Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumRevive sensible gun laws in US
Commentary: Emmett Tills death inspired Rosa Parks a few months later to refuse to give up her seat to a white man on a segregated bus.
Supporters of the protests that followed the suspicious death of Trayvon Martin are raising a good question: What next?
Many have compared the shooting of the 17-year-old to the brutal 1955 murder of Emmett Till, the black Chicago teen who was murdered in Mississippi for allegedly whistling at a white woman.
----snip----
If the Trayvon Martin protesters are looking for a similar channel for their anger and energies, they have a perfectly appropriate target in Stand Your Ground laws.
http://www.timesdaily.com/stories/Revive-sensible-gun-laws-in-US,189746
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)in fact, there was a SYG case involving a knife. SYG is a use of force concerning self defense law. It does not have a thing to do with Emmett Till.
The article is simply an example of some dimwit scribbling about subjects that they neither know or understand anything about.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)"SYG is a use of force concerning self defense law."
and guns are the number #1 choice for self defense.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)because it does not apply. It is either murder, or a clear case of self defense.
If Zimmerman was in fact getting his head pounded in the sidewalk by Martin, the shooting would have been justifiable under Duty to Retreat also. So, not only is your point invalid, it is not even a point.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)You start the fight.
You attempt to quit the fight.
The other person won't let you quit and continues to beat you.
You are now the defender. Yes, you can use deadly force if the other guy's force is deadly.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)It is standard self-defense law and is taught in deadly force classes. You are not allowed to pursue an attacker who is trying to retreat. If he is trying to retreat and you pursue then YOU are now the attacker. You have to let him retreat if he tries to.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)Do you know of one?
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)My knowledge comes from state certified classes that I have taken and self-defense books.
I will try to google and see what I can come up with.
Response to SecularMotion (Reply #13)
AH1Apache This message was self-deleted by its author.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Speculation, yeah. But following and starting a fight are two different things.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)define "legal authority".
Were you there?
AH1Apache
(502 posts)but what is this legal authority to do so you speak of?
A citizen doesn't need a legal authority to confront someone else.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)like the media did.
Spoonman
(1,761 posts)Please feel free to cite the law regarding "legal authority" to confront a person in public.
I'll save you the time, THERE IS NO SUCH LAW!
I have the legal right to approach, follow, or question anyone in public.
I may be simply acting like an asshole, or being a dick about things, but you break no law by simply asking a person "what are you doing in my neighborhood".
I could walk up to someone and ask "why are you such an idiot", or "why do you dress like a cheap whore" or even "are you soliciting prostitution in my neighborhood"?
There are THOUSANDS of examples of ordinary citizens "legally confronting" other individuals in an effort to rid their neighborhoods of drug dealers and prostitutes.
YOU do not know what happened that night, so don't cast uneducated judgment and bullshit "legal expertise" opinion to justify your soup du jour stance.
Climb down off the bandwagon of ignorance and lighten it's load!
rl6214
(8,142 posts)Is that what you call starting a fight?
rl6214
(8,142 posts)was then having his head pounded into the ground by Martin, I don't see it as starting the fight.
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)constitutes "starting a fight." He's part of a neighborhood watch, he thinks a kid might be up to no good, he called the cops, and he was trying to see where the kid had gone so he can direct the cops to where he is. Up to this point, he has committed no crime.
Now, what happened AFTER that point, up until the gunshot, is a matter of great dispute and those few moments are going to determine if Zimmerman is guilty of murder or not.
ileus
(15,396 posts)SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)early 20s and athletic? Survival of the fittest? Oh yeah, you don't get his humor.
ileus
(15,396 posts)And what a sorry bunch we are...bad backs, knees and everything else. The good thing about aikido is there are no kicks, punches or jumps. The bad thing is like everything else you do need woke balance and reflexes...and speed doesn't hurt.
Knowing I couldn't stack up against a younger,faster, stronger person I will continue to carry my personal safety device and hope I'm never put into a situation where I have use it.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)ileus
(15,396 posts)You never know what you're going to run up against.
However for a purely self defense martial art, Hikido is pretty good. Couple that with weapons training (Jo & sword) and a fine firearm I feel comfortable against most threats.
But we must maintain our rights to protect ourselves or it's all for nothing.
Just stirring up shit with old gungeon tropes. Remember "natural fighting skills"?. Its right up there with the guy with an AK from Moscow Idaho.
ileus
(15,396 posts)AH1Apache
(502 posts)Gun control advocates couldn't do anything after Columbine, VT, Gabriel Giffords, as a matter of fact, various states have enacted appox 20 pro gun laws since the first of the year.
I see no problem with FL's SYG law that a little tweaking won't fix.
Bottom line, there is very little appetite for more gun control in this country.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)When you do that you are simply running away from the discussion. Like covering your ears and yelling, "I can't hear you."
AH1Apache
(502 posts)Really? That's all you got?
Why don't you try refuting what I posted instead of immediately dismissing it as NRA talking points?
So what did I post that was inaccurate?
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,482 posts)Come now, anything characterized as an "NRA talking point" is antithetical to anything Democratic. If you have to ask what was inaccurate, it is obvious that you are sufficiently lacking in humanity as to be ineligible for membership in the Democratic Party.
Or at least what some here want the Democratic Party to be.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)What tweaks would you suggest?
AH1Apache
(502 posts)I know that sounds like a cop out but my background is flying helicopters not the law, but respectfully, and no snark intended, I would like to hear your take on it.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)My main problem is with this
The highlighted part is disturbing, because it is both vague and reliant on the survivor's version of events, barring third party testimony and other exculpatory evidence. That's why Zimmerman should stand trial and a jury should decide his fate. He is using SYG as his defense. I believe the SYG law gave him the confidence to carry a gun and pursue anyone he considered suspicious and if pursued and provoked that individual into a physical confrontation, he could always pull out his gun and shoot him.
When it comes to defense of the home (castle), I have far less of a problem, though I would always recommend a safe retreat if possible, rather than a duty to retreat. I was raised in a culture (UK) where the home is sacred, "an Englishman's home is his castle" and all that. However, what was also instilled in me was a sense of justice and fairness, which translates into never using more force, in defending oneself (and/or castle) than is absolutely necessary.
So lethal force is only justifiable as an absolute last resort.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)If you are not going to rely on citizens' judgement of whether or not they reasonably believed they were in danger, then you are basically going to make every self-defense case involving deadly force go to court so that a judge and/or jury can decide whether or not the deadly force was justified.
Stand Your Ground laws were intended to prevent people who lawfully use deadly force from running the legal gauntlet of criminal and civil cases against them that will cost tens of thousands of dollars to defend against.
If you are going to force every self-defense case to run that gauntlet, then I think the taxpayers should pick up the legal fees if the person is found not guilty.
spin
(17,493 posts)
If you are going to force every self-defense case to run that gauntlet, then I think the taxpayers should pick up the legal fees if the person is found not guilty.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)but I think that is based on the "reasonable man" standard.
AH1Apache
(502 posts)You make some very valid points and have given me food for thought.
Thanks for the reasoned reply, like I said, my speciality is flying helo's, not law.
sarisataka
(18,770 posts)when we are civil and share viewpoints.
Although polar opposite to Starboard Tack on carrying I agree with the point made. It seems the wording removes the -reasonable- requirement that the threat is imminent and instead reduces it to a subjective belief of what may happen. That can lead to a person 'jumping the gun' (sorry- couldn't resist)
If we are to support our rights, we need laws that hold us to our responsibilities.
AH1Apache
(502 posts)but unfortunately, their are certain posters here, and you and I know who they are, that just refuse to be civil or have an intelligent debate. ST usually has reasoned and intelligent points which I respect even though I usually disagree.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)And they are getting better all the time as stuid restrictions are lifted. What is sensible about guns laws that do nothing to restrict the criminals but only hinder the law-abiding?
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)and force any state to allow carriers from out of state that would not qualify to carry under that state's laws.
AH1Apache
(502 posts)you would still have to follow that states firearms laws.
TheWraith
(24,331 posts)Your contention is like saying that allowing Ohio people to use their driver's licenses in New York is ridiculously dangerous. Actually, it's a little more of a stretch than that, since even by the most generous assumptions people legally carrying concealed weapons are responsible for fewer wrongful deaths in one year than automobiles are in 12 hours.
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I doubt that anyone advocates punishing the law-abiding in favor of criminals.
What do you suggest? You might find this interesting https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=242922
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)the average age of recovered crime guns is about ten years. Are you saying the average criminal gets a permit to purchase (required in Maryland) and goes though NICS checks. Oh yeah, the study concentrated specifically DC and Maryland.
How do crime guns land up in USVI? Jamaica?
TheWraith
(24,331 posts)And yes, that's a poll taken after this case began. More to the point, it also includes a similar majority of Democrats, making your position a very tiny minority even of the Democratic Party.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)Americans Back Gun Restrictions, Says New Poll
http://www.care2.com/causes/americans-back-gun-restrictions-says-new-poll.html
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)bongbong
(5,436 posts)> Those are private property issues and a church/state issue.
Only until there is an attempt to limit gun-religionists, and then the NRA will call it a political issue.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)churches and business make the rules. I have yet to see anyone protesting any of the places. That is more than I can say MMM and Starbucks.
sarisataka
(18,770 posts)If I have a religion that has guns as a major dogmatic component it could be protected under the 1A
If you are referring to church's abilities to set policies on their property:
On September 9, 2005, Hennepin County District Court Judge, LaJune Thomas Lange, issued a temporary injunction that allowed churches to post signs of their own wording and to completely ban firearms from all church property, including parking lots. This temporary injunction was the initial result of a lawsuit filed by two churches who argued that the firearm carry law interferes with their religious practices. On November 14, 2006, Hennepin County District Court Judge William Howard extended this temporary injunction by making it permanent. On February 5, 2008, the Minnesota State Court of Appeals ruled that churches have the right to ban guns from their property and can decide how to notify people of weapons prohibitions. See: Edina Community Lutheran Church, Respondent, Unity Church of St. Paul, Respondent, vs. State of Minnesota, Appellant. (A07-131)(2/5/2008).
http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/issues/issues.aspx?issue=firearmcarry
bongbong
(5,436 posts)The flaws in that poll were pointed out my me & several other posters. Several times. Taking the time to refute a poll that supports gun-religionists is like spitting into the wind, because they'll just ignore the facts ("our reality tastes better!".
AH1Apache
(502 posts)Same old same old from bongbong.
It's almost as bad as the word-for-word regurgitation of NRA Talking Points that some people like to litter DU with.
Clames
(2,038 posts)Taking the time to refute a poll that supports gun-grabbers is like spitting into the wind, because they'll just ignore the facts ("our reality tastes better!".
ileus
(15,396 posts)I suppose any excuse for them is good enough....all they need are enough people to buy into the lies against SYG.