and we should not legislate based on anecdote, only statistics, statistically repeal of this law is unjustified.

Statistically, this bill has dramatically increased these claims to self-defense based on the Stand-Your-Ground law and it's effect is diminished prosecution:

...as a matter of policy have no duty to retreat in the scope of their duties. For any LEO to criticize SYG laws as they apply to civilians is what we call "hypocritical".

Our law enforcement officials have a unique insight into our laws, to deny that they have any right to comment on this subject, and that in doing so they are "hypocritical" is ridiculous.

that does not mean that their comments will or should be taken at face value without a legitimate argument or explanation.

My opinion on the issue is basic. These items are a must for any just and moral self defense law:

And there it is - a game changer...

that duty to retreat is unjust? Because the burden of proof is on the crime victim. He or she has to prove acted "reasonable". The state has to prove nothing.

The shooter must prove that they were unable to retreat. That is the way it should be - it should not be incumbent on the dead to prove they were murdered.

the State. The crime victim is the one being attacked (if it is a true self defense case). To have a just and reasonable DTR law, the items I listed are an absolute must.

You should have to prove that in a court of law - none of this preemptive immunity bullshit.

or if the DA determines it by the weight of the evidence, fine. There is no preemptive immunity from criminal court now. The only thing different in SYG is that the burden of proof is on the state. The only preemptive immunity is in civil court.
If you insist on not having immunity from civil court, then it should be the same standard of proof in criminal court. In other words,
the attackers family must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I was unjustly responsible for Jr's demise. Jr's criminal record and history of violence be admissible. Oh yeah, loser pays.


However, no duty to retreat from home or abode. Some meth head kicking in my door should not have de facto force of law.

...the prosecutor says to hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt now that the burden has been shifted and charges don't get filed.

If a meth head kicks in your door and poses a mortal threat to you I doubt you'd have much trouble proving it...but you don't have a right to shoot the guy stealing your Christmas presents unawares in the back. I've always found this idea that someone's life is worth property to be absurd.

is good reason to believe. If someone wants most of the stuff in back, I'm going to help them load it. The few things I do care about, I'll call CCSD.

Take the case of an independent skilled tradesman, such as a plumber, electrician, carpenter, HVAC repairman, who has a work truck with all his tools, which could cost as much as $100,000. He has no fixed worksite, goes from job to job, working from his truck. This truck is his sole means of supporting his family, keeping a roof over their head, clothes on their back, and food on the table.

If this truck is stolen, he can’t work. His family could go hungry, and could even become homeless.

And even if you do have insurance, insurance does not always cover all loses andit might take days or weeks to have your claim processed and paid.

Is it ethical and moral for someone who works hard, pays their taxes, and doesn’t commit crimes to become homeless to save the life of a thief?

It is much more clear than in this one who the initial aggressor is.

When it is not clear, then yes the shooter should have to go to court

W/O Castle Doctrine and SYG there have been clear cut self defense cases where the victims had either-

A. had to face trial to answer why didn't the elderly person just out run the eighteen year old with the knife...

-or-

B. wait weeks or months to see if they were going to be prosecuted for shooting their ex-, who had a history of violence and abuse, several restraining orders and kicked in the victim's door in the night, while drunk with witness statements that he was screaming he was going to kill the victim.


SYG is the response to the current system which places the victim at the whim of the DA.
Neither is perfect but SYG (when properly executed) moves the burden of proof to the state.

the dead to prove they were murdered.

You are correct, but in what world is it ever incumbent on the dead to prove anything. I think you are confused, it is always incumbent on the STATE to prove murder, and always has been.

Then why should a victim of an attack have to prove that he was a victim in a court of law? It is the job of the state to prosecute and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an act happened , not the victim. The victim need only assert self defense, not prove it, the state must needs to prove otherwise.

Why would we turn the axiom of "innocent until proven guilty" on it's head in self defense cases. Perhaps you would like us to drop "innocent until proven guilty" in all criminal cases then eh?

In your own home. None. Telling me I must run from my own home is the most unjust and unreasonable thing you could possibly say.

Once again you have just proven you care more for the rights of criminals than citizens in their own homes.

You want to know why Castle Laws have gotten passed in so many states? Attitudes like yours.

Affirmative Defense: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Affirmative+Defense

If the victim who defends himself, then proves he had no other option- why should he face civil penalty.

I do not have a reference to the article but I believe it was in Reader's Digest where an armed burgler broke into a home, was shot by the home owner and was paralyzed as a result. The home owner lost in civil court had had to pay a large judgement to pay the bugler's medical cost.

"Our law enforcement officials have a unique insight into our laws..."

You have GOT to be fucking kidding.


Florida Police Depts. Distributing False Legal Guidelines To Officers On Wiretapping Law

By Carlos Miller

Now we have proof that police are creating their own laws when it comes to wiretapping arrests.

A “legal bulletin” that was compiled by the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office and distributed to other law enforcement departments in the state is informing officers that they are within their legal rights to arrest citizens who record them, if they specifically state they do not wish to be recorded.

Nothing could be further from the truth, which is why not a single one of these arrests ever made it to trial, much less a conviction.

Still, police are stubbornly clinging to the advice listed in the January 2010 bulletin, including the North Port Police Department in Sarasota County, whom arrested Photography is Not a Crime reader Steve Horrigan on wiretapping charges in January.

Horrigan was jailed for 24 hours, but has yet to be formally charged. And police have refused to return the cell phone he used to record them nor have they released the video.


http://www.pixiq.com/article/florida-cops-distributing-false-legal-guidelines


You might actually be right, just not in the way you think you are.


(Now, you DO know who Carlos Miller is, don't you?)

Of course, lifes experience will tell a different story:

That many many LEOS really DON'T know the laws.

Of course, you could always mosey on up to GD and let them know that the sanford PD has a "a unique insight into our laws".

Post a new thread in GD entitled "The sanford PD has a unique insight into our laws"


Go ahead, I tripple dog dare you.


Or did you only mean "law enforcement officials" that agree with your view on guns?

is likely to be a museum-quality specimen of contortion.

Although, I have a feeling your post will be conveniently ignored.

I suppose I don't blame you, as your own fish was fried to a crisp.

That's it?

Just because any given jackass is appointed to the position of police chief (you do know that the position of chief of police is appointed, not voted for or earned, don't you?) does not mean that individual has EARNED anything, most especially anyones respect.

Perhaps this is an old fashioned and quaint concept to you.

Or perhaps its simply applied on a selective basis.



Go ahead, head on up to GD and tell those that are criticising the sanford PD that theyre not showing any respect for others experience or opinions.

Or is it as I said, that your words - and the opinions of police chiefs et al and their experience - really only count, when der chief says something you agree with?

...in multiple cities. Your argument is circular and nonsensical - some cops are bad, therefore no cops can be trusted.

Frankly, I think Zimmerman is going to get off because of that asshole Stand-Your-Ground Law.

"Your argument is circular and nonsensical - some cops are bad, therefore no cops can be trusted. "

Since thats an argument I did not make, its the very definition of a strawman argument.

Note, I did not say anything about trust or about cops being bad, any or all.

Since you brought up trust, however, thats something thats also EARNED.

"Frankly, I think Zimmerman is going to get off because of that asshole Stand-Your-Ground Law."

Of course you do.

You didn't like stand your ground laws BEFORE this incident, and now rather than placing blame on the PD where it very likely belongs, you speculate that zimmerman will walk, and lay it at the feet of the law.

Thats entirely illustrative of what this incident means to you, and to what ends you would like to see it used.

After all, you are the poster that thinks people should have to retreat in their own homes, are you not?

I'm attentive like that. I do my homework. I know what these laws do. I think people who use a gun need to show that lethal force was a reasonable act and that no one deserves presumption beyond that of innocence in a Court of Law. I've opposed these licenses to kill before, and I will continue to oppose them. What has changed is that now the intent of these laws is being laid bare to the country.

Why can't or why won't you address the points in the article?

"I'm attentive like that. I do my homework. I know what these laws do."

If "homework" is defined as mining for that which supports your view, and ignoring all else that doesnt, I tend to agree.



"Why can't or why won't you address the points in the article?"

Why?

Because I don't buy into the gun control concept, generally, beyond a few commonsense laws, and thats precisely why the article was written, and why you posted it - to pimp for just that - more gun control, and to make it so people should have to retreat in their own homes, and everywhere else.

Because I believe that people having to retreat, within their own home, is complete and utter hogwash.

Because I believe that people having to retreat NO MATTER WHERE they are, is complete and utter hogwash.

Because I do not trust people with an anti-gun agenda. People who have that agenda have proven time and time again, where they will run with that ball, given the chance.

And frankly, because you make so many specious arguments, trying to support the unsupportable, that commenting on this particular article really isn't necessary. Your completely nonsensical arguments do more to discredit it than anything I could ever say.

Like I said, head on up to GD, and tell them in the sanford PD thread that they aren't showing "respect for other's experiences and opinions". If it holds water here it will hold water there, right?

(as an example of a specious nonsensical argument you made)

"Police misconduct and an an experienced law enforcement officers opinion on the Stand-Your-Ground law are two different things. I would appreciate if you would not insinuate that someone I defend police misconduct. That is a flawed, discrediting, and ineffective argument."

Sure they are. One is documentable provable corruption.

The other is the opinion of someone who was likely appointed for the opinions he holds.

in other words:

Meaningless.

"You must not trust most of the Democratic Party"


Actually, I've enjoyed how much success the level headed Dems we've had over the last decade in congress, have had in keeping the shrill anti-gun idealogues from getting anything done.

How about you?

I think people who use a gun need to show that lethal force was a reasonable act and that no one deserves presumption beyond that of innocence in a Court of Law.

Haven't seen any "respect for other's experiences and opinions" from you at all.

Like Philly cops know that it's perfectly legal to open carry? Is that what you mean by our law enforcement officials have a unique insight into our laws?

is his problem with castle doctrine or SYG? Both?

For example (unless it changed in the past few years) Wyoming has a castle doctrine in that you have no duty to retreat from your home (or camper or tent etc.) but you still have a duty to retreat outside of that.

which ones should not have been deemed legal self-defense.

An increase does not automatically mean the system was being abused. You have not cited evidence of your insinuation.

And I'll go have a nice cup of coffee...

...otherwise someone might think you just pulled it off of some right-wing gun nut site.

Last edited Sun Mar 25, 2012, 02:42 AM - Edit history (1)

Please notice that the increase was in JUSTIFIABLE homicides. That's people who were about to be crime victims fighting back against their attackers. Zimmerman is unlikely to be covered by SYG as he initiated the conflict.

I know you pop a boner every time you quote me saying I don't have much sympathy for dead violent criminals, but what does this have to do with my current post you are responding to?

I'm just astounded you still think that's a rational statement, because obviously you are reversing the role of the innocent and the guilty when you advocate extrajudicial murder.

... the statement "I don't have much sympathy for dead violent criminals" is interpreted as advocating extrajudicial murder? You win the Hyperbole and Misrepresentation of the Month award.

Right back at ya buddy...

Context is everything, buddy.

Obviously my hanging after-the-fact statement is absurd.

Thank for admitting the argument you have made and defended repeatedly is absurd.

However, I stand by my statement that I am not terribly sympathetic to violent criminals who die during the commission of their crimes.

Conflating the innocent victims of lynching and violent criminals who die at the hands of those they are assaulting is intellectually dishonest, not to mention extremely disrespectful to the lynching victims.

Buddy.

...like someone who doesn't understand the history of this country and its judicial systems.

Braddah.

I neither said nor implied any such thing.

Violent criminals killed in the commission of crimes and innocent victims of lynching and racial violence have nothing in common, despite your attempts to conflate them.

...when you wrote:

Because with all your blather about a "license to commit murder," you seek to delegitimize armed self-defense by casting violent criminals as victims. In so doing, you do a disservice not only to those who successfully defend themselves against brutal attacks, but also to the truly innocent victims of lynching and racial violence.

It looks very much as though George Zimmerman is lying and initiated the attack. If you read the Florida law -- the whole law -- you'll see that even the initial aggressor may claim self-defense if the violence escalates from non-lethal to potentially lethal, but in that case there is a duty to retreat. However, Zimmerman did not retreat. He is apparently (I say "apparently" because so much is yet unknown) guilty, and the SYG law in no way covers his actions.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=26916

This entire discussion has been much broader in scope than just the Martin/Zimmerman case, and you know it. Your little shrugging icon is the badge of disingenuity. I'm surprised that you can't see that -- it's your "tell," as the poker players say.

You don't know that for a fact, I don't know that for a fact. By Atypical Liberal's logic Zimmerman could claim that Trayvon Martin had attacked him and he'd be justified in executing him. The reality is that many lynchings were carried out after even minor crimes were committed and vengeance was sought at random.

We'll have to see how it plays out but I'd bet you we'll be hearing a lot more from Zimmerman's attorney about Stand-Your-Ground because it's his best chance of winning.

Last edited Mon Apr 2, 2012, 05:18 PM - Edit history (1)

Spoken like a true NRA apologist - such laws that grant preemptive immunity are antithetical to the principles of justice that have functioned well for over 200 years.

How do you like this smiley?

That is hardly punishing the innocent for the crimes of the guilty.

Fact is, nobody can be "trusted" with firearms for self defense. May be necessary on some rare occasion, but "trusted", no.
Thanks for the map which shows homicides down to one third of what they were in 2003. Must be all those relaxed carry laws that Bloomberg allowed.

What does not trusting those who carry guns around for self defense have to do with "nanny state"? You don't even trust yourself to carry one, but you don't mind others carrying or hanging miscreants from trees. What movement does that put you at the heart of? And your advocating the holding at gunpoint of teenagers carrying toilet paper and your your statements that you would shoot anyone who broke your window? What movement does that put you at the center of?
Don't lie about me or I'll be motivated to start quoting your absurdities.

I don't trust drunks either. Doesn't mean I support prohibition. I don't trust junkies, but I support legalization of all drugs.

I support gun ownership and self defense, including self defense with a firearm. Doesn't mean I trust anyone with a gun. Capisci?

If you had any credibility left, I would be really pissed at your accusation.

Because I don't trust someone who is using a tool in a particular way does not mean I am against the use of the tool or against the tool itself. I don't trust other vehicle drivers either. Doesn't make me anti-vehicle.
Your leaps of logic are amazing. I don't trust you or the "agents of the state" with guns. Just read through your own posts. You'll get the message. You are the last person I've encountered in this forum who should be carrying. Half your town would be dead if your posts are honest.

However, I have booked marked it....

Probably the same place all the petitions to repeal CCW in states, and all the other petitions gun control supporters go on and on about online are. In their imagination.

In other words nowhere, because the vast majority of gun control people don't really ever do anything but talk.

They're all far too busy posting stuff online to make themselves feel good to get even a single useless online petition going. And I have yet to see a single honest admission that that anyone belongs to Brady, or any other gun control organization.

I just think it's ironic, or just hypocritical, for the handful here that support more gun control, that people on DU seem to be able to gin up support, petitions and "money bombs" for almost everything else, but for what some here claim is a core Democratic tenet, they can't even get anyone interested to get a single state to consider withdrawing CCW or overturning any other gun laws.

Or was that a rhetorical question?

actually go out and petition our elected officials to pass or change laws. Most Anti RKBA are just keyboard commandos who just whine and moan but usually do nothing.

Ask them what anti-gun organizations they belong to, how much they've donated and exactly how involved they are with their state legislature regarding anti-gun laws.

(Hint: They won't answer the question and instead will deflect by asking you a question, at which point they get upset if you don't answer theirs, while never answering the one you asked).

From some of our more vociferous self appointed spokespeople at that.

The typical response is pretty much what you describe, a major change of subject and a poorly worded attack. The real answer is just too damn embarrassing I guess. They really don't do jack shit, except whine online about it, as if that matters in the real world.

Maybe just way too many nights playing D&D or WoW in Mom's basement and they think if they do it online it means something in the real world? Like a kid that's played too many games of Medal of Honor and is shocked by the real weight and heft of an M1 Garand in the real world, and how touchy reloading that en bloc clip can be. (That actually happened at the range. Got the thumb scars to prove it too!)

One of my favorites is "We don't need to belong to any group because the vast majority of Americans already support gun control. Everybody knows that except you gun nuts". Kind of like Nixon's "silent majority" i guess, except these people never seem to get around to actually voting their point of view and Nixon's majority actually elected him.

Other responses have been things like, "I use all my money to pay bills and don't have any left to give to any organization, but ...(insert brain dead attack line here)".

Probably manages to buy a $3.00 Latte every day or so at the local Starbuck's where they can spout gun control for an hour or two and hopefully impress the English Major grad students, but can't ever seem to find that $10 to mail to the Brady Bunch.

I just think it's odd that people use DU to successfully generate support and Money Bombs for Alan Grayson to get re-elected, support Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts, get Scott Brown out of office, etc, etc.

But no one ever seems to be able to get around to starting a gun control petition or support group. At the same time we are constantly reminded to "trust them" that gun control really is a core Tenet, at least for "Real Democrats".

Thank heavens for lazy, do nothing gun control supporters.

Why not? What other metric separates the demographics in question?

The black/ white homicide rate if drugs and gang activity could be factored out. My suspicion is the gap would all but disappear, if not actually reverse.

It shakes up some commonly held theories...

And points to complex, multi-level solutions.

...which is exactly what the Brady Campaign and their supports wish to ignore as much as possible, sadly.

..."Do my legislators think with their brains or their glands."

The hand wringers need to go. Their time is past.

No we don't. We need to hold individuals responsible for their actions.