in to my garage. I got my handgun, went outside and entered the side door to my garage. I shot the guy in the process of stealing my car" - not justified.

Legally it is right now - but that is why we are having this discussion. I can see your point, I just disagree. The moment the "bad guy" decided to break into your garage, he abrogated his rights and violated yours. Why should you respect his rights when he doesn't do the same for you? In this case - being the "bigger man" simply means your letting another trample your rights. Many of us - and our ancestors near and far - shed a lot of blood to make sure you didn't have to have your rights trampled. You can if you want - that is your right too - but you can't expect us all to be ok with that same outcome.

"I heard someone break in to my house. I got my family in one of the bedrooms, and I called 911. When the burglar entered my bedroom, my family did not have anywhere else to retreat to, so I shot the intruder." - Justified.

I agree - and I will say that this is "more justified" than the other - because it is a more reasonable approach IF you value life above other rights.

I have been a gun owner for 30 years. I keep guns especially for home defense. I was once burglarized in Utah and I found the guy in my apartment! My gun is to be used only in the absolute last resort after all other reasonable measures are taken, including my running away crying like a little girl if necessary. :wah:

Nothing that I own is worth killing someone over. Only when I perceive that not only is there significant threat to me/my family AND there there are no reasonable options open, would I ever consider using my weapon.

You respect the right to life above all others - and I don't fault you for that at all. I agree with you in many ways, a firearm should be used as a last resort. Where I differ is I see it as a last resort to protect not only life and liberty, but also the pursuit of happiness. We can agree to disagree.

I would expect to be arrested, interrogated, and subject to a hearing to determine if my shooting was justified.

I don't have a problem with the interrogation/interview and an investigation. However, an arrest deprives me of liberty when the evidence very well shows the truth. A hearing is also unnecessary in the case of actual self defense or castle doctrine shooting under most circumstances. Arresting before you have probable cause - aka evidence of a crime (and a dead body by mere virtue of its existence does not qualify) is a violation of my right to liberty without cause.

If it was justified, it should not be too terribly hard to prove... unless you have an unethical state prosecutor (is that redundant?) :D

I dunno if it was redundant - probably depends on where your at. But it sure was funny! :har:

[les green01]

maybe I should stop posting since my English skills just isn't good enough so long

[soopaman2]

maybe I should stop posting since my English skills just isn't good enough so long


Your skills are no better or worse than anyone else here.

Your opinion is just as important as anyone elses, depite how many agrees, or disagrees you get.


Just be yourself, being argued and disagreed with is a sign of people listening and taking you seriously, it's when they ignore you outright, is when it gets rough. :up::salute:

[VipertheSniper]

maybe I should stop posting since my English skills just isn't good enough so long

I guess you should work a bit on formatting your posts.

If you write like this: "Sentence.Sentence.Sentence" it's easy to overlook where one sentence ends and another starts, thus making it hard to read.
A space after the period, and in longer posts, some paragraphs might help.

[Armistead]

Sadly, we had a man that worked a small conv. store in small town near us get shot by a black man in a hoodie, killed and robbed.

Yea, wear those hoodies

http://www.digtriad.com/news/local/article/292078/57/Gibsonville-PD-Investigating-Homicide-Robbery

[CaptainHaplo]

Sadly, we had a man that worked a small conv. store in small town near us get shot by a black man in a hoodie, killed and robbed.

Yea, wear those hoodies

The reality is that the majority of the "black community" promotes a lack of disrespect for others and life. From music to media, the hoodie wearing thug is held up as something to aspire to - dealing drugs, disrespecting women, etc. It is why 94% of all black murder victims are killed by other blacks.

[Onkel Neal]

Standing your ground in Houston:o
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=9180568

What's the natural reaction when a beefy black woman pulls a rifle out of the trunk of her car? Why, take a swing at her, of course. But I don't either one of these clowns was a neighborhood watch or white, so this will go unprotested.

[CaptainHaplo]

Standing your ground in Houston:o
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=9180568

What's the natural reaction when a beefy black woman pulls a rifle out of the trunk of her car? Why, take a swing at her, of course. But I don't either one of these clowns was a neighborhood watch or white, so this will go unprotested.

From the article:

"Daniel, 58, apparently got into an argument with a woman who was filling her car with gas. Eyewitness Raymond Martin, Jr., saw it in front of his eyes.
He said, "He came at her with a knife. So she came out of her trunk with a gun and started shooting him."

An eyewitness puts him attacking her - she should not be charged when it goes to the grand jury. She had every right to self defense. Apparently he made some unwanted sexual advances, she declined, he didn't like that answer. From the eyewitness account - she saved herself from a rape at the least.

[garren]

From the article:



An eyewitness puts him attacking her - she should not be charged when it goes to the grand jury. She had every right to self defense. Apparently he made some unwanted sexual advances, she declined, he didn't like that answer. From the eyewitness account - she saved herself from a rape at the least.

I disagree. Unlike Zimmerman, the guy was not on top of her bashing her skull against the ground to the place she didn't have other options available to her. She shot him because she was angry he swung at her - not because she felt her life was in imminent danger. I think she'll get a manslaughter charge.

Also look at the video closely. He was just standing there when she came out of the trunk with a gun and she walks up to him. Then it looks like she points it at his leg or foot. Then he lifts his left leg and stomps it down real quick just before he swings at her. He might have felt she violated his ground by getting close to him with a loaded gun -provoking him to stand his ground by swinging at her. But she runs off and then takes aim at him while he's still in the same spot and shoots him.

[AVGWarhawk]

I agree with garren. She will get manslaughter. Not really sure what the altercation was beforehand but it did not warrant pulling a shotgun out of the trunk. Even so, the gentleman should have considered making a fast exit when the shotgun was taken from the trunk. I do believe the gentleman was going after her verbally for quite sometime. This elicited her response with the shotgun.

[mookiemookie]

The reality is that the majority of the "black community" promotes a lack of disrespect for others and life. From music to media, the hoodie wearing thug is held up as something to aspire to - dealing drugs, disrespecting women, etc. It is why 94% of all black murder victims are killed by other blacks.

The majority, eh? :nope:

[August]

He wasn't just standing there, his mouth was moving the entire time. No audio with the film clip but if he was making threats she could have had justification to shoot.

[AVGWarhawk]

He wasn't just standing there, his mouth was moving the entire time. No audio with the film clip but if he was making threats she could have had justification to shoot.

I doubt what he was saying was enough to warrant pulling out the artillery. But I agree, was berating or lecturing the woman. He looks to be relentless in his verbal assault.

[August]

I doubt what he was saying was enough to warrant pulling out the artillery. But I agree, was berating or lecturing the woman. He looks to be relentless in his verbal assault.

Hmm, good point. Some form of "I will take that gun away from you and rape you" would about cover it I think.

[AVGWarhawk]

Hmm, good point. Some form of "I will take that gun away from you and rape you" would about cover it I think.

Probably but I don't think that is what he was saying. Looked to be some type of verbal reprimand. He looks to not be finished and exits the gas station store after paying or whatever to continue the reprimand. She then pulls the artillery. I would think the gentleman was planning on showing the woman a thing or two as a result of her pulling the artillery. His failed attempt at disarming the woman resulted in his death.

[CaptainHaplo]

Ok - I watched the video.

It looks like she was trying to scare him off and the gun went off accidentally that first time. He definitely was the aggressor and she didn't have any real place to run to - though I agree the firearm should never have come out.

Ok - stupid question - who goes around with a loaded rifle or shotgun in their trunk?

Regarding charges - yes she was an idiot for pulling the firearm at the time she did. However - idiot does not equate to criminal. The moron that died did so because he acted stupidly and the outcome of his aggressive actions resulted in his death. I don't know if she suddenly saw the knife, or what - but he died for his stupidity - isn't one life ruined enough? Or do we as a society see ruining someone else's as "justice" when they would not have acted if not for the stupidity and aggressiveness of the deceased?

He put her into the situation - she acted badly - but is that her fault - or his? Like the TM case - who holds the GREATER responsibility for the outcome?

[AVGWarhawk]

Ok - stupid question - who goes around with a loaded rifle or shotgun in their trunk?

Oh my, you would be surprised what people carry around in their vehicles.

[soopaman2]

Oh my, you would be surprised what people carry around in their vehicles.


My uncle in Alabama, fits the bill for the "stereotypical" redneck.

He is straight out of a Jeff Foxworthy bit.

Down to the shotgun in a rack on the back window of his pickup, with a dog riding in the tailgate.

No finer man to hang around with, and an even finer man in a bar full of people making fun of my Yankee accent.

2 on 2, no one won.

We always were brawlers. Though the big guy with no teeth did break my nose.

Alabama cops are so differient than Jersey ones, in jersey both parties would be in a cell.

The sheriff asked both of us if we were mad still, we both said no, he told us to vacate the bar.

He let us drive away absolutely drunk.


Sorry for the tangent, it just brought up a hilarious memory.

[Ducimus]

Ok - stupid question - who goes around with a loaded rifle or shotgun in their trunk?


Oh my, you would be surprised what people carry around in their vehicles.


It's called a "Truck Gun". (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pPL4ydYm78) Not too uncommon in rural areas.

[Armistead]

It's called a "Truck Gun". (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pPL4ydYm78) Not too uncommon in rural areas.

Yep, in rural areas, but I doubt that lady is a deer hunter.

[AVGWarhawk]

I was not just talking about guns in trunks either!! As many cars as I worked on over the years you would be astonished what's lurking in the trunk, under the seat or in the console.

[Ducimus]

I was not just talking about guns in trunks either!! As many cars as I worked on over the years you would be astonished what's lurking in the trunk, under the seat or in the console.

Women's panties and used condoms! :O: :haha: (oh and misc assortment of narcotics probably)

[soopaman2]

A buddy of mine is a mechanic, and all he finds are pot seeds.

I guess it is all region dependant?

[AVGWarhawk]

Women's panties and used condoms! :O: :haha: (oh and misc assortment of narcotics probably)

One day I was assigned to work on a woman's Cordoba. She left the windows closed and a few filled diapers in the back seat. It as a 90 degree day. :shifty:

Worked on a van that delivered meat. It had no windows and hooks on the ceiling. Needless to say the back of the van looked like a scene from Criminal Minds.

But yes, empty beer/liquor bottle, condoms, soiled underwear, knives, bats, steel bars under the front seat. Old food. People are nuts.

[garren]

Hmm, good point. Some form of "I will take that gun away from you and rape you" would about cover it I think.


That wouldn't be enough to justify shooting someone unless she was cornered and he started to approach her in a threatening manner. But in the video she takes the time to open the trunk of her car and pull out a shotgun. Then she walks over to him with it and aims it at his leg. Looks like she shot him in the leg or foot and then he swung at her to defend himself but she ran off and turned back to aim at him again and shot him dead. She was out in the open at a gas station. She wasn't cornered up against a wall. She had avenues to escape. So there's no way in hell she's going to be able to claim self-defense or stand your ground in this case and hope to win.

What's going to hem this woman up is - instead of getting in her car and driving off or running away to get help, she took the time to go into her trunk to get a weapon. And the guy just stood there while she did it. He wasn't posing an imminent threat to her life and that's clear as day in the video. Doesn't matter what he said. His body language doesn't suggest he was posing any imminent threat to her.

Being verbally assaulted is never grounds to use physical violence or a weapon on anyone - ever. The verbal assault will allow her to plead guilty to a manslaughter charge and beg for leniency on how many years in prison she's going to have to do, instead of pleading not guilty and the prosecution nailing her and going for a 2nd degree murder charge which might result in a life sentence.

If I was her attorney I'd tell her to plea bargain with the prosecution in exchange for leniency on a manslaughter charge and with a promise she wouldn't have to serve more than 10 years in prison with a chance to parole in 3 to 5 years for good behavior. I'm sure her lawyer will ask them to just give her probation or house arrest at first but I doubt they will be that lenient with her. So I think 3 to 10 years total is what she'll get and she'll have to wear the conviction on her record for the rest of her life which means no more guns for her in the future.

This way she only does 3 to 10 years in prison and can eventually come out and start a new life for herself. If she wants to be defiant and plead not guilty and make the state fight the case then the prosecution is going to go for the kill and nail her on a 2nd degree murder as the major charge and manslaughter as the minor charge (up to the jury to decide) without leniency which will earn her at least 20 years to life in prison. That would be foolish on her part when she could maybe get away with only having to do 3 to 10 instead.

[CaptainHaplo]

This way she only does 3 to 10 years in prison and can eventually come out and start a new life for herself. If she wants to be defiant and plead not guilty and make the state fight the case then the prosecution is going to go for the kill and nail her on a 2nd degree murder as the major charge and manslaughter as the minor charge (up to the jury to decide) without leniency which will earn her at least 20 years to life in prison. That would be foolish on her part when she could maybe get away with only having to do 3 to 10 instead.

She has a witness that says he went after her with a knife to start the whole thing. You can't tell from the video what is being said or what he has in his other hand.

No jury of 6 (usually its 12 in a felony case - the TMvGZ case surprised me with only 6) or 12 is going to convict when she pleads he propositioned her for sex, she turned him down, he pulled a knife and so she shot him in the foot, he swung and she shot again. Not when she has a witness on the knife and the initial unwanted sexual advances.

[Dowly]

You can't tell from the video what is being said or what he has in his other hand.

Which is exactly why we should hold off on judging either way. I do agree with Garren
in that she did seem awfully calm if her life was indeed in danger.

But, we know very little of what went on, so is there point speculating? I'm sure
there will be more info available later on. :hmmm:

[AVGWarhawk]

There is no doubt the man is chastising or reprimanding her for something. What is being said is the question. There is one witness kind of taking it all in but 10 feet from them. Heck, he kind of stays cool after she pulls out the shotgun. I would have been gone in a flash!

[Platapus]

Never a need to keep a loaded shotgun in the trunk.

What you need is a Trunk Monkey

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rx6WB5YJia8

[CaptainHaplo]

Regardless of what one uses - lethal force used to protect against perceived imminent threat of harm or death is what this woman will claim.

I doubt it ever goes to trial, and if it does she should walk.

Note: Only once in the video (the portion we see) does he face toward the camera. Does he know its there and is hiding something from it, like a knife? Eyewitness says he had one.... though they didn't say one was found on him or near him.

We know too little to be SURE of what happened - and thus she should walk because of the presumption of innocence.

So - looking back at the comment by Platapus - it should be an affirmative defense. This is a good case as to maybe why it should.

So lets go over the pro's and cons of it using this very shooting....

[garren]

She has a witness that says he went after her with a knife to start the whole thing. You can't tell from the video what is being said or what he has in his other hand.

Doesn't matter. The video clearly shows she was not in imminent danger from him. She took the time to go into her trunk while he just stood there. Then she approaches him with the gun. He doesn't approach her. She shoots him in the leg and he swings at her. I would too if some crazy woman shot me in the leg. Then she runs off and then turns to aim at him and shoots him again to kill him. This is not self-defense or stand your ground. It's manslaughter.



No jury of 6 (usually its 12 in a felony case - the TMvGZ case surprised me with only 6) or 12 is going to convict when she pleads he propositioned her for sex, she turned him down, he pulled a knife and so she shot him in the foot, he swung and she shot again. Not when she has a witness on the knife and the initial unwanted sexual advances.

I'm sure there's a lot of bias in favor of women who claim some guy was going to rape them. But I don't see it in the video. He may have propositioned sex and she turned him down and he got angry with her but I don't think he was going to rape her - not in a public gas station with witnesses. I think he was hounding her and I'm sure she said things back to piss him off even more. But I'm telling you this woman lost her case the moment she went into the trunk to get that gun. Had she been carrying a pistol or had the shotgun out from the start then there'd be more merit in the case.

There was a woman in Florida who shot at her husband but she lost her case and got 20 years because she went to go retrieve the gun from another part of the house and then came back to shoot at him. That's similar to what happened here.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/19/marissa-alexander-gets-20_n_1530035.html

And I'm telling you that if this woman in this Houston shooting doesn't make a plea deal with the prosecution she's going to get hemmed up like the woman in the article I linked you to. There has to be clear and convincing evidence that she felt her life was in "imminent danger" from the man and that's not what the video shows - at all.

Zimmerman was on the ground getting his skull smashed against the concrete over and over and his nose broken. He had a clear and present danger to his life and he was cornered (under Trayvon) with no way to escape. That's imminent danger.

This woman had avenues to escape and instead of taking them - she chose to open her trunk (took several seconds to do this) grabs the shot gun (more seconds) turns around to face the man behind her (more seconds) and then walks up to him with the gun (more seconds and shows the threat was now coming from her because she had the bigger weapon and she approached him) they talk for a few seconds (then bang - in the leg) he swings (who wouldn't? The crazy woman just shot him) then she dodges his swing and runs away several feet. The man stays where he was shot (leg is messed up) she aims at him again and fires killing him.

I just don't see the imminent danger to her life. I do see the imminent danger to him from her when she shot him in the leg. That swing from him was more than warranted. Had he killed her right then and there then he would be the one claiming "stand your ground" and would have been justified in doing so.

[CaptainHaplo]

There was a woman in Florida who shot at her husband but she lost her case and got 20 years because she went to go retrieve the gun from another part of the house and then came back to shoot at him. That's similar to what happened here.

The key in the case you reference is that the woman left the room, got the gun and then re-engaged her husband. It also did not help that she lied about the shot she fired - claiming she fired at the ceiling when the bullet hit head-high in the door jam/wall.

The differences are critical. The case you reference there was no witness except the husband. In this there is a 3rd party witnessing him going after her with a knife - at which point she fires. Based on that account, he instigated the threat (similar to the TMvGZ case) and she reacted with lethal force.

Yes, she retrieved the gun, but did so AS he was continuing to verbally engage her - perhaps with threats, perhaps not. With his back to the camera, he could have shown her the blade and told her what he planned to do, etc. Then again, he could have been complaining about how she pulled into the parking spot. The thing is - she gets the gun and takes one step towards him - he moves forward - watch his leg - he PUTS it in the path of the gun - and intentionally moves up against her. If a knife was in his hand at that point - I don't blame her for pulling the trigger.

And I'm telling you that if this woman in this Houston shooting doesn't make a plea deal with the prosecution she's going to get hemmed up like the woman in the article I linked you to. There has to be clear and convincing evidence that she felt her life was in "imminent danger" from the man and that's not what the video shows - at all.

Maybe - maybe not. We can't see what he has in the hand he swings at her - he has SOMETHING, but you can't tell what. If its demonstrated to be a knife, I'd give her the benefit of the doubt to be sure. If the argument was him trying to get some tail - even more so.

Zimmerman was on the ground getting his skull smashed against the concrete over and over and his nose broken. He had a clear and present danger to his life and he was cornered (under Trayvon) with no way to escape. That's imminent danger.

We know this from the eyewitness and the injuries. If there was a knife as the witness claims, it could have been placed at her gut while he told her she didn't have the guts and he was going to have some fun with her. IF she is indicted then we will have to see where the evidence goes....A knife not seen on camera (and note how he almost always kept his left side away from the recording) but present and the testimony of "he came at her with a knife and she shot him" is pretty imminent - at least in my book.

This woman had avenues to escape and instead of taking them - she chose

Forgive the partial quote, but this is the crux of the discussion - stand your ground. She didn't escape or retreat. In a case where you feel threatened - should you be able to use lethal force without retreating?


This woman had avenues to escape and instead of taking them - she chose to open her trunk (took several seconds to do this) grabs the shot gun (more seconds) turns around to face the man behind her (more seconds) and then walks up to him with the gun (more seconds and shows the threat was now coming from her because she had the bigger weapon and she approached him) they talk for a few seconds (then bang - in the leg) he swings (who wouldn't? The crazy woman just shot him) then she dodges his swing and runs away several feet. The man stays where he was shot (leg is messed up) she aims at him again and fires killing him.

Well unless there is more info than I am aware of, I don't know if she fired once or twice. If twice and it was a shotgun, it had to be a double barrel unless she retreated, reloaded and then shot him. Not enough on the tape to see that. Yes he jumped and they separated as he swung, but I am not convinced she actually did fire - much less hit him in the leg. He moves pretty well for a guy who took buckshot in one leg before the tape ends if that is the case. Given no audio and no details on the number of shots fired, its an assumption that the swing and fatal shot were preceded by another weapon discharge. Granted - it looks like it may have been, but there are indications on the take that no shot was fired initially - no visible concussion (pant leg movement, ground impact shards, dust flying etc considering it was pointed generally at the ground. No blood flying from the shooting "victim", and so on.).

I just don't see the imminent danger to her life. I do see the imminent danger to him from her when she shot him in the leg. That swing from him was more than warranted. Had he killed her right then and there then he would be the one claiming "stand your ground" and would have been justified in doing so.

The swing was warranted IF he was unarmed and she did in fact fire / shoot him in the leg. None of that is clearly proven or stated in the article or video. If she DIDN'T shoot fire (hitting him or not) then the swing was NOT warranted. Also - if he was armed with a knife then it was warranted anyway. I do have to take exception to the idea you raised that she had the "the bigger weapon" so by taking a step toward him it made her the threat. The "size of the weapon" doesn't matter - a lethal weapon is lethal - and that step forward could easily be seen as a way for her to clear her car enough to bring the weapon to bear. As such, it could be a reasonable act necessary for self defense (since we don't know if she saw the supposed knife). Notice she didn't raise it at him, its pointed toward the ground. To call that a threat doesn't make sense to me. He actually approaches, turns side on and sticks his leg / foot out - at least that is the way it appears.

Like the last case - we don't yet know all the facts - and what we do know is incomplete.

What is truly a sad commentary about this case is not just the loss of life for one family and the uncertainty and fear for another - it is that no one around the situation stepped in and helped calm the situation before it ever got to that point.

[garren]

The key in the case you reference is that the woman left the room, got the gun and then re-engaged her husband. It also did not help that she lied about the shot she fired - claiming she fired at the ceiling when the bullet hit head-high in the door jam/wall.

The differences are critical. The case you reference there was no witness except the husband. In this there is a 3rd party witnessing him going after her with a knife - at which point she fires. Based on that account, he instigated the threat (similar to the TMvGZ case) and she reacted with lethal force.

Yes, she retrieved the gun, but did so AS he was continuing to verbally engage her - perhaps with threats, perhaps not. With his back to the camera, he could have shown her the blade and told her what he planned to do, etc. Then again, he could have been complaining about how she pulled into the parking spot. The thing is - she gets the gun and takes one step towards him - he moves forward - watch his leg - he PUTS it in the path of the gun - and intentionally moves up against her. If a knife was in his hand at that point - I don't blame her for pulling the trigger.



Maybe - maybe not. We can't see what he has in the hand he swings at her - he has SOMETHING, but you can't tell what. If its demonstrated to be a knife, I'd give her the benefit of the doubt to be sure. If the argument was him trying to get some tail - even more so.



We know this from the eyewitness and the injuries. If there was a knife as the witness claims, it could have been placed at her gut while he told her she didn't have the guts and he was going to have some fun with her. IF she is indicted then we will have to see where the evidence goes....A knife not seen on camera (and note how he almost always kept his left side away from the recording) but present and the testimony of "he came at her with a knife and she shot him" is pretty imminent - at least in my book.



Forgive the partial quote, but this is the crux of the discussion - stand your ground. She didn't escape or retreat. In a case where you feel threatened - should you be able to use lethal force without retreating?




Well unless there is more info than I am aware of, I don't know if she fired once or twice. If twice and it was a shotgun, it had to be a double barrel unless she retreated, reloaded and then shot him. Not enough on the tape to see that. Yes he jumped and they separated as he swung, but I am not convinced she actually did fire - much less hit him in the leg. He moves pretty well for a guy who took buckshot in one leg before the tape ends if that is the case. Given no audio and no details on the number of shots fired, its an assumption that the swing and fatal shot were preceded by another weapon discharge. Granted - it looks like it may have been, but there are indications on the take that no shot was fired initially - no visible concussion (pant leg movement, ground impact shards, dust flying etc considering it was pointed generally at the ground. No blood flying from the shooting "victim", and so on.).



The swing was warranted IF he was unarmed and she did in fact fire / shoot him in the leg. None of that is clearly proven or stated in the article or video. If she DIDN'T shoot fire (hitting him or not) then the swing was NOT warranted. Also - if he was armed with a knife then it was warranted anyway. I do have to take exception to the idea you raised that she had the "the bigger weapon" so by taking a step toward him it made her the threat. The "size of the weapon" doesn't matter - a lethal weapon is lethal - and that step forward could easily be seen as a way for her to clear her car enough to bring the weapon to bear. As such, it could be a reasonable act necessary for self defense (since we don't know if she saw the supposed knife). Notice she didn't raise it at him, its pointed toward the ground. To call that a threat doesn't make sense to me. He actually approaches, turns side on and sticks his leg / foot out - at least that is the way it appears.

Like the last case - we don't yet know all the facts - and what we do know is incomplete.

What is truly a sad commentary about this case is not just the loss of life for one family and the uncertainty and fear for another - it is that no one around the situation stepped in and helped calm the situation before it ever got to that point.


He swung at her after she shot him in the leg. I'd swing at her too for that.

[CaptainHaplo]

He swung at her after she shot him in the leg. I'd swing at her too for that.

Ok - it is indicated that she did in fact fire the rifle (a .22 btw) but he was not shot - he was hit by shrapnel. However, he did have a knife on him and he approached her with it - which is when she initially fired.

Her claim is he brandished the knife - which is when she got the rifle out. He advanced on her (you can see that in the video) and she shot once - he got hit with shrapnel and swung at her - she then shot him dead. A knife was found on the scene and she actually took pictures after he was down to prove he had one. Smart woman, that was.

I will say this - in the video - it looks like she fired on accident that first time - she was as startled as he was I think. Still, if he pulled a knife on her as appears to have happened - I can't fault her for shooting him.

We may have to agree to disagree on this one.

[Onkel Neal]

From the article:



An eyewitness puts him attacking her - she should not be charged when it goes to the grand jury. She had every right to self defense. Apparently he made some unwanted sexual advances, she declined, he didn't like that answer. From the eyewitness account - she saved herself from a rape at the least.

Ah, well, from the video, she had every chance to drive away. I'm not sure she needed to hang around and wait till it got to the point where she calmly and deliberately opened the trunk and pulled a rifle.

Story continues...http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=9182830

[garren]

Ah, well, from the video, she had every chance to drive away. I'm not sure she needed to hang around and wait till it got to the point where she calmly and deliberately opened the trunk and pulled a rifle.

Story continues...http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=9182830


Agreed. Just like I've said multiple times. I worked in a security surveillance job for 10 years and have an eye for these things. :03:

[Onkel Neal]

So, more about the story comes out. They knew each other.
http://www.inquisitr.com/868073/fatal-houston-gas-station-shooting-caught-on-surveillance-video/

[CaptainHaplo]

So I refer back to the original premise...

Person pulls a knife (even a small pocketknife) on you while your out and about. Regardless of why they do, I think its safe to say we all agree that pulling a knife on someone is not the proper course of action unless you are threatened and have nothing better. So let's say it is unprovoked (via physical aggression) - should you have the "duty to retreat"?

If not, why not?
If so, why?

I am looking for folks to put their viewpoints out there with an explanation - like platapus did. It provided a foundation for the discussion.

[Ducimus]

So I refer back to the original premise...

Person pulls a knife (even a small pocketknife) on you while your out and about. Regardless of why they do, I think its safe to say we all agree that pulling a knife on someone is not the proper course of action unless you are threatened and have nothing better. So let's say it is unprovoked (via physical aggression) - should you have the "duty to retreat"?

If not, why not?
If so, why?

I am looking for folks to put their viewpoints out there with an explanation - like platapus did. It provided a foundation for the discussion.

Following the hypothetical you've given, if someone pulls a knife on me in an unprovoked attack, do I feel a have a duty to retreat?

No, i don't. They attacked me. I have a right to defend myself.


Now, since I know this whole conversation is going to lead into guns (again), ill expand on this further.

As i stated I have a right to defend myself, so i feel no duty to retreat. In fact i think it's assine to suggest otherwise. It leads into the whole, "criminals rights take greater priority then your own" discussion. However, I also feel that using a gun is the absolute last resort in personal defense. I will try anything and everything else, before using it. If the opportunity presents itself to run and get away from the situation, then I will. If i can't get away, then I'll be forced to use the last resort.

In summary, I have a right to defend myself. All i want is the threat to stop. The situation dictates my response, but the most lethal response, will always be the last resort, when there is no other option.

EDIT:
As an aside, if someone comes at you with a knife, running away may not be an option at all. It's been proven that an assailant can cover the distance of about 21 feet in just a few seconds. Trying to run may only result in a knife in your back.

[Armistead]

Following the hypothetical you've given, if someone pulls a knife on me in an unprovoked attack, do I feel a have a duty to retreat?

No, i don't. They attacked me. I have a right to defend myself.


Now, since I know this whole conversation is going to lead into guns (again), ill expand on this further.

As i stated I have a right to defend myself, so i feel no duty to retreat. In fact i think it's assine to suggest otherwise. It leads into the whole, "criminals rights take greater priority then your own" discussion. However, I also feel that using a gun is the absolute last resort in personal defense. I will try anything and everything else, before using it. If the opportunity presents itself to run and get away from the situation, then I will. If i can't get away, then I'll be forced to use the last resort.

In summary, I have a right to defend myself. All i want is the threat to stop. The situation dictates my response, but the most lethal response, will always be the last resort, when there is no other option.

EDIT:
As an aside, if someone comes at you with a knife, running away may not be an option at all. It's been proven that an assailant can cover the distance of about 21 feet in just a few seconds. Trying to run may only result in a knife in your back.

I was going to argue with you until I saw your edit. Someone pulls a knife, if would be a case of self defense. Still, it's a tough call, I wouldn't shoot unless I felt I had no choice.

I did a lot of stupid fighting back in my 20's, mostly when I hit the country bar scene, a mix of urban cowboys, bikers and rednecks, mixed with a lot of decent city folk. I boxed for years and did several tough men contes thought I was a tough guy. I wouldn't say I started fights, just seemed to find myself in them. The last fight I got in got bad. I went with a girl to a club and her ex showed up. He was a rookie cop and she said was a bad ass. Course I got about have lit as usual, was just standing there with my drink when I got a shove in my back, causing me to dump my drink all over myself. He gave me a big bump from behind as he walked by. I didn't do anything, but moments later I saw him and the girl go outside, so I followed. I did walk up to them in the parking lot, he pulled his club out as I got close and we just came together. It didn't seem like a bad fight, got him in a headlock and went to punching his face, we rolled a little and the bouncers broke us up. I was shocked when I saw his face, teeth hangin out, blood everywhere, his face swollen up. Worse, the idiot had a gun in a ankle holster. A bouncer said he was going for it and took it. Guess I was lucky he didn't shoot me. Even worse, the police showed up, guess who got arrested.....me.

Lucky for me the girls sister was out there and agreed with my story that he swung first with his billy club and the judge dropped charges. Still, the idiot remained on the force.

I'm not totally sure of "stand your ground" seems I heard even if you start the fight, but later take a beating and feel your life is in danger, you can use deadly force. Could that same cop I was beating have shot me and claimed self defense today? I know the majority of fights I was in or saw, people got hurt much worse than GZ. Hate to think every fist fight today, a person could claim he was scared and kill someone and get away with it. I certainly believe anyone has a fight to meet deadly force with deadly force, but not so sure I agree with stand your ground, seems that's just an excuse to progress the situation to something much worse, then claim self defense.

Certainly you have the right to stand your ground on your property, in public, I think you're obligated to walk away, not stand face to face egging the situation on, better to call the cops. If you can't retreat, then I think we have plenty of self defense laws.

Seems to me, "stand your ground" is the same as the "stand up against bullies" concept that many of our fathers taught us we had to do. I know about every bully I stood up to resulted in a fight. Not really a big deal in my day, you took your lumps and moved on, but today people throw bullets, very dangerous IMO.

[August]

At what point does punching someone in a fist fight become an attempt to maim or murder? When one opponent has his "teeth hangin out, blood everywhere, his face swollen up" and the other protagonist isn't stopping his attack might be sufficient justification to some juries.

[Armistead]

At what point does punching someone in a fist fight become an attempt to maim or murder? When one opponent has his "teeth hangin out, blood everywhere, his face swollen up" and the other protagonist isn't stopping his attack might be sufficient justification to some juries.

That's highly possible, but I find that's the danger of stand your ground. When I walked out, not sure I had the intent to fight, but as I got close, he swung with a club and I charged in.

I think " stand your ground" is dangerous in that it encourages people to progress a situation that they should've walked away from or called the police. More so in town where many carry concealed heat. I'm all for the right to carry, but someone carrying a gun and feeling they have to stand their ground is very dangerous.

Sure I mentioned the time I was metal detecting an old park in the rougher side of town. Several blacks gathered at the picnic table drinking, started making slurs towards me. Several were walking around my car looking in. I was concerned they were damaging my car. I was carrying my firearm as usual. I could've easily walked to my car, confronted them or tried to leave, but felt if I did, something bad could happen. I kept my distance and called the police and left. I guess legally I could've walked up there, stood there and argued, ended up in a gun fight. Many suggest carrying a firearm emboldens people to stand there ground, when it should be the opposite. Course, I remember thinking to myself as I stood there, that if they came to me, I wasn't gonna leave, I had the right to be there. Who knows what would've happened. The smart thing would've been to keep backing away until the police got there. My guess is I would've stood my ground, because I was armed.

[Ducimus]

IMO, the use of lethal force is "A-OK" so long as your being threatened with lethal force, and you did not instigate the situation.

EDIT:
Examples of what I would consider being threatened with lethal force.
ex 1. Assailant has in their hands a deadly object.
ex 2. trying to get his hands around your throat or, dare i say it, trying to smash your head repeatedly into something. These actions have only one intent in my view.

[Armistead]

IMO, the use of lethal force is "A-OK" so long as your being threatened with lethal force, and you did not instigate the situation.

EDIT:
Examples of what I would consider being threatened with lethal force.
ex 1. Assailant has in their hands a deadly object.
ex 2. trying to get his hands around your throat or, dare i say it, trying to smash your head repeatedly into something. These actions have only one intent in my view.

That is self defense, not stand your ground.

[Ducimus]

True. However, i find the politics of the situation makes things very fuzzy.

The way i'm interpetting the whole debate on the anti side, something like: "your supposed to run away less you violate the the misguided persons civil rights. He's more important then you after all! Your just some dirt bag gun owner looking for an excuse!"

That's how i'm seeing this argument, because the argument is at it's core, on the anti gun agenda, so any real discussion is becoming very fuzzy to me.

EDIT:
Ill leave this here.
Obama Speaks On Stand Your Ground (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrW7yPU4Aqo)

[Armistead]

True. However, i find the politics of the situation makes things very fuzzy.

The way i'm interpetting the whole debate on the anti side, something like: "your supposed to run away less you violate the the misguided persons civil rights. He's more important then you after all! Your just some dirt bag gun owner looking for an excuse!"

That's how i'm seeing this argument, because the argument is at it's core, on the anti gun agenda, so any real discussion is becoming very fuzzy to me.

It is fuzzy, I agree. Course, many refer to stand your ground as " Make My Day" law. The law simply states you have no duty to retreat. This is why in the old west, many sheriffs outlawed guns inside city limits, men stood their ground, fights broke out, guns came out. I think the danger of stand your ground is either side can say he stood his ground. GZ stated TM blindsided him when he reached into his pocket for his phone. Who knows, maybe TM thought he was going for a gun. The fact is had TM killed GZ, he could've claimed the same stand your ground position.

I think the problem is, it encourages people to engage, not retreat. Not that I'm sure it applies in the GZ case, but we really don't know whatTM was thinking.

[Ducimus]

In my mind it all comes down to who instigated the hostility in whatever the situation may be. I think He who instigated is automatically in the wrong.

I view this as a separate issue from concealed carry because if your carrying, you should be looking to avoid situations to begin with as a matter of training to have gotten your CFP to begin with.

edit: Minor clarifications.

[August]

Well it's the fuzziness of the situation that gave rise to stand your ground laws in the first place I thought.

"Duty to retreat" laws put the burden of proof on the defendant rather than on the prosecution like it should be. How does a defendant prove that he didn't see that open door behind him for instance or that he really thought he wouldn't have a chance to make it there if he tried or maybe was just so scared at the time that he just didn't think of it?

One jury might think it's reasonable where another one wouldn't. Convictions become a popularity contest rather than one based on hard evidence and proven actions. Justice becomes more of a crap shoot than it already is.

[Armistead]

In my mind it all comes down to who instigated the hostility in whatever the situation may be. I think He who instigated is automatically in the wrong.

I view this as a separate issue from concealed carry because if your carrying, you should be looking to avoid situations to begin with as a matter of training to have gotten your CFP to begin with.

edit: Minor clarifications.


Two people standing their ground usually results in someone instigating a fight.

Let's say we pass each other in the street, you're carrying concealed, I bump you by accident, but you took it as an offense.

"hey you, wtf, watch where you're going" says you.

"FU, you ugly arse goat butt licker" says I

We stare each other down

"get out of here or I'll kick your yellow arse" says I

"just try it" says you.

We get eye to eye, we're yelling and spit from your mouth hits my face. I push you back, you fall down. I reach for my cell, you take it as a threat and pull your gun and give me two to the chest and one to the head. I die, worse, Steve starts dating my wife.

Believe it or not, you could claim you "stood your ground."

Let's say I did have a gun, but was just putting my hand on it, because I saw you had one. You feel threatened and pull, but I cap you...

The problem remains, without the duty to retreat, both could be wrong, but the one that lives wins by default.

[Ducimus]

Two people standing their ground usually results in someone instigating a fight.

Let's say we pass each other in the street, you're carrying concealed, I bump you by accident, but you took it as an offense.

"hey you, wtf, watch where you're going" says you.


Your ignoring the second half of what I said. If you bumped into me, i'd just say "excuse me", or "sorry, didn't see you there" and go about my business. In fact, id say the same regardless if I was carrying or not.

Aside from that, just because someone is carrying, doesn't mean they're going around with a chip on their shoulder. In fact, I would say it's the exact opposite, as you should be more conscious of the things you do if you are carrying. The irony is, your actually trying to be a model citizen because your carrying and don't want to get into any situation. The chip on the shoulder argument is the type of assumption made by the same kind of people who think a barrel shroud is the shoulder thing that goes up.

[Armistead]

Your ignoring the second half of what I said. If you bumped into me, i'd just say "excuse me", or "sorry, didn't see you there" and go about my business. In fact, id say the same regardless if I was carrying or not.

Aside from that, just because someone is carrying, doesn't mean they're going around with a chip on their shoulder. In fact, I would say it's the exact opposite, as you should be more conscious of the things you do if you are carrying. The irony is, your actually trying to be a model citizen because your carrying and don't want to get into any situation. The chip on the shoulder argument is the type of assumption made by the same kind of people who think a barrel shroud is the shoulder thing that goes up.

I know you would, but I fear stand your ground for many is an encouragement to do the opposite. Course both sides state studies to promote their point of view.

Yes, responsible gun owners do everything to retreat from a bad situation, that's my point, we should retreat if possible from a situation. As in my case, you say excuse me and walk on. The problem with stand your ground is many feel they can stand up and see what happens.

[Ducimus]

The problem with stand your ground is many feel they can stand up and see what happens.

Some may feel that way, but legallly that's simply not the case is my understanding. If someone feels they can stand up and see what happens, then they are either grossly misinformed or poorly trained.

[Armistead]

Some may feel that way, but legallly that's simply not the case is my understanding. If someone feels they can stand up and see what happens, then they are either grossly misinformed or poorly trained.

Well, looking at the law it's fuzzy, but legally, you're allowed to stand your ground anywhere you're allowed in public. The fact is, if someone is clearly gonna start something, you have the right to stand there and see what happens, rather than call the police. I'm not even saying I disagree with it.

Fact is, I doubt 99% of the people know the laws or sub laws and idiots will act like idiots and smart people walk away. The problem is, there is a percentage of people that know this law, vigilante types that use it and kill when they could've walked away. Like most things, 1% muck it up for the rest of us.

[sidslotm]

Now - the AG and the President are suggesting that we get rid of stand your ground laws - requiring a person to not use legal force when threatened - whether they have a "safe exit or retreat" or not. What say you all - and WHY?

There is no doubt that the rest of the world looks to the USA for direction in making changes, especially in matter of law, well maybe the western democracies do. But if America is successful in changing common law issues the impact will be felt around the democratic world.

Society is a very complex thing now, many different cultures, customs and idea's, that force us to re-examine matters of law.

Unfortunatly westerm culture is Spiritually nieve, therefore easily led by every whim or good cause at tuggs it's collar, the politians are probably the worse as they believe reason and law will see us through the storms.

I often think about what George Bernarnd Shaw once said, "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."

Faith, Love and Belief are all unreasonable things as we cannot touch or see them, but more people have given everything for them that just about anything else.

[Spiced_Rum]

The problem with stand your ground is many feel they can stand up and see what happens.

I knew someone years ago who used to conceal carry, and whenever he went to an ATM would stand there counting his cash just hoping some punk would try to steal from him so that he could draw and fire. Never happend though.

I do not condone that type of attitude, however, if someone is trying to steal your money and threatens your life then stopping them IMHO is fine.

EDIT: point made that protecting property is no license to shoot, unlike defending your life if you believe it is in danger.

[CaptainHaplo]

The problem is, there is a percentage of people that know this law, vigilante types that use it and kill when they could've walked away. Like most things, 1% muck it up for the rest of us.

Please provide sources for the above claim that there are people out there that use the law simply to engage in vigilante activities...

Here is the problem with this line of thinking....
Like most things, 1% muck it up for the rest of us.
That makes it out like the person defending themselves - legally mind you - are somehow the bad guys. Thing is - it is those that choose to commit crime that "muck it up" and make self defense laws necessary to start with. Attempting to criminalize the victim is not the way we solve the problem.

I notice that no one seems to want to touch the Kennisaw, Ga. crime data... The proof is right there - an armed community suffers less crime than an unarmed one. Look at where gun control has been steadily enacted in stronger and stronger ways - violent crime increases. Chicago anyone? When you take away the ability of the citizen to protect him/herself - you make them more likely to be a victim.

Decreasing "stand your ground" and Castle Doctrine laws only remove that self-defense right.

Why is it that no one who is for removing guns from society is willing to put a "This is a gun free zone" in their yard? Is it because it makes them a target?