Stoj: "Daniel Adkins Jr. walked past Taco Bell's drive-thru just as a 22-year-old man pulled around in his SUV..."

"He said he couldn't drive away from Adkins because the dog was in the way..."

One of these things runs over the other on a regular basis. It would take an extremely incompetent prosecutor to not completely decimate this guy in a courtroom. The q&a I've already got going in my head is pretty hilarious, but I'm typing on my iPhone and am lazy.

The problem is, under the law, the dog is irrelevant. He had the right to stand his ground. Yes, in a court with reasonable self-defense laws, the guy's story is preposterous. In a Republican controlled state, it's called "perfect self-defense."

I have to go to bed. Night all.

Ironic thing is the people who lobby for and support these laws are the same ones that complain about the 'pussification of America'

"Remember the old days when Men were Men? I miss those days...what happened to this country? Also, I piss myself when another guy looks at me. Uh-oh, somebody on the internet is typing in all caps! I'm going to get my gun and hide under the bed. Vote Republican"

bugontherug: Sabyen91: bugontherug: George was on his back, with Trayvon on top of him.

This is what you believe.

That's what Zimmerman and his own apologists claim.

Sorry, thought you were making that claim as a fact. Time for bed, I guess.

bugontherug: Sabyen91: bugontherug: George was on his back, with Trayvon on top of him.

This is what you believe.

That's what Zimmerman and his own apologists claim.

And they seem to have missed the fact that several voice analyzes have been done on the 911 tape that Zimmerman claimed that it was him screaming for help, and all of them concluded that it wasn't his voice screaming for help.

balki1867: Salt Lick Steady: bugontherug: Why do you suppose George didn't try to shoot Trayvon in the leg, or fire off a warning shot to try to scare him away?

Because he knew he didn't have to.

Or maybe he was a paranoid asshole with no gun skills? And really, warning shot? He was chasing the kid after the cops told him not to, this isn't the type of person who would think of firing a warning shot.

Which you generally never do anyway, even if you're in legit danger.

Apparently gun trainers teach new gun owners to shoot to kill. This avoids the potential legal issues that might come from trying to reconcile two sides of a story in court. I learned this from a friend who was getting the required training to buy a gun in MA.

Of course its an easier sell if you kill a guy who breaks into your house. When its already established that you followed the guy and approached him, I'm not sure the fact that he's dead and can't tell his side of the story plays well in your favor. Then again, people are generally stupid.

Sounds like irresponsible gun training, though in situations in which you're going to pull out your firearm, you would generally want to shoot to kill anyway. I was speaking to warning shots though; they're almost universally stupid.

Any case, I go to the range so that I am keen on my skills (but damn the price of ammo nowadays, thanks teabagging asswipes), and if I was in a situation in which I thought NOT shooting to kill was plausible, I'd do it; would never do it if the other individual had a firearm though.

The 4chan Psychiatrist: AllAccess Ronisha (Cold Nisha'Cold Piece)

it's a family name

In the Treyvon Martin case the shooter "chased a suspect" which is a police duty. It was not standing ground.

In this case... Person was swinging arms, possibly swinging a pipe. It's really fuzzy in my reading of this article. I didn't pick up the distance from shooter to shot, maybe that's in the official report but I'm not a reporter and thus I'm not going to bother to find it.

I would like to point out that in both of these cases a Taser would have been sufficient to disable the person without killing them (probably). I'm not a shill for the Taser company, but they make a product that should be in greater circulation.

bugontherug: If in fact you can find an actual case in which someone was prosecuted for shooting someone in the leg under circumstances where they really didn't have the option to retreat, I'd love to read it. I bet the facts aren't as clear cut as you imagine.

1. As far as the rest of the country has been informed, NOBODY knows who was on top of whom.

2. Over the years this has come up with conversations with friends that were police, it came up in my CCW training, and I've seen interviews with a couple of people who had shot and killed someone in self defense. In all these cases, it has been confirmed that as per the 'old' style of the AZ law, claiming that you had time to stop and aim nullified the 'self defense' claim, and you were just supposed to shoot. Period.

But, yes with the rest of your post, you obviously can't claim self defense if some dude has a bat and is 50 feet away. Same reason that THIS shooter can't really claim it. Being inside a car nullifies the "threat" of a bat or pipe, especially when it seems to be a phantom weapon... As far as out in the woods, it's still in your best interest to try and run, because you shoot someone with no witnesses, and next thing you know, you're in a situation that makes the Trayvon Martin case appear open and shut with 4,000 witnesses and video from 50 different camera angles.

bugontherug: pueblonative: While I understand the initial reason of the law in that people who used their weapons in a justified (if albeit questionable) situation had to wait for the prosecutor to sit on his rear and decide if he would prosecute a much better situation would be to lower the bar for their affirmative defense or to force the prosecutor to decide much quicker to prosecute or dismiss. It would have also been better if the law had stipulated that the intent was to make sure that people didn't have to question their right to stand where they were and fight, as opposed to if they didn't have to question their right to run into a fight guns blazing.

If avoiding confrontation is an option, people shouldn't be allowed to stand where they are and fight. The common law of self-defense was developed over centuries, maybe millennia of real world experience. It is perfectly reasonable, especially in that it imposed upon all people at all times a duty to behave like a reasonable human being.

Link

Maybe, but a slight tweak should be reasonable, given the proliferation of guns. I'm not against reasonable limits on that right, but a person standing where they are and facing what they reasonably fear is a danger on themselves or somebody near them should have the right to defend themselves. Not gunning down somebody, but just facing them down.


Just personally against forcing a person to turn their back to a person with an automatic before they defend themselves.

I call bullshiat on the shooter not having any other options, this guy chose the most deadly option available to him.

Salt Lick Steady: balki1867: Salt Lick Steady: bugontherug: Why do you suppose George didn't try to shoot Trayvon in the leg, or fire off a warning shot to try to scare him away?

Because he knew he didn't have to.

Or maybe he was a paranoid asshole with no gun skills? And really, warning shot? He was chasing the kid after the cops told him not to, this isn't the type of person who would think of firing a warning shot.

Which you generally never do anyway, even if you're in legit danger.

Apparently gun trainers teach new gun owners to shoot to kill. This avoids the potential legal issues that might come from trying to reconcile two sides of a story in court. I learned this from a friend who was getting the required training to buy a gun in MA.

Of course its an easier sell if you kill a guy who breaks into your house. When its already established that you followed the guy and approached him, I'm not sure the fact that he's dead and can't tell his side of the story plays well in your favor. Then again, people are generally stupid.

Sounds like irresponsible gun training, though in situations in which you're going to pull out your firearm, you would generally want to shoot to kill anyway. I was speaking to warning shots though; they're almost universally stupid.

Any case, I go to the range so that I am keen on my skills (but damn the price of ammo nowadays, thanks teabagging asswipes), and if I was in a situation in which I thought NOT shooting to kill was plausible, I'd do it; would never do it if the other individual had a firearm though.

In fairness, its quite possible (er, likely) my friend heard what he wanted to hear in his training class.

I'm not a gun person myself but my general experience from knowing quite a few is that people who grew up around them seem to be very responsible and reasonable about them. Meanwhile, people who run out and buy their first firearm at 30 b/c Rush Limbaugh told them Obama's out to take their 2nd amendment rights away tend to be angry nutjobs who frankly scare the crap out of me.

Mikey1969: I would have to say that I have NO "duty" to retreat if my life is in danger.

Mikey1969: If the dead kid had no ranged weapon, I see no claim of "self defense" on the part of the shooter, but I'm sorry, a "duty" to retreat is just bullshiat.

The kid DID have a weapon, in the mind of the guy who was making a point to exercise his god-given right of self-defense. He felt in danger, so he started shooting like an idiot.

Now, he had every ability to not piss his pants when inside a 2 ton truck because a retard with a dog had a lead pipe, but he did the patented Mikey1969 hardcore tough guy maneuver and chose not to retreat, didn't he? You say he has no duty to retreat. His path is moving foward. Someone is in the way. So he does what any wannabe cowboy would do: fight perceived aggression with superior force to defend his freedoms to not give in to the mean guy waving his hands in the air.

And now we have a dead retard on our hands because some guy got scared like a little biatch when someone bumbled across his path. He will get away with it because of laws that folks like you support, and because of the way these laws MUST be applied, the burden of proof falls on the state to prove the guy wasn't defending himself. If the law instead said, "hey, you feel in farking danger and there is an escape? Try leaving first please, call the cops, go home safe to your children and let someone else go home to theirs. If that fails, then defend yourself from the actual attack taking place". Your obligation, the one that gives you the right to defend yourself, is your safety. You playing at cowboy is endangering yourself, and flies in the very face of any claims that you were actually concerned for your life.

Gtfo of my society please. fark you, and everyone else who can't be patient for all of a damn minute when your bubble of freedom bumps into somebody else's and you end up at a standstill. You jackoffs try to turn everything into a goddamn Mexican standoff.

/shooting your computer won't get the bullet to me. You have to fire it into your modem directly.

eraser8: doglover: The problem is not the law, but rather cases like this where the guy in the car was able to claim self defense with a gun, despite being encased in two tons of mobile light armor claiming to fall under the law.

It's interesting that you have SO much sympathy for a killer who hunts down and shoots an unarmed teenager...but, no sympathy for this killer.

Why is that?

fox news didn't tell him to

Stoj: "Daniel Adkins Jr. walked past Taco Bell's drive-thru just as a 22-year-old man pulled around in his SUV..."

"He said he couldn't drive away from Adkins because the dog was in the way..."

One of these things runs over the other on a regular basis. It would take an extremely incompetent prosecutor to not completely decimate this guy in a courtroom. The q&a I've already got going in my head is pretty hilarious, but I'm typing on my iPhone and am lazy.

Also, SUV's have reverse, as well as the ability to cross over curbs in case there is a car behind you in the Drive Thru. Funny how that works.

If you believe Zimmerman, I have a great deal on a used bridge in NY ....

namatad: which makes it even creepier that the shooters werent arrested.
Self defense is a DEFENSE which is used at trial. Since when does the cop decide to not arrest a shooter??



And that's the way it used to happen. Unless it was obviously self defense, witnesses, dead guy in your living room with a gun in his hand, stuff like that, they took you in and usually booked and arraigned you. After that, the prosecutors decided if they had a case or not, and decided if they should press charges or not. You also usually surrender your gun at this point, at least temporarily.

I have no problem with that. I understand that the cops just can't take your word for it that you were right and the dead guy was wrong.

Well, that's the way it USED to be, before Obama took away all of our guns.

I agree though, why does the cop in the field get to determine guiklt in a case that involves a death?

balki1867: I'm not a gun person myself but my general experience from knowing quite a few is that people who grew up around them seem to be very responsible and reasonable about them. Meanwhile, people who run out and buy their first firearm at 30 b/c Rush Limbaugh told them Obama's out to take their 2nd amendment rights away te ...

I am a gun person, as well as a die-hard liberal. I have (at last count) about 20, mostly shotguns and rifles. Most I inherited. All remain under lock in a fireproof cabinet unless I have them out for a specific purpose. I have never, and will never, carry one around "just in case". Why? Because I am much more likely to have it taken away from me or have an accident with it than I am to do anything good. I'll take the risk of needing and not having over farking up and accidentally shooting someone, or getting shot with it myself. The assholes who think otherwise scare me badly, mostly because the majority of them should never be issued a carry license. Most people in this country that believe they need to carry a firearm as part of their daily life have already proven they aren't smart enough to be allowed to.

SkinnyHead: He said he couldn't drive away from Adkins because the dog was in the way and he "thought he had no other options," according to the police report.

Well then it's not a "stand your ground" case, is it?

But the shooter was black and the dead guy wasn't so it's okay and that's why there have been no protests. Oh, and the police did arrest the person claiming self-defense because racism. Or wait, opposite racism.

balki1867: In fairness, its quite possible (er, likely) my friend heard what he wanted to hear in his training class.

I'm not a gun person myself but my general experience from knowing quite a few is that people who grew up around them seem to be very responsible and reasonable about them. Meanwhile, people who run out and buy their first firearm at 30 b/c Rush Limbaugh told them Obama's out to take their 2nd amendment rights away tend to be angry nutjobs who frankly scare the crap out of me.

Believe me, they're not the only ones to be afraid of. You go to the range, inevitably you'll come across a few douchebags with machine guns who put everyone in danger because they have no clue how to use them, and they don't care that you're not even supposed to have machine guns at the range in the first place.

They'll pull out their weapons when the range is cold (when you're not supposed to shoot because people are replacing their targets etc) and wave them around like it's cotton candy at the fair.

But you're right, most gun owners are responsible and respectful, in my experience.

/then you have the NRA nuts who tell you that you're not wearing the proper eyewear
//they generally look like they live in their mom's basement, yep

NINDroog: /also, why does Arizona have this law? Most of those western states have well enumerated defense laws that spell out the circumstances detailing justifiable homicide (Colorado is probably the best). On top of that, it is one of the most gun-friendly states I've ever been to, so I feel like this is an unnecessary redundancy that will only weaken self-defense laws in the future due to misuse.

Not only that, Arizona allows concealed carry without a permit, training, or any kind of oversight. I moved away just in time, it sounds.

I'm pro-2nd amendment and pro self-defense as well, but I'm also pro-common sense, which has slowly been leaking out of AZ for years now.

Lenny_da_Hog: 1. Go to Arizona gun show with shiatloads of weapons.

2. Burn flag in parking lot.

3. Gun down hundreds of rednecks who come after you.

4. Repeat until the country regains sanity.

You'd only have to try it once and sanity would be restored.

heck, just walk into a gun store and draw a weapon and hit the stop watch button to time the rest of your life.

doglover: By all my accounts, Treyvon earned his wings.

FTFY

bugontherug: If a guy is 50 feet away is walking toward you with a baseball bat saying "i'm gonna beat you raw," and you're in your car on an empty street, it is totally unreasonable to shoot the aggressor in the leg, because it is in no way necessary. Drive the f*ck away and call the police. You've got plenty of time.

As cops have explained it, it works like this:

Any bullet you fire has a chance to kill someone. You thus cannot fire at someone unless deadly force is justified. So you can't fire at someone's leg and say "well, it was just gonna be a flesh wound, so it wasn't deadly force" or rubbish like that. From this it follows that, if you need to shoot someone to protect yourself or others, you must take the shots will more effectively stop them (you don't shoot to kill, that makes it sound like murder of course - you aren't shooting someone to make them dead, you are shooting them to protect you or others from death or serious bodily harm). This means you should be aiming center mass, where you are most likely to hit them and not miss, and where your shots are most likely to stop them from committing the harm that justified your actions (center mass isn't always the same place, it depends on what areas are out of cover/concealment and other factors).

So, this is why you don't play the goofy game of shooting a leg, a knee, a foot, or the gun out of their hand.

I'm a pretty decent shot. I've never had to fire a shot under extreme duress. Anecdotally I've read of firearms instructors and competition shooters emptying full magazines without hitting the target in a real firefight, as well as goofuses who weren't so hot on the firing range getting the job done.

I have practiced firing after sprinting to exhaustion as well as in cold environments with shakey hands, and the 25 to 50 yard range gets a whole hell of a lot harder to keep that perfect trigger pull for a good shot. With that in mind, asking someone who has their adrenaline pumping in a life and death situation to make their shot more difficult is retarded.

Salt Lick Steady: balki1867: Salt Lick Steady: bugontherug: Why do you suppose George didn't try to shoot Trayvon in the leg, or fire off a warning shot to try to scare him away?

Because he knew he didn't have to.

Or maybe he was a paranoid asshole with no gun skills? And really, warning shot? He was chasing the kid after the cops told him not to, this isn't the type of person who would think of firing a warning shot.

Which you generally never do anyway, even if you're in legit danger.

Apparently gun trainers teach new gun owners to shoot to kill. This avoids the potential legal issues that might come from trying to reconcile two sides of a story in court. I learned this from a friend who was getting the required training to buy a gun in MA.

Of course its an easier sell if you kill a guy who breaks into your house. When its already established that you followed the guy and approached him, I'm not sure the fact that he's dead and can't tell his side of the story plays well in your favor. Then again, people are generally stupid.

Sounds like irresponsible gun training, though in situations in which you're going to pull out your firearm, you would generally want to shoot to kill anyway. I was speaking to warning shots though; they're almost universally stupid.

Any case, I go to the range so that I am keen on my skills (but damn the price of ammo nowadays, thanks teabagging asswipes), and if I was in a situation in which I thought NOT shooting to kill was plausible, I'd do it; would never do it if the other individual had a firearm though.

You shoot to stop the threat.

If you are willing to use a firearm in self defense, it's because you have reason to believe that you are in immediate, life-threatening danger and that lethal force is NECESSARY to prevent death or great bodily harm.

There is no excuse for using a weapon for "warning shots". Either the situation warrants putting holes in a bad guy, or it does not. There are some situations where presenting but not firing can defuse a situation, but if you pull the trigger, it had better be for keeps.


The current public crusade against no-duty-to-retreat laws is based on a gross, deliberate misrepresentation by the media of what these laws are and what their purpose is. They are not "shoot first and ask questions later" laws. They are not "license to kill" laws. They are not "shoot at the slightest annoyance" laws.

These laws remove the legal requirement to flee or run away before being 'allowed' to make a legal claim of self defense, when an individual is in a place they have the legal right to be. Ergo, if you can legally be somewhere, and you believe there is an immediate, imminent threat to your life or the life or safety of another by a violent crime at that moment, you are NOT required to demonstrate some kind of attempt to flee before your right of self defense is respected by the legal system.

Why is this important?

Because people who understand the legal and technical aspects of civilian use of force situations, those who have studied them, those who have experience them, and those who teach others how to survive them, have all but unanimously determined from analysis, first-hand observation, and case history that far more often than not, there is barely time for the average individual to realize such a dangerous situation is even happening and begin to respond, much less be able to flee. There is rarely warning, and victims are rarely left the opportunity or the avenue to exit the situation in a manner that does not leave them extremely vulnerable to the threat that is already upon them.

With that ugly truth well-established and well supported by multitudes of very grisly case histories and incidents, such mindsets and paradigms - short reaction windows and fast onset, and the risk of attempting to flee when the threat is on you - were imparted widely through modern self-defense and safety teaching to those seeking the knowledge from instructors and experienced professionals.

This exposed a second threat: politically-motivated prosecutors with no respect for the law and a taste for public spectacle.

No-duty-to-retreat laws were put in place throughout the nation after a myriad of cases where prosecutors railroaded and destroyed the lives of law-abiding citizens who had used lethal force to defend themselves righteously. Because the prosecutors in question did not like the notion of private citizens protecting their own lives (and interfering with the attempted state monopoly on such services), they repeatedly, deliberately misrepresented the incidents as not meeting the threshold for having attempted to flee, and therefore not being valid self defense. Cornered in your bedroom? "Should have jumped out the window." Surrounded by men in the parking lot? "Should have driven away in your car." Caught in the middle of a gas station robbery? "Should have escaped out the back and gone for help."

All persecutorial bullshiat; all totally, deliberately avoiding the reality of the mechanics of such encounters in an effort to advance the agenda of abrogating a private citizen's right to fight back against their life being snuffed out by violence.

Armed law abiding citizens suffered many of those cases, watched righteous, innocent people be destroyed by corrupt scum wielding a prosecutor's seat, and said "enough". They stopped those abusive, discriminatory practices with no-duty-to-retreat laws, which brought the law to respect the dangerous dynamics of violent crime incidents against individuals, and prevented crooked prosecutors from exploiting such incidents to abuse innocent victims.

I do not respect and do not acknowledge any individual who attacks these laws as a license to murder. They are sound laws, legitimized with cold hard facts and exhaustive study, and paid for with the blood of hundreds - possibly thousands - of innocent victims who did not have to die. Any person attempting to repeal them is quite literally making an effort to ensure more people will be victimized and murdered by violent criminals... and I will measure my response to their efforts as such.

Smackledorfer: Now, he had every ability to not piss his pants when inside a 2 ton truck because a retard with a dog had a lead pipe, but he did the patented Mikey1969 hardcore tough guy maneuver and chose not to retreat, didn't he? You say he has no duty to retreat. His path is moving foward. Someone is in the way. So he does what any wannabe cowboy would do: fight perceived aggression with superior force to defend his freedoms to not give in to the mean guy waving his hands in the air.

Sorry dude, I said that I have no duty to retreat, I didn't say that it applied in any way in regards to this case, but since you appear to be reading impaired, I don't expect this to sink through to you THIS time that I'm typing it either.

Smackledorfer: Gtfo of my society please. fark you, and everyone else who can't be patient for all of a damn minute when your bubble of freedom bumps into somebody else's and you end up at a standstill. You jackoffs try to turn everything into a goddamn Mexican standoff.

GTFO of my message threads until you learn how to read and respond correctly. I in NO WAY defended this asshat's actions. I merely stated that if the kid had had a ranged weapon, as in a weapon that can shoot from a distance, the shooter might have a defense. In other words, if the kid had had a gun in his hands, maybe the shooter would have a defense, because guns shoot through windows, and can kill you from a distance. Since the kid had an imaginary pipe, the shooter has NO defense.

Now have Mommy or Daddy read this to you, and explain what I said, then write your response on a piece of paper, fold it into a ball with lots of pointy bits on it, and shove it up your ass.

Smackledorfer: I'm a pretty decent shot. I've never had to fire a shot under extreme duress. Anecdotally I've read of firearms instructors and competition shooters emptying full magazines without hitting the target in a real firefight, as well as goofuses who weren't so hot on the firing range getting the job done.

I've heard of so many stories like this. Fortunately I too have never had to fire under duress. And your post was excellent, btw.

Weaver95: doglover: Weaver95: probably the dead body.

THAT'S THE JOKE

I don't think the dead guy thought it was very funny.

I don't know, I think that joke kinda...
*sunglasses*
killed.

Felgraf: B) Bullets do not magically disappear when warning shots are fired. They come down eventually. Or ricochet. You easily wind up shooting *someone else* who's not even involved.

"Warning shots" can get you charged with a felony in Arizona, ironically, exactly for this reason. Can't remember the name of the girl the law is named after, but a girl died on new Year's one year because of some schmucks firing into the air on New Year's.

Salt Lick Steady: Believe me, they're not the only ones to be afraid of. You go to the range, inevitably you'll come across a few douchebags with machine guns who put everyone in danger because they have no clue how to use them, and they don't care that you're not even supposed to have machine guns at the range in the first place.

Last time I went the guy next to me missed the target entirely at 10 yards and hit the ceiling. Not the far back wall where a just over the target shot would go, but about 3 feet behind the target and 5 feet above it. Looking at him I guarantee you he has both a concealed carry license and keeps his penis extension on him at all times.

But ya, most gun owners are pretty responsible. There are millions of them around, and statistically very few crazy gun misuse stories.

/also, for those who don't know, some silly weirdos think those belt pouches are good places for a gun; I recommend being nice to men wearing one just in case.

NINDroog:
In this particular case (and based solely on the facts from the article) this does not seem to be self defense. The shooter was inside a car, and at worst, the victim was armed with a bat (which seems not to exist). He should have rolled up his damn window, if the victim attacked the car or broke the window, at least it would present a credible threat. This does not seem to be the case.

I guess the biggest problem I have is the use of self-defense from harm being conflated with self-defense from fear.

/also, why does Arizona have this law? Most of those western states have well enumerated defense laws that spell out the circumstances detailing justifiable homicide (Colorado is probably the best). On top of that, it is one of the most gun-friendly states I've ever been to, so I feel like this is an unnecessary redundancy that will only weaken self-defense laws in the future due to misuse.

//Pro-self defense, Pro-2nd Amendment, Pro-responsible gun ownership (including mandatory training and proficiency classes).
The shooter was with his pregnant wife. The dead guy wasn't all there mentally and was acting strangely. Whether he was a threat or not is debatable. I suspect the object in his hand and the presence of his pregnant wife were serious considerations.

Arizona allows people to use deadly force if they or another are in danger of being killed or seriously injured. Arizona never had a duty to retreat law so naming it "stand your ground" is a misnomer.

HeWhoHasNoName: I do not respect and do not acknowledge any individual who attacks these laws as a license to murder. They are sound laws, legitimized with cold hard facts and exhaustive study, and paid for with the blood of hundreds - possibly thousands - of innocent victims who did not have to die. Any person attempting to repeal them is quite literally making an effort to ensure more people will be victimized and murdered by violent criminals... and I will measure my response to their efforts as such.

slowclap.jpg

/awesome

HeWhoHasNoName: These laws remove the legal requirement to flee or run away before being 'allowed' to make a legal claim of self defense, when an individual is in a place they have the legal right to be. Ergo, if you can legally be somewhere, and you believe there is an immediate, imminent threat to your life or the life or safety of another by a violent crime at that moment, you are NOT required to demonstrate some kind of attempt to flee before your right of self defense is respected by the legal system.

Great, so we all better hope the person who has a gun doesn't mistakenly believe there is an immediated threat to their life. Because as we have seen recently this would never happen.

calm like a bomb: balki1867: I'm not a gun person myself but my general experience from knowing quite a few is that people who grew up around them seem to be very responsible and reasonable about them. Meanwhile, people who run out and buy their first firearm at 30 b/c Rush Limbaugh told them Obama's out to take their 2nd amendment rights away te ...

I am a gun person, as well as a die-hard liberal. I have (at last count) about 20, mostly shotguns and rifles. Most I inherited. All remain under lock in a fireproof cabinet unless I have them out for a specific purpose. I have never, and will never, carry one around "just in case". Why? Because I am much more likely to have it taken away from me or have an accident with it than I am to do anything good. I'll take the risk of needing and not having over farking up and accidentally shooting someone, or getting shot with it myself. The assholes who think otherwise scare me badly, mostly because the majority of them should never be issued a carry license. Most people in this country that believe they need to carry a firearm as part of their daily life have already proven they aren't smart enough to be allowed to.

You must have to get a lot of abortions to balance out the guns.

Pincy: HeWhoHasNoName: These laws remove the legal requirement to flee or run away before being 'allowed' to make a legal claim of self defense, when an individual is in a place they have the legal right to be. Ergo, if you can legally be somewhere, and you believe there is an immediate, imminent threat to your life or the life or safety of another by a violent crime at that moment, you are NOT required to demonstrate some kind of attempt to flee before your right of self defense is respected by the legal system.

Great, so we all better hope the person who has a gun doesn't mistakenly believe there is an immediated threat to their life. Because as we have seen recently this would never happen.

Do you prefer, instead, that civilians who are threatened with grievous bodily injury or death be permitted no legal means of defense against their attacker?

HeWhoHasNoName: The current public crusade against no-duty-to-retreat laws is based on a gross, deliberate misrepresentation by the media of what these laws are and what their purpose is. They are not "shoot first and ask questions later" laws. They are not "license to kill" laws. They are not "shoot at the slightest annoyance" laws.

Don't just blame the media here, you can also blame people like the shooter in this story, without people like that farking everything up, the media wouldn't really have anything to report on.

doglover: Did you not hear the 911 call. Zimmerman was crying for help for a LONG time. At any time Treyvon could have stopped hitting him. He'd won.

Or, it wasn't him screaming at all. Whatever. Totally makes no difference- dude was armed with Skittles. Being forced to taste the rainbow against your will is grounds for dismissal of charges.

calm like a bomb: Most people in this country that believe they need to carry a firearm as part of their daily life have already proven they aren't smart enough to be allowed to.

Truer words have not been spoken in a Fark thread in quite a long time.

Chimperror2: Lenny_da_Hog: 1. Go to Arizona gun show with shiatloads of weapons.

2. Burn flag in parking lot.

3. Gun down hundreds of rednecks who come after you.

4. Repeat until the country regains sanity.

You'd only have to try it once and sanity would be restored.

heck, just walk into a gun store and draw a weapon and hit the stop watch button to time the rest of your life.

Uh, bullshiat. The guy behind the counter wouldn't be able to pull a gun because mine would already be out and hot.

He'd be dead.

"hey, you can't do that in here"

Wrong.

If only the other guy had had a gun, he could have shot the driver who threatened his life with his vehicle.