Switch Theme:

Florida Man Stands His Ground  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Prestor Jon wrote:
 skyth wrote:
I wish the laws in the US had that violence as a means of self defense could only be used as a last resort, and only as much violence as needed to stop the situation.

Unfortunately, as Smacks mentions, there's a culture encouraged by the gun lobby that it's okay to use violence as a first resort to solve problems...That backing off, de-escalating, and running away shouldn't be used.


We do have those laws. Is there a specific state that you believe doesn't have those laws? In no state can you instigate a conflict and then claim self defense.



Travonn Martin disagrees with you

In no state can you ignore the escalation of force and respond with lethal force without facing an imminent threat of lethal force. SYG laws don't prohibit anyone from running away and don't encourage anyone not to run away, they just indemnify the individual from any legal responsibility to run away. You as the victim of an assault don't have any legal responsibility to avoid the assault, your attacker has the legal responsibility to not assault you in the first place. Nobody should be punished for not being able or willing to run away from a criminal attack on their person.


No one said or claimed that the attacker is some how absolved from being in the wrong. However, if you escallate or respond to an attack with violence if there is a way to avoid it then you are in the wrong as well.

I agree you shouldn't be punished if you are unable to evade, but violence should be the absolute last resort. The stand your ground laws make it that violence is NOT the last resort, but instead is acceptable.

Two wrongs do not make a right and SYG laws make it more likely for someone to be hurt or killed.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





CL VI Store in at the Cyber Center of Excellence

Do you have data backing up your claim that "SYG laws make it more likely for someone to be hurt or killed"?

Seems to be the case that most gun violence is still gang/crime related and SYG rarely comes into play. Violent crimes are down over all except in a few municipalities (like Chicago) where SYG laws don't really come into play.

Studies seem to support SYG laws do lead to increased violence or do not lead to increased violence, depending on who commissioned the study...

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/03/07 17:50:06


Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings. 
   
Made in us
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The issue is, in the UK, at least as far as I understand it, you cannot maintain any device specifically for that purpose, else it becomes an "offensive weapon", use of a tool for self defense must be incidental, not kept specifically for such a purpose.


It's a reasonable point Vaktathi, but if I just so happen to have a fence post sitting by my bedside, there's not a lot the law can do if said fence post is used to repel intruders at 3am

Honestly, Constable, I brought the fence post in for a repair job earlier, but left it in my bedroom by mistake and forgot all about it. Luckily for me, it was there when I needed it...


Sure, and I dont doubt that such is often done that way, but it needs to be acknowledged that such is a loophole, circumventing the law.

The law allows one to utilize weapons, or items used as weapon, in self defense if they happen to be there by chance for some other reason, but the law fundamentally does not allow one to own, keep, or bear anything explicitly intended to be used for self defense.

At least as I understand it.

jouso wrote:

You can get a shotgun easily enough, though.

for some types you can get them easier than you can some other types of firearms, but still requires photos, home inspection, character references, renewing licenses, etc from what I understand, quite an involved process, more than is required for me to buy a belt fed machinegun or a howitzer in the US (market costs for such items notwithstanding)


 skyth wrote:


Travonn Martin disagrees with you
We can point to all sorts of random anecdotes on any side to make a point, but it doesnt show the whole picture either. The Martin/Zimmerman case was played up and poorly handled by many different groups and ultimately became a political vehicle for culture war issues way beyond the scope of the event. Ultimately I disagree with how it went down, but Zimmerman was arrested, charged and sent to trial for his actions, where a Florida jury decided there decided there was enough reasonable doubt such that they could not convict. Doesnt mean what Zimmerman did was legal or right however.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/07 17:55:28


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.  
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





CL VI Store in at the Cyber Center of Excellence

The Zimmerman trial had NOTHING to do with SYG laws, his lawyers did NOT use those laws a defense (he was pinned to the ground unable to retreat so the SYG laws did not come into play at all).

Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 CptJake wrote:
Do you have data backing up your claim that "SYG laws make it more likely for someone to be hurt or killed"?

Seems to be the case that most gun violence is still gang/crime related and SYG rarely comes into play. Violent crimes are down over all except in a few municipalities (like Chicago) where SYG laws don't really come into play.

Studies seem to support SYG laws do lead to increased violence or do not lead to increased violence, depending on who commissioned the study...


Studies are irrelevant. In a situation where you can retreat, adding the option to use violence instead of retreating means that the law makes more violence acceptable. That is the problem witb SYG laws.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 CptJake wrote:
The Zimmerman trial had NOTHING to do with SYG laws, his lawyers did NOT use those laws a defense (he was pinned to the ground unable to retreat so the SYG laws did not come into play at all).


He initiated the confrontation.You claimed that in no state can you initiate a conflict then claim self defense. That is not true in Florida apparently ,)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/07 18:00:01


 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

 Smacks wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
You started it by your own post.
I did not start nor am I continuing anything. My post (before you turned up here calling me asinine) was all about self defence, and differing attitudes towards it between two developed nations, and how those attitudes might be shaped by cultural factors, such as laws, media, and politics. Which they absolutely are.


Again, please show where US culture supports someone clearly insane shooting up a movie theater and tying that in some manner to self defense. Unless you are espousing that the government start locking up everyone deemed potentially unstable (good luck) there's no society issue. Otherwise thats the same as the slack jawed yokels arguing that Islam is a religious culture that breeds terrorists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Nostromodamus wrote:
I remember throughout my entire concealed carry course that the instructor emphasised de-escelation and that the firearm was the last resort.

Maybe that was an exception to the norm?


Mine said if they hurt one of you you put two of theirs in the morgue, citing some legal precedent called "the Chicago way" I could never find it in the appropriate code though. He also said Sean Connery is the greatest evah but I didn't understand the relationship.


Automatically Appended Next Post:


He initiated the confrontation.You claimed that in no state can you initiate a conflict then claim self defense. That is not true in Florida apparently ,)


Please cite the evidence that Z started the confrontation?

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/03/07 18:34:25


-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





He's the one that got out of his car to chase Travonn down. That is initiating a confrontation...
   
Made in us
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

 skyth wrote:
He's the one that got out of his car to chase Travonn down. That is initiating a confrontation...
again, he was arrested, charged and put on trial for this. A jury had enough doubt that they could not convict. Doesnt mean what he did was right, legal, or anything else, it just means a jury couldnt be convinced *beyond a reasonable doubt* that was he did was illegal in that one case, but Zimmerman was put before a court for what he did.

Here where I live we just had a guy who instigated a conflict at a rally (Michael Strickland) and pulled a gun once the situation ran away on him (thanfully he didnt actually shoot), he has been tried and convicted and awaits sentence.

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.  
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

 skyth wrote:
He's the one that got out of his car to chase Travonn down. That is initiating a confrontation...


1. Please define "chase him down."
2. Please define confrontation and cite where Z following T had been found previously to be a cause sufficient to mitigate the claim of self defense in other cases or under the appropriate statute.

Just because you say its a thing doesn't mean the actual criminal justice says its a thing.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/07 19:13:06


-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter





SoCal

 Frazzled wrote:
 Smacks wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Thats an incredibly asinine statement.
Not just asinine, but incredibly asinine? Oh my!

If you have something to add to the conversation, then please do so politely, and perhaps provide reasons, rather than rolling up, and posting abusive unfalsifiable spam.


Your statement said the movie theater shooter was because of US culture. The urge to respond with a nice F you right back is strong.

I guess British culture created the thousand or so children who were molested there by one group. But see, that would be a stupid comment, just like yours.



Uh, Frazzled, they know that British Culture is harmful to British Children. They have even enshrined this knowledge in their greatest Pink Floyd song. Hey! Teachers! Leave them kids alone! How can you have your pudding if you don't eat your meat?

On the other hand, responding to mild, attenuated criticism of our culture's rough edges with "F you" kinda helps his point.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




North Carolina

 skyth wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
 skyth wrote:
I wish the laws in the US had that violence as a means of self defense could only be used as a last resort, and only as much violence as needed to stop the situation.

Unfortunately, as Smacks mentions, there's a culture encouraged by the gun lobby that it's okay to use violence as a first resort to solve problems...That backing off, de-escalating, and running away shouldn't be used.


We do have those laws. Is there a specific state that you believe doesn't have those laws? In no state can you instigate a conflict and then claim self defense.



Travonn Martin disagrees with you

In no state can you ignore the escalation of force and respond with lethal force without facing an imminent threat of lethal force. SYG laws don't prohibit anyone from running away and don't encourage anyone not to run away, they just indemnify the individual from any legal responsibility to run away. You as the victim of an assault don't have any legal responsibility to avoid the assault, your attacker has the legal responsibility to not assault you in the first place. Nobody should be punished for not being able or willing to run away from a criminal attack on their person.


No one said or claimed that the attacker is some how absolved from being in the wrong. However, if you escallate or respond to an attack with violence if there is a way to avoid it then you are in the wrong as well.

I agree you shouldn't be punished if you are unable to evade, but violence should be the absolute last resort. The stand your ground laws make it that violence is NOT the last resort, but instead is acceptable.

Two wrongs do not make a right and SYG laws make it more likely for someone to be hurt or killed.


The Trayvon Martin case went to court and evidence showed that Martin initiated the physical confrontation which provided Zimmerman the grounds for self defense, that's the reason why the DA initially declined to prosecute and later the jury verdict supported that original decision. The fact of the case as presented in court don't support your claims about the case.

The SYG laws don't do anything to change the fact that violence is the last resort for defense from an attack. SYG laws don't affect the requirements for the lethal use of force in any way. The removal of a legal obligation to flee has no effect on the legality of the use of lethal force. The justification of the use of lethal force is judged separately from the decision of the victim to flee or not. Not be obligated to run away from an attacker doesn't have the effect on choosing to use lethal force that you think it does. Previous Duty to Retreat laws imposed upon the victim the need to prioritize the decision of how to get away as soon as the attack manifested, Stand Your Ground laws removed that imposition and gave the victim the freedom to choose from either fight or flight depending on the specifics of the situation with no legal penalty. The results of that decision are then judged on their own merits.

Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas




Uh, Frazzled, they know that British Culture is harmful to British Children. They have even enshrined this knowledge in their greatest Pink Floyd song. Hey! Teachers! Leave them kids alone! How can you have your pudding if you don't eat your meat?

My wfie would agree with your statement.


On the other hand, responding to mild, attenuated criticism of our culture's rough edges with "F you" kinda helps his point.

What can I say? I work with people from NYC. "hey you dropped your wallet." " you you ing ! Thanks!"

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in au
Grizzled Space Wolves Great Wolf





Funny thing when I hear about rude New Yorkers, I never met anything other than nice people when I was in NYC.

Maybe the problem is just old people, perhaps everyone hates them and they just want to shoot everyone.

Fraz, do you find people are inclined to throw things at you (like, I dunno, phones and popcorn?) and do you occasionally get the urge to shoot people (say, perhaps, in movie theatres?).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/07 19:47:59


 
   
Made in es
Inspiring Icon Bearer




 Vaktathi wrote:


jouso wrote:

You can get a shotgun easily enough, though.

for some types you can get them easier than you can some other types of firearms, but still requires photos, home inspection, character references, renewing licenses, etc from what I understand, quite an involved process, more than is required for me to buy a belt fed machinegun or a howitzer in the US (market costs for such items notwithstanding) .


I have three guns on 2 separate licenses. Hunting is the easiest (unless you like muzzleloaders, those are even easier).

No home inspection of any kind and you don't even need a cabinet. You do need a medical and a certificate of no convictions (and a letter of some sort saying you have somewhere to hunt) but those are hardly a barrier to 99% of citizens.

You have to pass an exam once in your life about firearm regulations and a practical that requires you to safely load, hit a target 25m away then unload. I've seen kids and old men pass (and jerks bragging about how good they were fail because they started waving the gun around or left a round in)

It's actually easier than getting a driving license.
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Funny thing when I hear about rude New Yorkers, I never met anything other than nice people when I was in NYC.

Maybe the problem is just old people, perhaps everyone hates them and they just want to shoot everyone.

Fraz, do you find people are inclined to throw things at you (like, I dunno, phones and popcorn?) and do you occasionally get the urge to shoot people (say, perhaps, in movie theatres?).


You know it. I hate it when everyone gets together with torches and pitchforks, shouting "look there's the monster" and "kill the monster" and "get the monster!" and chasing me with the fire and the burney burney. Why is it villagers always seem to come up with flaming torches out of nowhere? Whats up with that???

As for urge to shoot them? Nope. But I will admit, when I take my tank ride for my birthday I'm bringing THE LIST OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE TICKED ME OFF (its phone book sized now!)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/07 19:59:57


-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






And another gun thread goes full Zimmerman.

You never go full Zimmerman.

"The Omnissiah is my Moderati" 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Prestor Jon wrote:
 skyth wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
 skyth wrote:
I wish the laws in the US had that violence as a means of self defense could only be used as a last resort, and only as much violence as needed to stop the situation.

Unfortunately, as Smacks mentions, there's a culture encouraged by the gun lobby that it's okay to use violence as a first resort to solve problems...That backing off, de-escalating, and running away shouldn't be used.


We do have those laws. Is there a specific state that you believe doesn't have those laws? In no state can you instigate a conflict and then claim self defense.



Travonn Martin disagrees with you

In no state can you ignore the escalation of force and respond with lethal force without facing an imminent threat of lethal force. SYG laws don't prohibit anyone from running away and don't encourage anyone not to run away, they just indemnify the individual from any legal responsibility to run away. You as the victim of an assault don't have any legal responsibility to avoid the assault, your attacker has the legal responsibility to not assault you in the first place. Nobody should be punished for not being able or willing to run away from a criminal attack on their person.


No one said or claimed that the attacker is some how absolved from being in the wrong. However, if you escallate or respond to an attack with violence if there is a way to avoid it then you are in the wrong as well.

I agree you shouldn't be punished if you are unable to evade, but violence should be the absolute last resort. The stand your ground laws make it that violence is NOT the last resort, but instead is acceptable.

Two wrongs do not make a right and SYG laws make it more likely for someone to be hurt or killed.


The Trayvon Martin case went to court and evidence showed that Martin initiated the physical confrontation which provided Zimmerman the grounds for self defense, that's the reason why the DA initially declined to prosecute and later the jury verdict supported that original decision. The fact of the case as presented in court don't support your claims about the case.

reasonable doubt is a lot easier when only one person is alive to give their story.



The SYG laws don't do anything to change the fact that violence is the last resort for defense from an attack.


Yes they do.

SYG laws don't affect the requirements for the lethal use of force in any way. The removal of a legal obligation to flee has no effect on the legality of the use of lethal force. The justification of the use of lethal force is judged separately from the decision of the victim to flee or not. Not be obligated to run away from an attacker doesn't have the effect on choosing to use lethal force that you think it does.



*blinks* really? If you run away you are *just* as likely to use lethal force than if you didn't run away?

The dishonesty in that statement just boggles the mind.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/07 20:41:35


 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

 Nostromodamus wrote:
And another gun thread goes full Zimmerman.

You never go full Zimmerman.


You can if you have a note.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
*blinks* really? If you run away you are *just* as likely to use lethal force than if you didn't run away?


It does unless you are a healthy athlete, then you're a slow moving target

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/07 20:48:16


-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




North Carolina

 skyth wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
 skyth wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
 skyth wrote:
I wish the laws in the US had that violence as a means of self defense could only be used as a last resort, and only as much violence as needed to stop the situation.

Unfortunately, as Smacks mentions, there's a culture encouraged by the gun lobby that it's okay to use violence as a first resort to solve problems...That backing off, de-escalating, and running away shouldn't be used.


We do have those laws. Is there a specific state that you believe doesn't have those laws? In no state can you instigate a conflict and then claim self defense.



Travonn Martin disagrees with you

In no state can you ignore the escalation of force and respond with lethal force without facing an imminent threat of lethal force. SYG laws don't prohibit anyone from running away and don't encourage anyone not to run away, they just indemnify the individual from any legal responsibility to run away. You as the victim of an assault don't have any legal responsibility to avoid the assault, your attacker has the legal responsibility to not assault you in the first place. Nobody should be punished for not being able or willing to run away from a criminal attack on their person.


No one said or claimed that the attacker is some how absolved from being in the wrong. However, if you escallate or respond to an attack with violence if there is a way to avoid it then you are in the wrong as well.

I agree you shouldn't be punished if you are unable to evade, but violence should be the absolute last resort. The stand your ground laws make it that violence is NOT the last resort, but instead is acceptable.

Two wrongs do not make a right and SYG laws make it more likely for someone to be hurt or killed.


The Trayvon Martin case went to court and evidence showed that Martin initiated the physical confrontation which provided Zimmerman the grounds for self defense, that's the reason why the DA initially declined to prosecute and later the jury verdict supported that original decision. The fact of the case as presented in court don't support your claims about the case.

reasonable doubt is a lot easier when only one person is alive to give their story.



The SYG laws don't do anything to change the fact that violence is the last resort for defense from an attack.


Yes they do.

SYG laws don't affect the requirements for the lethal use of force in any way. The removal of a legal obligation to flee has no effect on the legality of the use of lethal force. The justification of the use of lethal force is judged separately from the decision of the victim to flee or not. Not be obligated to run away from an attacker doesn't have the effect on choosing to use lethal force that you think it does.



*blinks* really? If you run away you are *just* as likely to use lethal force than if you didn't run away?

The dishonesty in that statement just boggles the mind.


Can you cite any evidence that was introduced during the trial that supports your claims about the case?

How do you think SYG laws cause people to use lethal force? SYG laws literally have no bearing on the justification for the use of lethal force. Choosing not to flee does not create any justification for the use of lethal force.

Did you not read what I wrote? SYG laws protect the victim of an attack from any legal obligation to flee. The justification for the legal use of lethal force in self defense is judged based upon the circumstances of the encounter, not on whether or not the victim chose to flee. These are indisputable legal facts. The SYG laws literally don't influence whether or not a victim of an attack was justified in the use of deadly force. I didn't say that running away was just as likely to lead to the use of lethal force as not running away. Just because a victim isn't legally obligated to flee doesn't mean that a victim is going to use deadly force. Not every confrontation leads to deadly force, very very few lead to deadly force. LEOs rarely ever use deadly force and they deal with far more criminals than the average citizen or gun owner.

Duty to Retreat laws place responsibility for an attack on the victim not the attacker. That makes them bad laws because they are punishing the victim instead of the criminal. It is not your responsibility to avoid criminal attacks from others it's the responsibility of others to not commit criminal assault against you.

Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Prestor Jon wrote:

Can you cite any evidence that was introduced during the trial that supports your claims about the case?



Not all evidence was presented at trial. Including his pattern of behavior after the fact the puts his story into question even more.



How do you think SYG laws cause people to use lethal force? SYG laws literally have no bearing on the justification for the use of lethal force. Choosing not to flee does not create any justification for the use of lethal force.

Did you not read what I wrote? SYG laws protect the victim of an attack from any legal obligation to flee. The justification for the legal use of lethal force in self defense is judged based upon the circumstances of the encounter, not on whether or not the victim chose to flee. These are indisputable legal facts. The SYG laws literally don't influence whether or not a victim of an attack was justified in the use of deadly force. I didn't say that running away was just as likely to lead to the use of lethal force as not running away. Just because a victim isn't legally obligated to flee doesn't mean that a victim is going to use deadly force. Not every confrontation leads to deadly force, very very few lead to deadly force. LEOs rarely ever use deadly force and they deal with far more criminals than the average citizen or gun owner.


And did you not read what I wrote? Being able to 'stand your ground' instead of needing to run away leads to more violence. I don't care if it's 'legal' violence. There is also the whole idea behind them that encourages this sort of behavior.


Duty to Retreat laws place responsibility for an attack on the victim not the attacker. That makes them bad laws because they are punishing the victim instead of the criminal. It is not your responsibility to avoid criminal attacks from others it's the responsibility of others to not commit criminal assault against you.


And that is an EXTREMELY deceptive way to phrase what they do. In no way do Duty to Retreat laws not place responsibility for an attack on the attacker. What they do is say that 'two wrongs don't make a right'. That is why they are good laws.
   
Made in us
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

jouso wrote:
 Vaktathi wrote:


jouso wrote:

You can get a shotgun easily enough, though.

for some types you can get them easier than you can some other types of firearms, but still requires photos, home inspection, character references, renewing licenses, etc from what I understand, quite an involved process, more than is required for me to buy a belt fed machinegun or a howitzer in the US (market costs for such items notwithstanding) .


I have three guns on 2 separate licenses. Hunting is the easiest (unless you like muzzleloaders, those are even easier).

No home inspection of any kind and you don't even need a cabinet. You do need a medical and a certificate of no convictions (and a letter of some sort saying you have somewhere to hunt) but those are hardly a barrier to 99% of citizens.

You have to pass an exam once in your life about firearm regulations and a practical that requires you to safely load, hit a target 25m away then unload. I've seen kids and old men pass (and jerks bragging about how good they were fail because they started waving the gun around or left a round in)

It's actually easier than getting a driving license.
TIL, I thought the home inspection and references and whatnot were still part of that. Thanks for the clarification.

Oddly enough though, that is still more red tape than what one in the US would need for an anti tank cannon, mortar or heavy machinegun, barring the market costs of such items (requires $200 tax, 3-9 month paperwork backlog wait, background check with photo and fingerprint, and notification, but not approval, of chief local law enforcement officer).

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.  
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




North Carolina

 skyth wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:

Can you cite any evidence that was introduced during the trial that supports your claims about the case?



Not all evidence was presented at trial. Including his pattern of behavior after the fact the puts his story into question even more.



How do you think SYG laws cause people to use lethal force? SYG laws literally have no bearing on the justification for the use of lethal force. Choosing not to flee does not create any justification for the use of lethal force.

Did you not read what I wrote? SYG laws protect the victim of an attack from any legal obligation to flee. The justification for the legal use of lethal force in self defense is judged based upon the circumstances of the encounter, not on whether or not the victim chose to flee. These are indisputable legal facts. The SYG laws literally don't influence whether or not a victim of an attack was justified in the use of deadly force. I didn't say that running away was just as likely to lead to the use of lethal force as not running away. Just because a victim isn't legally obligated to flee doesn't mean that a victim is going to use deadly force. Not every confrontation leads to deadly force, very very few lead to deadly force. LEOs rarely ever use deadly force and they deal with far more criminals than the average citizen or gun owner.


And did you not read what I wrote? Being able to 'stand your ground' instead of needing to run away leads to more violence. I don't care if it's 'legal' violence. There is also the whole idea behind them that encourages this sort of behavior.


Duty to Retreat laws place responsibility for an attack on the victim not the attacker. That makes them bad laws because they are punishing the victim instead of the criminal. It is not your responsibility to avoid criminal attacks from others it's the responsibility of others to not commit criminal assault against you.


And that is an EXTREMELY deceptive way to phrase what they do. In no way do Duty to Retreat laws not place responsibility for an attack on the attacker. What they do is say that 'two wrongs don't make a right'. That is why they are good laws.


SYG laws don't require that anyone stands their ground it just doesn't penalize people that do. SYG laws don't create any situations they just allow victims of criminal assaults to choose for themselves whether or not it is in their best interests to flee from an attacker or attempt to fight off an attacker. They certainly don't instill any desire to commit violence in anyone.

It's an EXTREMELY accurate description because that is EXACTLY what the Duty to Retreat laws did. That's why states started to abolish them over 140 years ago long before states were passing Stand Your Ground laws in 2005. Since Florida passed the first SYG law in 2005 34 more states have passed or created similar protections. There's only 1 state that still has a full Duty to Retreat law and 14 states that have Castle Doctrine laws and Duty to Retreat laws for public confrontations. We have consistently removed Duty to Retreat laws across all the regions of the country in states that vary in politics and urban/rural makeup and population size because they all recognize how bad Duty to Retreat laws are. If an individual is attacked that individual has the right to determine for himself/herself whether fighting or fleeing is the best option and the state shouldn't impose any legal obligation on victim to avoid the criminal assaults of others. There is no "2 wrongs don't make a right" issue because defending yourself from being criminally assaulted by somebody isn't a wrong.

Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

Not all evidence was presented at trial. Including his pattern of behavior after the fact the puts his story into question even more.


Again, please cite what actual legal argument you are relying on. It is legal to follow someone. Having been followed I know this personally. You can even pick your nose in front of them. This does not allow you to attempt to kill them which is what TM did.
And did you not read what I wrote? Being able to 'stand your ground' instead of needing to run away leads to more violence.

As noted, there is no duty for you to attempt to not be a criminal. That whole “you shouldn’t have worn that skirt” argument doesn’t work any more. Quit blaming the victim.


I don't care if it's 'legal' violence. There is also the whole idea behind them that encourages this sort of behavior.

Reasonable people do care however.
The idea is that you should not put the burden on the victim for the criminal , but on the criminal. Otherwise unless your argument, if a person doesn’t successfully “flee” (define “flee” that’s where the courts broke down to making the requirement so byzantine that no victim could reasonably have met the standard) then well its too bad for them. They should have just let the criminals rape/kill them because they didn’t flee fast enough. feth grandma anyway…

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Prestor Jon wrote:

SYG laws don't require that anyone stands their ground it just doesn't penalize people that do. SYG laws don't create any situations they just allow victims of criminal assaults to choose for themselves whether or not it is in their best interests to flee from an attacker or attempt to fight off an attacker. They certainly don't instill any desire to commit violence in anyone.


And you still aren't reading what I wrote.


It's an EXTREMELY accurate description because that is EXACTLY what the Duty to Retreat laws did.


That right there is a load of bullgak.

uty to Retreat laws place responsibility for an attack on the victim not the attacker.


Strongly implies that this makes the attacker NOT responsible for the attack. That is not true. That is why I said it was deceptive. Also, they in no way place responsibility for the attack on the victim. The victim, IS however, responsible for their own reaction to the attack.


. If an individual is attacked that individual has the right to determine for himself/herself whether fighting or fleeing is the best option and the state shouldn't impose any legal obligation on victim to avoid the criminal assaults of others. There is no "2 wrongs don't make a right" issue because defending yourself from being criminally assaulted by somebody isn't a wrong.


Using violence when there is another alternative is very much a wrong. Vigilante's going around and taking the law into their own hands is a bad thing. Stand your ground laws are very much in the same vein. We, as a society, should be discouraging violence except under a very last resort. That is why SYG laws are bad. They are exactly two wrongs somehow make a right.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/07 22:36:45


 
   
Made in us
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

I think we're at a point where there are fundamental differences in basic worldview on the whole "SYG" matter that this discussion is not going to solve.

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.  
   
Made in fi
Confessor Of Sins




 Vaktathi wrote:
I think we're at a point where there are fundamental differences in basic worldview on the whole "SYG" matter that this discussion is not going to solve.


You don't say? :-)

I'm probably more heavily armed than quite a few people even Americans would call "gun nuts". I've got a house full of axes and knives (go on, find me a Finn who doesn't own a single knife) and I'm the custodian for a gun safe containing my own, my brother's and my father's guns. That's a truckload of blades, enough shotguns to kill a zoo of rabbits, enough .308 and Swedish 6.5mm rifles to kill a herd of moose and a few .22 plinking pieces that could still kill someone in a pinch. And three chainsaws. So potentially I could stab or shoot any burglar with more choppa/dakka than your average Ork mob.

But that's usually not needed because, well, our burglars know people won't shoot them so they don't bring artillery on the job. An armed criminal over here is most often a drug dealer or bike gang member (funny enough criminal bike gangs usually deal in drugs) and he has zero interest in pointing his gun at some random citizen, he got it to keep himself and his stash safe from other armed criminals. He'll throw his gun on the floor if the police come for him since he knows they don't want to kill him either.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/08 03:22:46


 
   
Made in us
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

Spetulhu wrote:
 Vaktathi wrote:
I think we're at a point where there are fundamental differences in basic worldview on the whole "SYG" matter that this discussion is not going to solve.


You don't say? :-)

I'm probably more heavily armed than quite a few people even Americans would call "gun nuts". I've got a house full of axes and knives (go on, find me a Finn who doesn't own a single knife) and I'm the custodian for a gun safe containing my own, my brother's and my father's guns. That's a truckload of blades, enough shotguns to kill a zoo of rabbits, enough .308 and Swedish 6.5mm rifles to kill a herd of moose and a few .22 plinking pieces that could still kill someone in a pinch. And three chainsaws. So potentially I could stab or shoot any burglar with more choppa/dakka than your average Ork mob.

But that's usually not needed because, well, our burglars know people won't shoot them so they don't bring artillery on the job. An armed criminal over here is most often a drug dealer or bike gang member (funny enough criminal bike gangs usually deal in drugs) and he has zero interest in pointing his gun at some random citizen, he got it to keep himself and his stash safe from other armed criminals. He'll throw his gun on the floor if the police come for him since he knows they don't want to kill him either.
Most criminals aren't really looking to hurt anyone. Most people acknowledge that. The problem is the person who find them in their home doesn't know that for sure, and weird things happen when people get surprised, confronted, etc. Also, quite frequently, mind altering substances are in play which complicates things further. Additionally, a lot of these instances don't necessarily involve some unknown masked criminal breaking in and doing dastardly things, it may be the neighbors kid high out of his skull on PCP or the sister's ex boyfriend looking for a quick cash score from a place he's had the opportunity to case beforehand or a pissed off friend of a friend who got kicked out of the party for being a spanker and wants to cause trouble and gets carried away, and that can get real awkward. Ultimately, in my town we've had three people killed by homeowners in home invasions over the last year or so, only one of which was a random break in while the others apparently had some sort of previous interactions. Now, that's out of a metro population of nearly three million, but it does happen. Likewise, in some places in the US, those drug dealers or bikers breaking in absolutely won't hesitate to resort to violence if caught. There are some areas with reputations for good reason. They are rare, isolated exceptions, but absolutely exist. The US is just kind of a weird place relative to other developed nations.

Culturally, even with guns removed, the US just has more violence in general than most other developed nations. People also have...less respect for police authority in the US than in other nations, and are willing to be more aggressive. That's just a cultural anti-authoritarian streak, which while not unique to the US, is probably more aggressive in the US than most other developed nations. Relative to say, Japan, where almost nobody would refuse a police officer who asked to see their bag, that just wouldn't be socially acceptable, in the US police officers are instead frequently going to get a "**** off bacon grease, get a warrant!", and that carries over into willingness to get into confrontations with police as well for a variety of reasons.

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.  
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 skyth wrote:
Using violence when there is another alternative is very much a wrong. Vigilante's going around and taking the law into their own hands is a bad thing. Stand your ground laws are very much in the same vein. We, as a society, should be discouraging violence except under a very last resort. That is why SYG laws are bad. They are exactly two wrongs somehow make a right.


First of all, that's something many of us would disagree with. If you use violence against an innocent victim then I have zero sympathy for you, regardless of what level of violence your would-be victim decides to use to stop you. In fact, the world becomes a better place when violent aggressors are removed from it by the people they intend to hurt.

Second, even if you believe that the use of violence in self defense should be a last resort, the theory doesn't work in practice. What it actually means is that the legal system is going to second-guess every action you take in self defense, in a situation where you have no time to think and carefully judge how much force is necessary or whether you have the ability to retreat. And so you have people going to prison because they missed an opportunity to retreat, regardless of whether or not they were able to see it at the time. What SYG laws do is remove this second-guessing and give the prosecution of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the victim went beyond what is necessary for self defense. If someone attacks you and you decide to shoot them in the back as they run away you're still going to prison, SYG law or no SYG law. If someone shoves you in an argument and you respond by shooting them you're probably going to prison. If you hear that someone did something awful and you hunt them down and shoot them (IOW, "vigilantes going around and taking the law into their own hands") you're going to prison.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in es
Inspiring Icon Bearer




 Vaktathi wrote:
jouso wrote:
 Vaktathi wrote:


jouso wrote:

You can get a shotgun easily enough, though.

for some types you can get them easier than you can some other types of firearms, but still requires photos, home inspection, character references, renewing licenses, etc from what I understand, quite an involved process, more than is required for me to buy a belt fed machinegun or a howitzer in the US (market costs for such items notwithstanding) .


I have three guns on 2 separate licenses. Hunting is the easiest (unless you like muzzleloaders, those are even easier).

No home inspection of any kind and you don't even need a cabinet. You do need a medical and a certificate of no convictions (and a letter of some sort saying you have somewhere to hunt) but those are hardly a barrier to 99% of citizens.

You have to pass an exam once in your life about firearm regulations and a practical that requires you to safely load, hit a target 25m away then unload. I've seen kids and old men pass (and jerks bragging about how good they were fail because they started waving the gun around or left a round in)

It's actually easier than getting a driving license.
TIL, I thought the home inspection and references and whatnot were still part of that. Thanks for the clarification.

Oddly enough though, that is still more red tape than what one in the US would need for an anti tank cannon, mortar or heavy machinegun, barring the market costs of such items (requires $200 tax, 3-9 month paperwork backlog wait, background check with photo and fingerprint, and notification, but not approval, of chief local law enforcement officer).


Pre-86 guns that run into the thousands. They don't exist for the common mortal. And still you cannot fire any explosive round with those mortar since they're destructive devices.

I'm well aware of US gun laws, I've hunted there (AK, TX and MT) and once went to an IPSC shoot back when I was good enough

   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Frazzled wrote:
Again, please show where US culture supports someone clearly insane shooting up a movie theater and tying that in some manner to self defense.
Again, this case involves a man who opened fire in a cinema. The man is claiming self defence. There is nothing to suggest the shooter is insane, let alone clearly insane.

As for how cultural elements encourage that:

Firstly, there is a continual barrage of propaganda, spreading fear, and telling people how their lives in danger if they don't have a gun. This man felt compelled to carry a gun with him at all times.

Secondly, rather than dissuade this behaviour, it has been encouraged, and almost made to sound patriotic and heroic. CC and SYG legislation has enabled this man, and sent mixed messages about when lethal force is appropriate.

Thirdly, there is the training and practising with the weapon, which is also encouraged: "what to do if someone threatens your life", this is allegedly for a rare "worst case" scenario, but it conditions people to expect the worst, and be ready with their gun.

Fourthly, you have normalised this kind of extreme escalation, with the whole "assume they mean to kill you" mentality. If someone breaks into your house: shoot them dead. Someone has a weapon: shoot them dead (Oh! woops it was phone/dog leash/kid with a BB gun) too late. There is no expectation for people to use their discretion, or respond with a proportional amount of force, it's just straight to lethal force. You always try to justify this by saying "well you have to assume they mean to kill you", which scares people into shooting first out fear for their lives. While that kind of thinking "might" on occasion save your life, you're also just as likely to make an awful mistake, such as killing a 12 year old kid, killing the postman, or shooting dead your own son getting home late.

So when someone throws popcorn at this guy in the cinema, of course he went straight for his gun. That's what he has be told to do, practising to do, preparing to do. Now I'm not going to say he was itching to shoot someone, but when an incident occurred he's got to have been thinking "Is this it? Is this the life/death fight I've been preparing for", and of course he immediately fell back on his training. You enabled this man to carry a lethal weapon, made him afraid for his life, and conditioned him to respond with lethal force. Then you try to claim that your culture didn't encourage him to shoot without thinking?

Contrast that with UK culture, where even the police don't carry guns, and everyone and their dog knows that it's not lawful to kill someone for throwing popcorn at you, or for throwing their phone at you, or to preemptively murder an unarmed man because you're concerned he "might" punch you.

So when I say that the laws in the UK encourage people to use violence only as a last resort in self defence, I think I'm fairly justified in making that claim. And even though you can claim the same is true in America, there are many elements in the laws, and the politics, and the media, which are mixing that message, and encouraging people to reach for their guns first, rather than last.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
On the other hand, responding to mild, attenuated criticism of our culture's rough edges with "F you" kinda helps his point.
To clarify, I wasn't criticizing all of American culture. Just a few cultural elements that I believe irresponsibly promote fear and escalation.



This message was edited 17 times. Last update was at 2017/03/08 10:45:25


 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: