lennavan: heap: lennavan: When you go out in public it's up to the police to protect you. If you're too scared by that, go back home.

some values for 'public' include a +1 hour response time.

if the police actually protected and served in a perfect capacity, i'd agree with you - that not being the situation, i've got to leave hypotheticalville behind and live with reality.

By all means, post that example away. When it turns out to be a domestic issue, we'll both go back to where I said I was perfectly fine with guns at your own home.

I live in realityville, apparently you live in TVville.

And you call others douches?

lennavan: By all means, post that example away.

ummm...i just did. there are areas where police response time is +1 hour. you can't depend on something that is an hour away for self defense.

what is it exactly you're wanting? a situation where it's acceptable to carry, or acceptable to randomly shoot people? i'm talking about the former if that helps.

EWreckedSean: As to SYG laws, they were passed because in the past victims of crimes were often charged with murdering their attackers, because after the fact it was determined their lives weren't threatened.

I find it far more likely that the NRA and similar groups trumped up cases like this one, in which someone DESERVED to be charged with murder, and reframed them to make it seem as if some horrible injustice had been done... and ignorant, unthinking, conservative dupes, as they so often do, took it at face value unquestioning, and jumped on board for these thoroughly unnecessary laws.

Same way they do with tort reform, or deregulation, or any other damn thing someone wants to con them into supporting by tickling their reactionary little brains with a handful of bullshiat distorted anecdotes.

"Just an ordinary day... John Doe is in the Taco Bell drive-thru with his pregnant fiance. They talk lovingly of their bright future as they wait for their order to be filled... unaware of the danger waiting around the corner that will soon destroy his life and shatter their plans. A giant scary Mexican with a crowbar and a ferocious dog will besiege and terrorize the loving couple out of nowhere. Filled with fear for the safety of his soon-to-be-wife and the boy she was carrying, John reluctantly makes the anguishing choice to defend them the only way he can...

But the fear he faced that day was nothing compared to the terror he would confront when a liberal DA held his fate in his hand and charged this fresh-faced young man with MURDER for defending his unborn child against a terrifying brown man who might well have been in this country illegally!!!!!!

Prevent travesties like the one that sent John Doe to prison for 20 years. Tell your congressman to support your right to Stand Your Ground, because you shouldn't have to back down when minorities make you nervous."

Salt Lick Steady: How are you going to enforce such a distinction? Frankly, when I'm in bumfark nowhere Nevada, the primary purpose of keeping my weapon is food as well as protection from food and potential human threats. You seem to have a disconnect between how you'd like the world to be and how it could actually function (e.g., how you'd write a law like that).

This was covered much better than I could by cryinoutloud.

How would I enforce it? Gee, how does any gun law get enforced? You seem to have no farking clue how gun laws and hunting regulations work and are enforced, which is "awesome" given you apparently own some guns.

cryinoutloud: Salt Lick Steady: Frankly, when I'm in bumfark nowhere Nevada, the primary purpose of keeping my weapon is food as well as protection from food and potential human threats.

So you just take out a gun and shoot anything you want for food? You know, you might think it's the wild lawless west and everything, but there are hunting seasons, laws and regulations, just like in your civilized world. I also don't know of anyone who uses a handgun to shoot food. You sound like some kind of dipshiat who takes guns to national parks because the big scary outside world might attack him in his 40-foot RV. Fark you probably ARE that guy.

Apparently you've never gone on a week-long outing. Generally no, you don't use the handgun for food, but if you don't catch a fish within enough time then yes, you use it. And I usually stay away from national parks because they're full of yuppie asshats like yourself.

runin800m: I think there should have to be a burden to prove that you, knowingly, could have safely avoided the situation but chose to let it happen or that you shot them after the immediate threat to your life had passed, something along those lines.

As for the cases from the article, I don't see how anyone could think the old gentleman who killed the intruder in his trailer in the middle of the night did anything wrong, and I don't see how anyone could buy into the SUV driver's claim of self defense from the vanishing bat/metal pipe. I don't see how anyone can look at the situation and believe that a reasonable person would actually think that their life was in immediate danger. I can understand how someone could see him as a danger and maybe even draw their weapon to have ready in-case he attacked, but I don't believe that a reasonable person setting inside an SUV with a gun believed that a man yelling and waving his arms was an immediate threat to their life.

It's funny, you and I completely agree on these examples and ideas. Yet it seems you support SYG and I think SYG is a terrifying precedent that allows citizens carrying guns to murder other citizens. So far, it seems sometimes people get SYG correct (the old dude) and sometimes they do not (the taco bell). Isn't that a perfect argument for why we should get rid of SYG entirely? Because sometimes people fark it up and that ends up with dead innocent people?

lennavan: How would I enforce it? Gee, how does any gun law get enforced?

Not the way you think, apparently. Gun laws regarding seasonal hunting are determined by ... gee, the season! Gun laws that you propose - that is, the intent of the use - are determined... how? How would you write such laws? And have you any idea what a nightmare they'd be to try to enforce?

"No, officer, I swear I was going huntin'!"

badLogic: lennavan: badLogic: What if Zimmerman was defending himself from Martin defending himself from the perceived threat of Zimmerman?
Look at this from Martin's POV-
Martin is walking home from the store and chatting on his cell phone. he notices someone following him around in a car. He tries to lose the person following him but the car guy finds him, gets out of his car and confronts him. I don't know about you, but if someone did this to me, I would fell threatened. And under the Florida SYG law, would Martin have been clear if he had shot first?

I completely agree with you but look at your first two words. "What if" That's why he should be called "not guilty." We have no idea what happened. My best guess is no doubt the same as yours and we should burn Zimmerman away. But there's a reason our courts require a higher burden of proof.

So essentially we should all shot first, as dead men tell no tales.

Poe's Law is whacking me in the head so hard right now it hurts. Are you shiatting me? If two dudes are standing around with no witnesses or recording devices or anything and one shoots the other, yes the other one will absolutely get off free. If both have guns, yes, absolutely, be the one to shoot first because as you said, dead men tell no tales. Probably not wise to shoot him in the back though.

Is this news to you? Our courts require proof and evidence beyond reasonable doubt to convict. Is that upsetting to you?

heap: EWreckedSean: heap: qorkfiend: EWreckedSean: As to SYG laws, they were passed because in the past victims of crimes were often charged with murdering their attackers, because after the fact it was determined their lives weren't threatened.

Can you provide any sort of reference to any single event where this happened?

or even elucidate how what has been described is supposed to be a bad thing.

It is a bad thing because it puts the victim of a crime in the position of having to guess the intention of his attacker, and if he or she guesses wrongly, as the victim, facing prosecution for guessing wrong (or death or bodily harm). As to references, I'll google around some.

again, i'm trying to see the 'bad thing' here. if it's found that the person you killed was not threatening your life, you *did* commit a crime by my reckoning. i'm not seeing the 'bad thing' here.

Somebody comes up to you, pushes you up against a wall, and demands your wallet. Is your life threatened or not? How do you know if they are armed, how do you know what kind of violence they are capable of. How do you know that they won't decide after you give them your wallet that you can give the police their description? Why should the victim have to guess? How do you know if you turn and run the guy won't pull out a gun and shoot you in the back. SYG puts the fault on the aggressor and off the victim.

Salt Lick Steady: I'm saying that they make sense because the prosecutor should have the burden of proving unreasonableness rather than the other way around.

Which would be fine if you would stop ignoring the logical result of these laws: people getting away with murder/manslaughter by simply killing anyone they want and there being insufficient evidence to prove anything other than that a killing occurred.

Its like you are applying two standards to the two options:
1. there are no SYG laws and its a nightmarish hell where things happen "all the time" where people are fleeing from murderers and dying or shooting back at shooters and being thrown in prison for murder, because the laws are so vile.

2. There are SYG laws and virtually nobody is lawfully allowed to kill people and then skate because of the law; that any and all getting away with it is due to prosecutorial incompetence in this case.

You really can't have it both ways.

badLogic: lennavan: badLogic: What if Zimmerman was defending himself from Martin defending himself from the perceived threat of Zimmerman?
Look at this from Martin's POV-
Martin is walking home from the store and chatting on his cell phone. he notices someone following him around in a car. He tries to lose the person following him but the car guy finds him, gets out of his car and confronts him. I don't know about you, but if someone did this to me, I would fell threatened. And under the Florida SYG law, would Martin have been clear if he had shot first?

I completely agree with you but look at your first two words. "What if" That's why he should be called "not guilty." We have no idea what happened. My best guess is no doubt the same as yours and we should burn Zimmerman away. But there's a reason our courts require a higher burden of proof.

So essentially we should all shot first, as dead men tell no tales.

My grandfather would tell my mother and aunts that if they ever hit anyone with the car, they should back up and hit them again to make sure they're dead.

Salt Lick Steady: Gun laws regarding seasonal hunting are determined by ... gee, the season! Gun laws that you propose - that is, the intent of the use - are determined... how? How would you write such laws? And have you any idea what a nightmare they'd be to try to enforce?

So your big argument against gun laws is "I personally cannot think of a way they could be enforced?" I'm gonna go ahead and quit while I'm ahead. You're clearly not going to budget on your conclusion but as for your reasoning and argument, you've dug yourself an impossible hole to get out of.

EWreckedSean: Somebody comes up to you, pushes you up against a wall, and demands your wallet. Is your life threatened or not?

there's something about this conversation that engenders hypothetical wankery the likes of which typically only enters bad sci-fi slash fiction - i'll pass. there's some kind of mind bending that allows for the dead guy to always be the aggressor as if there's no distinction between instigation and aggression.

Smackledorfer: Which would be fine if you would stop ignoring the logical result of these laws: people getting away with murder/manslaughter by simply killing anyone they want and there being insufficient evidence to prove anything other than that a killing occurred.

^^^ This... ^^^

...is exactly the problem with SYG.

lennavan: balloot: Actually, we have a pretty good basic understanding of what happened that day. A guy was killed, and the killer is recorded on the phone announcing his intention to follow and confront the now-dead person. THEN SOME STUFF HAPPENED IN THE CONFRONTATION. The killer has also confessed to having killed the victim.

You left out the bolded part. We have no idea what happened in the confrontation. It's either self defense or murder. I have no idea what, nor do you, nor does anyone it seems.

balloot: Absent some very clear evidence that Trayvon Martin was committing some terrible crime, that is textbook murder as far as I'm concerned.

That's not the way the justice system works, nor should it. Innocent until proven guilty. Absent some very clear evidence that Zimmerman was not defending himself, that is textbook self defense.


Wait... so I can shoot and kill you for walking down a public street committing no crimes, (even when I make it clear to authorities that I am the one who will be instigating the confrontation) and as long as I make sure there are no witnesses to refute my version of events, I can claim you tried to whip my ass and I had to shoot you in self-defense?

You're not entitled to be "innocent until proven guilty" because you're dead? I get to just kill you and claim you were coming right for me even though I announced my intention to pursue and accost you beforehand. All because you're too dead to tell your side?

That's really the way you think it should work?

I foresee a big boon in the "killing my ex's new bf/gf" business...


"I was on my way over to her house to let her know that I was sorry for all the stupid bullshiat we'd been engaging in... As luck would have it, I saw her out walking by herself, so I pulled my car over and rushed to catch up to her... little did I know she was gonna go all apeshiat and force me to shoot her in the farking head. It's a shame."


You don't think the standard for proving you HAD TO kill someone should be a smidge higher?

Smackledorfer: Salt Lick Steady: I'm saying that they make sense because the prosecutor should have the burden of proving unreasonableness rather than the other way around.

Which would be fine if you would stop ignoring the logical result of these laws: people getting away with murder/manslaughter by simply killing anyone they want and there being insufficient evidence to prove anything other than that a killing occurred.

Its like you are applying two standards to the two options:
1. there are no SYG laws and its a nightmarish hell where things happen "all the time" where people are fleeing from murderers and dying or shooting back at shooters and being thrown in prison for murder, because the laws are so vile.

2. There are SYG laws and virtually nobody is lawfully allowed to kill people and then skate because of the law; that any and all getting away with it is due to prosecutorial incompetence in this case.

You really can't have it both ways.

Which also ignores the logical result of failure to have such laws: people get thrown in prison for life for a justifiable killing.

But let me try to explain again: whether there are SYG laws in place or it's a retreat jurisdiction, a homicide should almost always be brought before a jury.

Once it's brought, the person who killed in self defense should not have to prove the reasonableness of the action, rather, the prosecution should have to prove it wasn't reasonable, then the burden shifts back to the person who shot.

If the logical result of these laws is that prosecutors feel it less newsworthy to not prosecute, the fault doesn't lie with the law, it lies with them. Again, that's why free press is so important.

Salt Lick Steady: I know how horrific prison is. It is hell on earth. My fight or flight definitely takes that into account, and if you find that to be non-reflexive, I doubt you've had any experience with it.

I have come up with a great way for you to know, for sure, whether or not you're in a situation where you're firmly under the protections of "self defense" and can pull the trigger without having to worry about whether or not you'll be sent to prison.

If you're in a situation where you are afraid of a dangerous looking person and thinking to yourself that you're really scared of this person and want to shoot them, except there is nothing that you hate more than prison and you are scared that you could possibly be charged with murder and have to spend the rest of your life in such a terrible, disgusting, place, then IT IS NOT OK TO KILL THIS PERSON!!!

If you are in a situation where you are afraid of a dangerous looking person and the only thoughts going through your head, "OH MY GOD, THEY'RE GOING TO KILL ME!!! SHOOT THEM!" and the thought of prison never enters your mind, then it is legitimate self defense and you don't have to worry about going to prison.

So, you should be good to go. Just keep telling yourself that you would rather die than risk possibly being sent to prison and no one will have to worry about you pulling a gun out at someone and shooting for being yelling at by them or other stupid shiat. Plus, if a situation ever arises where you actually do need to use deadly force to protect yourself, you will have done it before the word prison ever enters your head.

mrshowrules: EWreckedSean: It is a bad thing because it puts the victim of a crime in the position of having to guess the intention of his attacker, and if he or she guesses wrongly, as the victim, facing prosecution for guessing wrong (or death or bodily harm). As to references, I'll google around some.

So these States want to err on the side of an innocent person getting killed rather than an innocent person challenged in court?

I have heard people say that it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6, but these laws remove the option of being judged by those 12. Basically it's a free-for-all, every man for himself, as long as there is no one alive to counter your story of self-defense. And many people ITT are happy about that!

lennavan: Salt Lick Steady: Gun laws regarding seasonal hunting are determined by ... gee, the season! Gun laws that you propose - that is, the intent of the use - are determined... how? How would you write such laws? And have you any idea what a nightmare they'd be to try to enforce?

So your big argument against gun laws is "I personally cannot think of a way they could be enforced?" I'm gonna go ahead and quit while I'm ahead. You're clearly not going to budget on your conclusion but as for your reasoning and argument, you've dug yourself an impossible hole to get out of.

No, my argument is against your proposal that nobody should be able to carry outside the home unless it's for hunting or sport (why those exceptions by the way?). You claim nobody should be able to carry outside the home for self-protection because the popo will help you.

When you draft a bill criminalizing an action, you must realize that you can't get a conviction without intent. You still haven't given an example of how you would draft such a bill, so the hole is yours.

mrshowrules: EWreckedSean: It is a bad thing because it puts the victim of a crime in the position of having to guess the intention of his attacker, and if he or she guesses wrongly, as the victim, facing prosecution for guessing wrong (or death or bodily harm). As to references, I'll google around some.

So these States want to err on the side of an innocent person getting killed rather than an innocent person challenged in court?

That assumes that more innocents are killed with Stand Your Ground than without. How often has that happened? Zimmerman has been denied stand your ground protection. This other case is still being investigated. Of the stories in the article, all the shooters accept the Taco Bell guy were justified. Should they all have been arrested and had their lives ruined facing felony murder and manslaughter charges?

Salt Lick Steady: No, my argument is against your proposal that nobody should be able to carry outside the home unless it's for hunting or sport (why those exceptions by the way?). You claim nobody should be able to carry outside the home for self-protection because the popo will help you.

Yes, that is your conclusion. Your reason is:

Salt Lick Steady: When you draft a bill criminalizing an action, you must realize that you can't get a conviction without intent. You still haven't given an example of how you would draft such a bill, so the hole is yours.

See what I'm saying? If I show you a clearly written rule that will satisfy your reasoning, you will change your mind about gun laws entirely, right? Because your sole reason against is you cannot imagine a way to write the law. I think we both know if I provide you with that, you will not change your mind. You will then have to think of another reason why I'm wrong so you can score internet points.

Basically what I'm saying is you're completely sure I'm wrong you just have no idea why and you're grasping at straws until one holds. I dunno if I'm up for that today. Definitely another day though.

AdmirableSnackbar: mrshowrules: EWreckedSean: It is a bad thing because it puts the victim of a crime in the position of having to guess the intention of his attacker, and if he or she guesses wrongly, as the victim, facing prosecution for guessing wrong (or death or bodily harm). As to references, I'll google around some.

So these States want to err on the side of an innocent person getting killed rather than an innocent person challenged in court?

I have heard people say that it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6, but these laws remove the option of being judged by those 12. Basically it's a free-for-all, every man for himself, as long as there is no one alive to counter your story of self-defense. And many people ITT are happy about that!

The law has been in place for 7 years in Florida. Strangely it doesn't seem like a free for all down here. Have a list of cases where charges should have been filed but weren't because of stand your ground?

mrshowrules: AdmirableSnackbar: mrshowrules: EWreckedSean: It is a bad thing because it puts the victim of a crime in the position of having to guess the intention of his attacker, and if he or she guesses wrongly, as the victim, facing prosecution for guessing wrong (or death or bodily harm). As to references, I'll google around some.

So these States want to err on the side of an innocent person getting killed rather than an innocent person challenged in court?

I have heard people say that it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6, but these laws remove the option of being judged by those 12. Basically it's a free-for-all, every man for himself, as long as there is no one alive to counter your story of self-defense. And many people ITT are happy about that!

I'd call it the wild west but that's not fair because, shooting an unarmed person would get you hung back then. Mad Max had the Thunderdome. Other era had duels. Is there any time or place in history that you were allowed to kill based on fear alone?

Thankfully, though, most media outlets are cultivating a culture completely free from fear, where you don't have to be fearful of your neighbor or anyone you don't know.

heap: EWreckedSean: Somebody comes up to you, pushes you up against a wall, and demands your wallet. Is your life threatened or not?

there's something about this conversation that engenders hypothetical wankery the likes of which typically only enters bad sci-fi slash fiction - i'll pass. there's some kind of mind bending that allows for the dead guy to always be the aggressor as if there's no distinction between instigation and aggression.

Spoken like somebody whose obviously never been mugged. I've had a gun pointed at me. It's not pleasant, and you sure as hell don't know what the guy holding it's intent is.

technicolor-misfit: Wait... so I can shoot and kill you for walking down a public street committing no crimes, (even when I make it clear to authorities that I am the one who will be instigating the confrontation) and as long as I make sure there are no witnesses to refute my version of events, I can claim you tried to whip my ass and I had to shoot you in self-defense?

Correct. Welcome to SYG America.

technicolor-misfit: You're not entitled to be "innocent until proven guilty" because you're dead? I get to just kill you and claim you were coming right for me even though I announced my intention to pursue and accost you beforehand. All because you're too dead to tell your side?

Correct. That is how SYG actually works.

technicolor-misfit: That's really the way you think it should work?

Fark no that's now how I think it should work. I'm saying that's how it DOES work. Have you read any of my other posts in this thread?

1) SYG is farking stupid and should be repealed.
2) SYG was the current law for the Zimmerman shooting (and the Taco Bell one) and should be applied to those cases and correctly applied, Zimmerman walks. Probably not the Taco Bell dude one though.

technicolor-misfit: You don't think the standard for proving you HAD TO kill someone should be a smidge higher?

Oh I completely do. That's why I want SYG to be repealed.

lennavan: Salt Lick Steady: No, my argument is against your proposal that nobody should be able to carry outside the home unless it's for hunting or sport (why those exceptions by the way?). You claim nobody should be able to carry outside the home for self-protection because the popo will help you.

Yes, that is your conclusion. Your reason is:

Salt Lick Steady: When you draft a bill criminalizing an action, you must realize that you can't get a conviction without intent. You still haven't given an example of how you would draft such a bill, so the hole is yours.

See what I'm saying? If I show you a clearly written rule that will satisfy your reasoning, you will change your mind about gun laws entirely, right? Because your sole reason against is you cannot imagine a way to write the law. I think we both know if I provide you with that, you will not change your mind. You will then have to think of another reason why I'm wrong so you can score internet points.

Basically what I'm saying is you're completely sure I'm wrong you just have no idea why and you're grasping at straws until one holds. I dunno if I'm up for that today. Definitely another day though.

I'm saying you're wrong in principle, yes. I could cite 2d amendment jurisprudence or other basic constitutional principles, but that's not my battle until you actually figure a way to write such a thing. You can't. You can't write it to require the proper mens rea, especially with the exceptions you've allowed for, without violating the 14th amendment or otherwise writing an unenforceable law.

Devil's in the details.

/Doing the hotline, I'm out

Simple solution. Get in an argument (with conveniently placed witnesses) with the dude that killed your son and stand your ground.

Salt Lick Steady: I'm saying you're wrong in principle, yes. I could cite 2d amendment jurisprudence or other basic constitutional principles, but that's not my battle until you actually figure a way to write such a thing.

Yeah, actually that is your battle. Instead you chose a stupid pedantic argument "I cannot imagine" and pretended that was your reason. It's seriously pathetic. Your big reason is "I cannot imagine a way to enforce it." Not only does that mean you're too stupid to imagine it, you're too ignorant of the current laws that could be applied here. You think regulating guns is a new thing? You think enforcing gun laws and regulations is a new idea? It's wrong, you're wrong and you should feel bad about yourself for being so stupid.

What's more, you chose this argument, over other much stronger arguments? That's stupid, and you should feel really bad about yourself for being so stupid.

EWreckedSean: Spoken like somebody whose obviously never been mugged.

nope, i've been mugged, randomly-drunk-punched, and have endured a mother-in-law living with me. and i didn't reach for my gun in any of those instances.

again, i'm just taking a pass on the hypothetical wankery you're suggesting. what it comes down to for me is if *i* feel my life threatened, i'll respond as i see the situation requiring. if, in that split second, the choice i see is kill or die, i'll kill. i don't like it, revel in it, or make up masturbatory fantasies about it, because i see it as a nightmare.

all the same, if i'm alive and standing trial for my actions, i still made the right choice - and will have to be responsible for them - and that extends well above and beyond the possibility of being charged.

you never, ever, ever know with no doubts what another human's intent is. wanking around with whatever hypothetical you want to roll out will not change that.

EWreckedSean: AdmirableSnackbar: mrshowrules: EWreckedSean: It is a bad thing because it puts the victim of a crime in the position of having to guess the intention of his attacker, and if he or she guesses wrongly, as the victim, facing prosecution for guessing wrong (or death or bodily harm). As to references, I'll google around some.

So these States want to err on the side of an innocent person getting killed rather than an innocent person challenged in court?

I have heard people say that it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6, but these laws remove the option of being judged by those 12. Basically it's a free-for-all, every man for himself, as long as there is no one alive to counter your story of self-defense. And many people ITT are happy about that!

The law has been in place for 7 years in Florida. Strangely it doesn't seem like a free for all down here. Have a list of cases where charges should have been filed but weren't because of stand your ground?

Generally it takes more than just the passage of a law for people to realize its implications. It usually takes a high-profile, somewhat extreme, case to draw attention to (and set a public precedent for) what the law does or does not mean. Kind of like what is happening in Florida right now and what this case may end up being in Arizona. If I were a resident of either state, I would be hoping for full trials at the very least, and maybe (at least in AZ) the obvious convictions in order to prevent such a free-for-all.

AdmirableSnackbar: EWreckedSean: AdmirableSnackbar: mrshowrules: EWreckedSean: It is a bad thing because it puts the victim of a crime in the position of having to guess the intention of his attacker, and if he or she guesses wrongly, as the victim, facing prosecution for guessing wrong (or death or bodily harm). As to references, I'll google around some.

So these States want to err on the side of an innocent person getting killed rather than an innocent person challenged in court?

I have heard people say that it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6, but these laws remove the option of being judged by those 12. Basically it's a free-for-all, every man for himself, as long as there is no one alive to counter your story of self-defense. And many people ITT are happy about that!

The law has been in place for 7 years in Florida. Strangely it doesn't seem like a free for all down here. Have a list of cases where charges should have been filed but weren't because of stand your ground?

Generally it takes more than just the passage of a law for people to realize its implications. It usually takes a high-profile, somewhat extreme, case to draw attention to (and set a public precedent for) what the law does or does not mean. Kind of like what is happening in Florida right now and what this case may end up being in Arizona. If I were a resident of either state, I would be hoping for full trials at the very least, and maybe (at least in AZ) the obvious convictions in order to prevent such a free-for-all.

Zimmerman is not being covered by Stand Your Ground.

heap: EWreckedSean: Spoken like somebody whose obviously never been mugged.

nope, i've been mugged, randomly-drunk-punched, and have endured a mother-in-law living with me. and i didn't reach for my gun in any of those instances.

again, i'm just taking a pass on the hypothetical wankery you're suggesting. what it comes down to for me is if *i* feel my life threatened, i'll respond as i see the situation requiring. if, in that split second, the choice i see is kill or die, i'll kill. i don't like it, revel in it, or make up masturbatory fantasies about it, because i see it as a nightmare.

all the same, if i'm alive and standing trial for my actions, i still made the right choice - and will have to be responsible for them - and that extends well above and beyond the possibility of being charged.

you never, ever, ever know with no doubts what another human's intent is. wanking around with whatever hypothetical you want to roll out will not change that.

Your right, you don't. So why not have a law that favors the victim?

EWreckedSean: The law has been in place for 7 years in Florida. Strangely it doesn't seem like a free for all down here. Have a list of cases where charges should have been filed but weren't because of stand your ground?

The controversial law which police have cited in their decision not to charge the man who shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin has been invoked at least 130 times statewide since 2005.

A Tampa Bay Times survey, compiled from 31 Florida newspapers and public records, shows that the number of cases in which "stand your ground" has been invoked has climbed dramatically in the past year and a half.

But the law has also been used to excuse killings in bar brawls, gang shoot-outs and road-rage incidents.

Rep. Richard "Rich" Glorioso, R-Plant City, who voted for the bill. "If the law is applied right, it's a fine law. But we worried about how people would interpret it, and how it would be applied, when we were discussing it."

Therein lies the problem. The analysis shows the law is being unevenly applied across the state. A case that's dropped in Tampa might make it to a jury trial in Miami.

Link

What'd I win?

EWreckedSean:

Your right, you don't. So why not have a law that favors the victim?

again, in your world, the dead guy just never seems to be the victim.

i live 2 worlds over. you should visit.

EWreckedSean: heap: EWreckedSean: heap: qorkfiend: EWreckedSean: As to SYG laws, they were passed because in the past victims of crimes were often charged with murdering their attackers, because after the fact it was determined their lives weren't threatened.

Can you provide any sort of reference to any single event where this happened?

or even elucidate how what has been described is supposed to be a bad thing.

It is a bad thing because it puts the victim of a crime in the position of having to guess the intention of his attacker, and if he or she guesses wrongly, as the victim, facing prosecution for guessing wrong (or death or bodily harm). As to references, I'll google around some.

again, i'm trying to see the 'bad thing' here. if it's found that the person you killed was not threatening your life, you *did* commit a crime by my reckoning. i'm not seeing the 'bad thing' here.

Somebody comes up to you, pushes you up against a wall, and demands your wallet. Is your life threatened or not? How do you know if they are armed, how do you know what kind of violence they are capable of. How do you know that they won't decide after you give them your wallet that you can give the police their description? Why should the victim have to guess? How do you know if you turn and run the guy won't pull out a gun and shoot you in the back. SYG puts the fault on the aggressor and off the victim.

Well, that happened to me. I was jumped and shoved into a doorway with a knife to my stomach. The guy started going through my pockets looking for money. It all happened so fast I would never been able to pull out my gun, if I had one. That buck knife was right at my gut and he right on top of me so, to speak. Any movement and he would have gutted me. And if I had a gun, he would have gone off with it. Hey! Free gun!

Texas does not have a stand your ground law, yet, but does have a "castle" law. My son is 14, tall, big, beyond autistic and strait into schizophrenic ect ect ect oh god ect territory. Mental capacity of a 5 year old for the most part, almost no restraint or understanding of personal space. Been trying to get him into a group home since before he was 12, last call I recieved was 1 opening with 32 applicants trying desperately to get in and more group homes being shut down due to liberals war on rich people or sumsuch thing.
Texas will eventually have a stand your ground law, its the republican thing to do in red states and Texas cant let Florida or Arizona be more red than Texas for long.......My oldest son is as good as dead when it passes. He's a dead man walking. He will try to hug some random person or go gallopping up to the wrong old lady and get his heavily medicated brains splatterd all over the concrete eventually. His only chance is for me to keep him in constant lockdown (which we basically do now) or dress him in a orange traffic vest that says "not dangerous, just weird" on front and back.

The law will pass, and his days will be numbered. If you think i'm wrong and that a mentally handicapped boy would never be blown away by random rednecks, then you need to take your medication and come back and post later.

iq_in_binary: After having read the details available to me (PI with access to professional investigative databases used by many police and security agencies), I'm going to have to say that the shoot was not righteous.

Keep in mind, my approach to self defense is very unorthodox even to professionals in the field. I look at self defense as a four step process: Awareness, Detection, Evasion, followed by Pre-Emptive offense. I do not want the fight, but if it has to happen its not going to be hand to hand wizardry, I'm going to drop you when I have as many advantages as possible, including surprise and superior arms.

The shooter failed on several accounts, awareness and detection, and completely skipped evasion. The man was in an SUV. Evasion is trivial, even if you have to jump a curb, do it, get the hell out of there, and the shooter had several routes of egress that his SUV could have easily handled. He jumped the gun, and an otherwise innocent man payer the price for being justifiably angry at a driver who failed to maintain proper awareness of the goings on around his vehicle.

I'm all for laws that affirm and expand our ability to defend ourselves, but it is quite against the spirit of personal responsibility and self defense in general to use them as shields to guard yourself from the consequences in cases like this. And this is coming from a guy that would preempt a fight altogether by killing you in an ambush.

I think this post epitomizes my position of self defense outside the home. If everyone were like you iq_in_binary, I'd be all for unrestricted access to guns. But it's just not that way at all and in fact, it's swinging away from people like you and toward people like the shooter in the article. 20 years ago there would be no question, he's a cold blooded murderer. Now we're not discussing the severity of the charges, we're discussing whether he should be charged at all. Ridiculous. In theory the law is fine, in actual practice it's farking terrible, so it's time to get rid of it.

And I can also imagine situations where I'd be perfectly fine with preempting a fight by killing someone in an ambush. I couldn't agree with this sentiment more: "I'm going to drop you when I have as many advantages as possible, including surprise and superior arms." Damn right.

lennavan: EWreckedSean: The law has been in place for 7 years in Florida. Strangely it doesn't seem like a free for all down here. Have a list of cases where charges should have been filed but weren't because of stand your ground?

The controversial law which police have cited in their decision not to charge the man who shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin has been invoked at least 130 times statewide since 2005.

A Tampa Bay Times survey, compiled from 31 Florida newspapers and public records, shows that the number of cases in which "stand your ground" has been invoked has climbed dramatically in the past year and a half.

But the law has also been used to excuse killings in bar brawls, gang shoot-outs and road-rage incidents.

Rep. Richard "Rich" Glorioso, R-Plant City, who voted for the bill. "If the law is applied right, it's a fine law. But we worried about how people would interpret it, and how it would be applied, when we were discussing it."

Therein lies the problem. The analysis shows the law is being unevenly applied across the state. A case that's dropped in Tampa might make it to a jury trial in Miami.

Link

What'd I win?

Um, you didn't show a single case where a person should have been tried and wasn't.

heap: EWreckedSean:

Your right, you don't. So why not have a law that favors the victim?

again, in your world, the dead guy just never seems to be the victim.

i live 2 worlds over. you should visit.

You mean that world where you ignore reality? Plenty of people are denied Stand Your Ground defenses. Lennavan's link at least had that. Of the 130 cases (in 7 years) where Stand Your Ground has been invoked, only 50 resulted in people not being charged with a crime.

EWreckedSean: AdmirableSnackbar: EWreckedSean: AdmirableSnackbar: mrshowrules: EWreckedSean: It is a bad thing because it puts the victim of a crime in the position of having to guess the intention of his attacker, and if he or she guesses wrongly, as the victim, facing prosecution for guessing wrong (or death or bodily harm). As to references, I'll google around some.

So these States want to err on the side of an innocent person getting killed rather than an innocent person challenged in court?

I have heard people say that it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6, but these laws remove the option of being judged by those 12. Basically it's a free-for-all, every man for himself, as long as there is no one alive to counter your story of self-defense. And many people ITT are happy about that!

The law has been in place for 7 years in Florida. Strangely it doesn't seem like a free for all down here. Have a list of cases where charges should have been filed but weren't because of stand your ground?

Generally it takes more than just the passage of a law for people to realize its implications. It usually takes a high-profile, somewhat extreme, case to draw attention to (and set a public precedent for) what the law does or does not mean. Kind of like what is happening in Florida right now and what this case may end up being in Arizona. If I were a resident of either state, I would be hoping for full trials at the very least, and maybe (at least in AZ) the obvious convictions in order to prevent such a free-for-all.

Zimmerman is not being covered by Stand Your Ground.

Is that true? I thought that it still hasn't been determine if he'll even stand trial and that the judge had yet to decide whether or not Zimmerman will be covered by SYG. From what I understand the case could still end up being thrown out before it goes to trial.

cybernia: EWreckedSean: heap: EWreckedSean: heap: qorkfiend: EWreckedSean: As to SYG laws, they were passed because in the past victims of crimes were often charged with murdering their attackers, because after the fact it was determined their lives weren't threatened.

Can you provide any sort of reference to any single event where this happened?

or even elucidate how what has been described is supposed to be a bad thing.

It is a bad thing because it puts the victim of a crime in the position of having to guess the intention of his attacker, and if he or she guesses wrongly, as the victim, facing prosecution for guessing wrong (or death or bodily harm). As to references, I'll google around some.

again, i'm trying to see the 'bad thing' here. if it's found that the person you killed was not threatening your life, you *did* commit a crime by my reckoning. i'm not seeing the 'bad thing' here.

Somebody comes up to you, pushes you up against a wall, and demands your wallet. Is your life threatened or not? How do you know if they are armed, how do you know what kind of violence they are capable of. How do you know that they won't decide after you give them your wallet that you can give the police their description? Why should the victim have to guess? How do you know if you turn and run the guy won't pull out a gun and shoot you in the back. SYG puts the fault on the aggressor and off the victim.

Well, that happened to me. I was jumped and shoved into a doorway with a knife to my stomach. The guy started going through my pockets looking for money. It all happened so fast I would never been able to pull out my gun, if I had one. That buck knife was right at my gut and he right on top of me so, to speak. Any movement and he would have gutted me. And if I had a gun, he would have gone off with it. Hey! Free gun!

Let me ask you this. When he had that knife in your stomach, did you know if he intended to use it or not?

EWreckedSean: You mean that world where you ignore reality?

.....egads. i say feh upon you.

EWreckedSean: lennavan: EWreckedSean: The law has been in place for 7 years in Florida. Strangely it doesn't seem like a free for all down here. Have a list of cases where charges should have been filed but weren't because of stand your ground?

The controversial law which police have cited in their decision not to charge the man who shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin has been invoked at least 130 times statewide since 2005.

A Tampa Bay Times survey, compiled from 31 Florida newspapers and public records, shows that the number of cases in which "stand your ground" has been invoked has climbed dramatically in the past year and a half.

But the law has also been used to excuse killings in bar brawls, gang shoot-outs and road-rage incidents.

Rep. Richard "Rich" Glorioso, R-Plant City, who voted for the bill. "If the law is applied right, it's a fine law. But we worried about how people would interpret it, and how it would be applied, when we were discussing it."

Therein lies the problem. The analysis shows the law is being unevenly applied across the state. A case that's dropped in Tampa might make it to a jury trial in Miami.

Link

What'd I win?

Um, you didn't show a single case where a person should have been tried and wasn't.

That's true, I showed a systematic substantial problem and the cause of it, just in Florida. You set your bar at 3 feet high and I leaped 30 feet high over it. Look up, that's me!