Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Herzlos wrote: I hadn't considered the wildlife angle, it definitely makes sense for people who are likely to be in animal attack situations to have some better means of defense. I just don't think I've ever seen that argument made before.
It doesn't make much sense here beyond hunting, but the biggest thing we're likely to be attacked by is a fox.
I've given examples of capping dangerous critters several times in the past, from feral dogs and coyotes to snakes I've used firearms to keep the kids and our critters safe. A copperhead nesting in the feed storage area is a good way to get one of my kids bit. A cotton mouth who worked his way up from the creek to one of the horse water troughs (was coiled up at the base of it) is a good way to get a critter bit. A couple feral dogs trying to dig into the goat pen is a good way to have dead or maimed needing to be put down critters.
But that is not why the 2nd Amendment was included in the bill of rights, hence why it is rarely brought up.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/03/02 19:56:35
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
Herzlos wrote: If no-one had guns, you wouldn't need a gun to defend yourself.
Maybe if you were dealing solely with people, but in many areas of the US you still need to be able to defend yourself from wildlife. A baseball bat isn't going to do you any good if you are facing an angry bear, alligator, or pack of wolves and you can forget running as they are all much faster than you. People forget that for much of it's history the US has largely been a frontier state, once you are away from the large cities guns play a vital role in survival both in defending oneself and providing food.
In some areas we're not all that far removed from the old west, there's a few areas of the US that didn't have electricity until 30 years ago. People were brought up with the understanding that the nearest help could be days away and that you need to be able to fend for yourself against any threat. In the cities you might have a fairly quick response time but in rural areas help could still be hours away. Self reliance is something that's been ingrained in a large portion of our country and guns are a part of that. I wouldn't want to live in the Australian outback or in the wilds of Africa without a firearm as there's a lot of dangerous wildlife to deal with and the police aren't a stone throw away.
It's true that not everyone "needs" a gun in their daily life, but being a frontier nation has created a mindset where it's an accepted and embraced part of our culture. There's other places that might not understand the "need" to have a car when public transportation is available but when it's something that you are raised and brought up with it's usually viewed as being integral to your lifestyle.
I don't own a gun but I live in the city, however if I were living in a more rural area I'd certainly own one.
Are you opposed to a licensing system that determines if you should be allowed to have a gun because you have the need for a gun.
That's how it works in the UK. Farmer? Deer culler? Target shooting club member? Need a gun? Not mentally ill, etc.? Here's your gun licence subject to rules about storage and so on.
Rights issue aside, we're also at the point where, since we've got basically 1 firearm per person, and essentially none of them registered, licensing would be unrealistically difficult, particularly post-facto licensing.
Needs based testing and licensing also often turns in defacto bans, see NYC handgun purchasing and California carry permits. Registries get so much flak because they are seen as leading to the same thing, such as with the 1986 Hughes Amendment and some of the rather ridiculous shennanigans CA has pulled with their AW registries/bans.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Kilkrazy wrote: May I assume, therefore, that you are against guns but you support their uninterrupted use because the law says so?
No sir, that would be an incorrect assumption. I have been operating firearms my entire life since. Literally as far back as I can remember shooting my first BB gun very young. I was simply stating the majority would definitely mind due to the implications as seen above.
10k CSM
1.5k Thousand Sons
2k Death Guard
3k Tau
3k Daemons(Tzeentch and Nurgle)
We've had the right to keep and bear arms since the country was founded and we didn't even install a national background check system until 1998. We've never had a show cause obligation for exercising any of the rights in the Bill of Rights. If the government wants to restrict the rights of a citizen the burden is on the government to prove that the citizen shouldn't be allowed to exercise the right, the default positon is that people's rights are respected, intact and able to be exercised. In order to flip that on its head and have people not have rights until they prove to the government that they have an express "need" to exercise a right we'd have to scrap our system of governance and jurisprudence and start over with something new and different.
Herzlos wrote: If no-one had guns, you wouldn't need a gun to defend yourself.
Maybe if you were dealing solely with people, but in many areas of the US you still need to be able to defend yourself from wildlife. A baseball bat isn't going to do you any good if you are facing an angry bear, alligator, or pack of wolves and you can forget running as they are all much faster than you. People forget that for much of it's history the US has largely been a frontier state, once you are away from the large cities guns play a vital role in survival both in defending oneself and providing food.
In some areas we're not all that far removed from the old west, there's a few areas of the US that didn't have electricity until 30 years ago. People were brought up with the understanding that the nearest help could be days away and that you need to be able to fend for yourself against any threat. In the cities you might have a fairly quick response time but in rural areas help could still be hours away. Self reliance is something that's been ingrained in a large portion of our country and guns are a part of that. I wouldn't want to live in the Australian outback or in the wilds of Africa without a firearm as there's a lot of dangerous wildlife to deal with and the police aren't a stone throw away.
It's true that not everyone "needs" a gun in their daily life, but being a frontier nation has created a mindset where it's an accepted and embraced part of our culture. There's other places that might not understand the "need" to have a car when public transportation is available but when it's something that you are raised and brought up with it's usually viewed as being integral to your lifestyle.
I don't own a gun but I live in the city, however if I were living in a more rural area I'd certainly own one.
Are you opposed to a licensing system that determines if you should be allowed to have a gun because you have the need for a gun.
That's how it works in the UK. Farmer? Deer culler? Target shooting club member? Need a gun? Not mentally ill, etc.? Here's your gun licence subject to rules about storage and so on.
If I want a gun or to buy ammo I have to go get state FOID card (firearms owner ID) which requires passing a background check, photo being kept on file with the state, and any weapon purchases are registered and serial numbers being sent to the feds. I'm fine with the current system, but it's also a lot of government scrutiny for something that is largely pointless. The vast majority of legally owned guns aren't used in crimes. So that places a lot of red tape and suspicion on innocent people who are being perfectly responsible and safe owners. On average people are far more reckless with their automobiles, alcohol, and cell phones which kill far more people every year and anyone can buy those without a fraction of the paperwork or any background checks.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/03 00:19:14
Herzlos wrote: I hadn't considered the wildlife angle, it definitely makes sense for people who are likely to be in animal attack situations to have some better means of defense. I just don't think I've ever seen that argument made before.
It doesn't make much sense here beyond hunting, but the biggest thing we're likely to be attacked by is a fox.
I've given examples of capping dangerous critters several times in the past, from feral dogs and coyotes to snakes I've used firearms to keep the kids and our critters safe. A copperhead nesting in the feed storage area is a good way to get one of my kids bit. A cotton mouth who worked his way up from the creek to one of the horse water troughs (was coiled up at the base of it) is a good way to get a critter bit. A couple feral dogs trying to dig into the goat pen is a good way to have dead or maimed needing to be put down critters.
But that is not why the 2nd Amendment was included in the bill of rights, hence why it is rarely brought up.
I have to say that venomous animals is a foreign concept to me. I live in one of the few places on the planet where there is virtually NOTHING that can bite you and kill you. About the only things we have are the occasional Black Widow spider (which is annoying if bit) and the extremely rare timber rattle snake (small, and non aggressive, as far as rattle snakes go). The Timber Rattlers are so rare that outside of captivity I've only ever seen one, and heard of one other. Coyote wonder my yard but are skittish of people. About once every couple years someone within 50 miles spots a mountain lion. I feel VERY safe with letting the kids wonder around.
Herzlos wrote: I hadn't considered the wildlife angle, it definitely makes sense for people who are likely to be in animal attack situations to have some better means of defense. I just don't think I've ever seen that argument made before.
It doesn't make much sense here beyond hunting, but the biggest thing we're likely to be attacked by is a fox.
I've given examples of capping dangerous critters several times in the past, from feral dogs and coyotes to snakes I've used firearms to keep the kids and our critters safe. A copperhead nesting in the feed storage area is a good way to get one of my kids bit. A cotton mouth who worked his way up from the creek to one of the horse water troughs (was coiled up at the base of it) is a good way to get a critter bit. A couple feral dogs trying to dig into the goat pen is a good way to have dead or maimed needing to be put down critters.
But that is not why the 2nd Amendment was included in the bill of rights, hence why it is rarely brought up.
I have to say that venomous animals is a foreign concept to me. I live in one of the few places on the planet where there is virtually NOTHING that can bite you and kill you. About the only things we have are the occasional Black Widow spider (which is annoying if bit) and the extremely rare timber rattle snake (small, and non aggressive, as far as rattle snakes go). The Timber Rattlers are so rare that outside of captivity I've only ever seen one, and heard of one other. Coyote wonder my yard but are skittish of people. About once every couple years someone within 50 miles spots a mountain lion. I feel VERY safe with letting the kids wonder around.
Herzlos wrote: I hadn't considered the wildlife angle, it definitely makes sense for people who are likely to be in animal attack situations to have some better means of defense. I just don't think I've ever seen that argument made before.
It doesn't make much sense here beyond hunting, but the biggest thing we're likely to be attacked by is a fox.
I've given examples of capping dangerous critters several times in the past, from feral dogs and coyotes to snakes I've used firearms to keep the kids and our critters safe. A copperhead nesting in the feed storage area is a good way to get one of my kids bit. A cotton mouth who worked his way up from the creek to one of the horse water troughs (was coiled up at the base of it) is a good way to get a critter bit. A couple feral dogs trying to dig into the goat pen is a good way to have dead or maimed needing to be put down critters.
But that is not why the 2nd Amendment was included in the bill of rights, hence why it is rarely brought up.
I have to say that venomous animals is a foreign concept to me. I live in one of the few places on the planet where there is virtually NOTHING that can bite you and kill you. About the only things we have are the occasional Black Widow spider (which is annoying if bit) and the extremely rare timber rattle snake (small, and non aggressive, as far as rattle snakes go). The Timber Rattlers are so rare that outside of captivity I've only ever seen one, and heard of one other. Coyote wonder my yard but are skittish of people. About once every couple years someone within 50 miles spots a mountain lion. I feel VERY safe with letting the kids wonder around.
Prestor Jon wrote: We've had the right to keep and bear arms since the country was founded and we didn't even install a national background check system until 1998. We've never had a show cause obligation for exercising any of the rights in the Bill of Rights.
I imagine since then the guns owned by the population have probably shifted from being almost exclusively single shot rifles (maybe some bolt and lever action rifles in the late 1800's and early 1900's?) in rural areas for hunting, shooting Indians and fighting wars to these days being more handguns owned by people in urban and suburban areas.
Even in countries with more strict gun laws you can usually still get a licence for things like single shot or bolt action rifles without a huge amount of effort. Automatically Appended Next Post:
Herzlos wrote: I hadn't considered the wildlife angle, it definitely makes sense for people who are likely to be in animal attack situations to have some better means of defense. I just don't think I've ever seen that argument made before.
It doesn't make much sense here beyond hunting, but the biggest thing we're likely to be attacked by is a fox.
I've given examples of capping dangerous critters several times in the past, from feral dogs and coyotes to snakes I've used firearms to keep the kids and our critters safe. A copperhead nesting in the feed storage area is a good way to get one of my kids bit. A cotton mouth who worked his way up from the creek to one of the horse water troughs (was coiled up at the base of it) is a good way to get a critter bit. A couple feral dogs trying to dig into the goat pen is a good way to have dead or maimed needing to be put down critters.
But that is not why the 2nd Amendment was included in the bill of rights, hence why it is rarely brought up.
I have to say that venomous animals is a foreign concept to me. I live in one of the few places on the planet where there is virtually NOTHING that can bite you and kill you. About the only things we have are the occasional Black Widow spider (which is annoying if bit) and the extremely rare timber rattle snake (small, and non aggressive, as far as rattle snakes go). The Timber Rattlers are so rare that outside of captivity I've only ever seen one, and heard of one other. Coyote wonder my yard but are skittish of people. About once every couple years someone within 50 miles spots a mountain lion. I feel VERY safe with letting the kids wonder around.
Where do you live?
The paradise known as 'Iowa'.
Iowa was the only place in my travels across where the US were the locals seemed unfriendly Well actually there were some nice friendly people at the University library, but outside of that, maybe I just went there during a bad week for Iowans. Oh and it was the only state where people drove slow, I assume because it must be one of the few places with traffic cameras? Maybe that's why people were less friendly as well?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/03/03 14:38:53
Prestor Jon wrote: We've had the right to keep and bear arms since the country was founded and we didn't even install a national background check system until 1998. We've never had a show cause obligation for exercising any of the rights in the Bill of Rights.
I imagine since then the guns owned by the population have probably shifted from being almost exclusively single shot rifles (maybe some bolt and lever action rifles in the late 1800's and early 1900's?) in rural areas for hunting, shooting Indians and fighting wars to these days being more handguns owned by people in urban and suburban areas.
Herzlos wrote: I hadn't considered the wildlife angle, it definitely makes sense for people who are likely to be in animal attack situations to have some better means of defense. I just don't think I've ever seen that argument made before.
It doesn't make much sense here beyond hunting, but the biggest thing we're likely to be attacked by is a fox.
I've given examples of capping dangerous critters several times in the past, from feral dogs and coyotes to snakes I've used firearms to keep the kids and our critters safe. A copperhead nesting in the feed storage area is a good way to get one of my kids bit. A cotton mouth who worked his way up from the creek to one of the horse water troughs (was coiled up at the base of it) is a good way to get a critter bit. A couple feral dogs trying to dig into the goat pen is a good way to have dead or maimed needing to be put down critters.
But that is not why the 2nd Amendment was included in the bill of rights, hence why it is rarely brought up.
I have to say that venomous animals is a foreign concept to me. I live in one of the few places on the planet where there is virtually NOTHING that can bite you and kill you. About the only things we have are the occasional Black Widow spider (which is annoying if bit) and the extremely rare timber rattle snake (small, and non aggressive, as far as rattle snakes go). The Timber Rattlers are so rare that outside of captivity I've only ever seen one, and heard of one other. Coyote wonder my yard but are skittish of people. About once every couple years someone within 50 miles spots a mountain lion. I feel VERY safe with letting the kids wonder around.
Where do you live?
The paradise known as 'Iowa'.
Iowa was the only place in my travels across where the US were the locals seemed unfriendly Well actually there were some nice friendly people at the University library, but outside of that, maybe I just went there during a bad week for Iowans. Oh and it was the only state where people drove slow, I assume because it must be one of the few places with traffic cameras? Maybe that's why people were less friendly as well?
We've always had citizens owning what are essentially the same firearms as our military. Semi automatic rifles have been marketed to civilians since the early 1900s. The most common hunting caliber in the US is still .30-06 which is the same caliber as the main battle rifles we used in WWI, WWII and Korea. There's very little difference between an AR15 and an M4 and AR15s are extremely popular and sell very well. Criminals definitely prefer to use pistols that are easier to conceal than rifles, http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/A-Yearbook/2014/en/Small-Arms-Survey-2014-Chapter-8-summary-EN.pdf However, overall the number of handguns and rifles in the civilian market is roughly the same: 114 million pistols, 110 million rifles, 86 million shotguns (per 2012). https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32842.pdf
Prestor Jon wrote: However, overall the number of handguns and rifles in the civilian market is roughly the same: 114 million pistols, 110 million rifles, 86 million shotguns (per 2012).
Roughly the same as what? The 17/1800's and early 1900's?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/03 15:16:40
Prestor Jon wrote: However, overall the number of handguns and rifles in the civilian market is roughly the same: 114 million pistols, 110 million rifles, 86 million shotguns (per 2012).
Roughly the same as what? The 17/1800's and early 1900's?
Currently the civilian market has roughly the same amount of rifles and pistols in it, meaning that Americans own roughly equally amounts of each right now. I've never found any reliable stats on firearms ownership or number of guns owned that predate the Gallup ownership survey started in the 1950s or the NICS check system that started in 1998. Prior to that there really weren't any measures in place to track them. The closest thing I've come across is manufacturing data from firearm manufactures like Colt but that's only a small part of the overall picture.
One thing that bothers me about many of these cases, is what I consider exploitation of the legal system. It seems like, so long as a shooters says: "I was frightened for my life", they have a good chance of getting away with it, regardless of the circumstances. Even if you support gun rights, you must still appreciate that lethal force should be a last resort. Pulling the gun and killing someone was this guy's first resort, he did it so fast, I don't think the popcorn had even hit the floor. There also appears to have been a barrier of seats between them, so I don't buy that the guy was in imminent mortal danger. What he did to that family was vicious, and I don't think simply "claiming" that he was scared something "might" happen is good enough, not by a long way.
Herzlos wrote: I hadn't considered the wildlife angle, it definitely makes sense for people who are likely to be in animal attack situations to have some better means of defense. I just don't think I've ever seen that argument made before.
It doesn't make much sense here beyond hunting, but the biggest thing we're likely to be attacked by is a fox.
I've given examples of capping dangerous critters several times in the past, from feral dogs and coyotes to snakes I've used firearms to keep the kids and our critters safe. A copperhead nesting in the feed storage area is a good way to get one of my kids bit. A cotton mouth who worked his way up from the creek to one of the horse water troughs (was coiled up at the base of it) is a good way to get a critter bit. A couple feral dogs trying to dig into the goat pen is a good way to have dead or maimed needing to be put down critters.
But that is not why the 2nd Amendment was included in the bill of rights, hence why it is rarely brought up.
I have to say that venomous animals is a foreign concept to me. I live in one of the few places on the planet where there is virtually NOTHING that can bite you and kill you. About the only things we have are the occasional Black Widow spider (which is annoying if bit) and the extremely rare timber rattle snake (small, and non aggressive, as far as rattle snakes go). The Timber Rattlers are so rare that outside of captivity I've only ever seen one, and heard of one other. Coyote wonder my yard but are skittish of people. About once every couple years someone within 50 miles spots a mountain lion. I feel VERY safe with letting the kids wonder around.
Where do you live?
Um, Feral Dogs are a nationwide issue, so you should probably watch out for that.
Smacks wrote: One thing that bothers me about many of these cases, is what I consider exploitation of the legal system. It seems like, so long as a shooters says: "I was frightened for my life", they have a good chance of getting away with it, regardless of the circumstances.
thats a hard thing to judge, and given the legal standard for conviction, if there is even a remote possibility that such was true, can result in unexpected verdicts. That said, it's not bought by juries all the time, most times it is in fact rejected.
Even if you support gun rights, you must still appreciate that lethal force should be a last resort.
Yes, to a point. If someone feels they are in immediate physical danger, the last resort can be the first and only resort.
Pulling the gun and killing someone was this guy's first resort, he did it so fast, I don't think the popcorn had even hit the floor. There also appears to have been a barrier of seats between them, so I don't buy that the guy was in imminent mortal danger. What he did to that family was vicious, and I don't think simply "claiming" that he was scared something "might" happen is good enough, not by a long way.
In this instance you are probably correct.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Smacks wrote: One thing that bothers me about many of these cases, is what I consider exploitation of the legal system. It seems like, so long as a shooters says: "I was frightened for my life", they have a good chance of getting away with it, regardless of the circumstances. Even if you support gun rights, you must still appreciate that lethal force should be a last resort. Pulling the gun and killing someone was this guy's first resort, he did it so fast, I don't think the popcorn had even hit the floor. There also appears to have been a barrier of seats between them, so I don't buy that the guy was in imminent mortal danger. What he did to that family was vicious, and I don't think simply "claiming" that he was scared something "might" happen is good enough, not by a long way.
I doubt the old dirtbag is getting away with this. Cold comfort to the victim for sure, but it's not like you can shout "they're comin' right for us!" and start shooting with impunity.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Smacks wrote: One thing that bothers me about many of these cases, is what I consider exploitation of the legal system. It seems like, so long as a shooters says: "I was frightened for my life", they have a good chance of getting away with it, regardless of the circumstances
It 'seems' that way because that is the story the press gives you and it conforms to your internal bias.
The reality is 'self defense' is a VERY difficult defense to win with if you go to trial. I think you'll find most folks plea out or lose their case unless it is pretty damned rock solid. If you go with self defense you must admit to the crime (I did shoot him BUT) so it is really risky. Unless very clear cut most lawyers advise against it.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
Smacks wrote: One thing that bothers me about many of these cases, is what I consider exploitation of the legal system. It seems like, so long as a shooters says: "I was frightened for my life", they have a good chance of getting away with it, regardless of the circumstances
It 'seems' that way because that is the story the press gives you and it conforms to your internal bias.
The reality is 'self defense' is a VERY difficult defense to win with if you go to trial. I think you'll find most folks plea out or lose their case unless it is pretty damned rock solid. If you go with self defense you must admit to the crime (I did shoot him BUT) so it is really risky. Unless very clear cut most lawyers advise against it.
Well there wasn't much chance of him getting away with saying "Nah, I didn't do it".
I haven't been following but it seems the defence lawyer is trying to hit the "witness contamination" point as best he can. Witnesses weren't separated, apparently some statements were taken but not recorded, and one witness was interviewed with their spouse instead of alone, maybe some other stuff as I said I haven't really been following it.
I guess it goes back to what I was thinking earlier, with Reeves' wife saying "there was no need to shoot him" and other witnesses saying things along the lines of Reeves saying "i'll teach you" or "I'll show you" or possibly goading Oulson in to acting rashly... with all those testimonies the chance of getting off on "I was scared for my life" reduces, so the lawyer is going down the road of trying to show the witness statements aren't accurate.
EDIT: One of the witnesses said...
Roy said she feared Reeves was about to start a fight.
"I knew that Mr. Reeves was a very big man, and he frightened me," she said.
Reeves was 6-foot-1 and 270 pounds, according to his arrest affidavit.
Good thing Roy didn't pull a gun and blow Reeves away as well. 270lbs, he may have been old but he wasn't small, didn't seem all that overweight in the pictures.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/03/03 18:55:42
Prestor Jon wrote: However, overall the number of handguns and rifles in the civilian market is roughly the same: 114 million pistols, 110 million rifles, 86 million shotguns (per 2012).
Roughly the same as what? The 17/1800's and early 1900's?
Currently the civilian market has roughly the same amount of rifles and pistols in it, meaning that Americans own roughly equally amounts of each right now. I've never found any reliable stats on firearms ownership or number of guns owned that predate the Gallup ownership survey started in the 1950s or the NICS check system that started in 1998. Prior to that there really weren't any measures in place to track them. The closest thing I've come across is manufacturing data from firearm manufactures like Colt but that's only a small part of the overall picture.
Probate records are a good way of tracking historical ownership of guns, since they were expensive items than were left in wills.
Probate records are a good way of tracking historical ownership of guns, since they were expensive items than were left in wills.
Honestly that is one of the silliest things I've read recently.
Are you going to toss away the 4th amendment too? Other wise attorney/client privilege is gonna make accessing a lot of executed wills pretty difficult. Of course it also misses the many guns passed on before death as the owner gets older and passes his/her collection on to kids/grand kids while still alive. It also misses the many guns not itemized in wills. Any law requiring the info to be passed to the gov't is gonna result in less and less guns appearing in wills.
I think you also overestimate the 'expensive' part of guns making them worth itemizing in wills. Not every gun is a multi-thousand dollar collector's item.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/03 20:07:03
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
Smacks wrote: One thing that bothers me about many of these cases, is what I consider exploitation of the legal system. It seems like, so long as a shooters says: "I was frightened for my life", they have a good chance of getting away with it, regardless of the circumstances
It 'seems' that way because that is the story the press gives you and it conforms to your internal bias.
The reality is 'self defense' is a VERY difficult defense to win with if you go to trial. I think you'll find most folks plea out or lose their case unless it is pretty damned rock solid. If you go with self defense you must admit to the crime (I did shoot him BUT) so it is really risky. Unless very clear cut most lawyers advise against it.
I don't think it's anything to do with the media, or any bias. It probably has more to do with the fact that YOU (in another topic), said that you tutored your men to rehearse that exact phrase, in case they shot someone. Then when we listened to the interview with the shooter in this incident (an former cop), he's spinning the same old yarn, even though the witness statements paint a much darker picture.
Smacks wrote: One thing that bothers me about many of these cases, is what I consider exploitation of the legal system. It seems like, so long as a shooters says: "I was frightened for my life", they have a good chance of getting away with it, regardless of the circumstances
It 'seems' that way because that is the story the press gives you and it conforms to your internal bias.
The reality is 'self defense' is a VERY difficult defense to win with if you go to trial. I think you'll find most folks plea out or lose their case unless it is pretty damned rock solid. If you go with self defense you must admit to the crime (I did shoot him BUT) so it is really risky. Unless very clear cut most lawyers advise against it.
I don't think it's anything to do with the media, or any bias. It probably has more to do with the fact that YOU (in another topic), said that you tutored your men to rehearse that exact phrase, in case they shot someone. Then when we listened to the interview with the shooter in this incident (an former cop), he's spinning the same old yarn, even though the witness statements paint a much darker picture.
I think you may be confusing me with someone else.
Regardless, my post you just quoted is accurate. Self Defense is what is termed an affirmative defense, and it IS risky, rarely works, and most lawyers will advise against it unless it is VERY clear cut.
The Media DOES highlight the edge cases, and they DO confirm bias against these types of laws.
Not sure what about that you find inaccurate.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
Well actually there were some nice friendly people at the University library, but outside of that, maybe I just went there during a bad week for Iowans. Oh and it was the only state where people drove slow, I assume because it must be one of the few places with traffic cameras? Maybe that's why people were less friendly as well? 
