"Stand Your Ground" Saved My Life

[EVT1]

May 14, 2014 23:11:52 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

May 14, 2014 22:41:04 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

I don't know if someone on this thread did or not- but if you read the story there are plenty of people defending the shooting, sayanora scumbag, etc.  I probably posted the thread to see if anyone thought it was acceptable- apparently we are a more civilized group than the general internet if no one defended it. And that's good- it isn't really something that can be defended except by people that place more value on property than life. 

So don't get upset about my "SYG Saved My Life" parody. I'm sure that somewhere out there on the Internetz is a whole community of people who believe that even the extraordinary circumstances in the OP wouldn't justify my shooting gentle Bobby Smith.

No doubt there is- for every shoot first crazy, there is an opposite shoot never crazy- usually wondering why the cop didn't shoot the gun out someone's hand, etc.

But the concept of self-defense is an old one and it is not like we had a problem with innocent people defending themselves being prosecuted- rather the NRA has just backed expanding the ability to use guns in situations where they are not necessary and get away with it.

This is why we are seeing cases like this recently- shooting a carload of kids over loud music, shooting a texter in a movie theater for throwing popcorn, etc.  It is because these nutballs are changing the definition of self-defense to something else.  Self-offense I guess- best defense is a good offense right?  Even better if you are armed.

[Virgil Showlion]

May 15, 2014 12:06:25 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

May 14, 2014 23:11:52 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

So don't get upset about my "SYG Saved My Life" parody. I'm sure that somewhere out there on the Internetz is a whole community of people who believe that even the extraordinary circumstances in the OP wouldn't justify my shooting gentle Bobby Smith.

No doubt there is- for every shoot first crazy, there is an opposite shoot never crazy- usually wondering why the cop didn't shoot the gun out someone's hand, etc.

But the concept of self-defense is an old one and it is not like we had a problem with innocent people defending themselves being prosecuted- rather the NRA has just backed expanding the ability to use guns in situations where they are not necessary and get away with it.

This is why we are seeing cases like this recently- shooting a carload of kids over loud music, shooting a texter in a movie theater for throwing popcorn, etc.  It is because these nutballs are changing the definition of self-defense to something else.  Self-offense I guess- best defense is a good offense right?  Even better if you are armed.

I'm no more fond of "self-offense" than you are, but I see these shootings as guilty people availing themselves of a favourable law. I don't believe SYG emboldens Americans to shoot up theaters or partying teenagers. Like road rage, those shootings were bound to happen regardless of SYG as a possible legal defense. When the shooters were caught dead to rights, they predictably availed themselves of the only legal tactic that offered any hope of exonerating them: SYG.

We have yet to see if the tactic will work. Both cases have yet to go to trial, as I understand it.

[EVT1]

I think it emboldens a very small group of people- hard to say it doesn't when we have the 911 tape of the man that went over to his neighbors armed to complain about the loud music- stating quite clearly to the operator that he 'was in fear for his life' before shooting an unarmed man in the street.

So if these shootings were going to happen anyway- then why have there not been cases like these before- or maybe there were and just got quietly pled out whereas now the defense has a new tactic.  Blame Zimmerman (or better the Sanford police) for putting a giant spotlight on it all.

What was wrong with the previous law anyway?  And as far as SYG working as a defense- it works well.

Remember the Garcia case?  Where someone stole a stereo out of his truck and he grabbed a butcher knife, ran after the guy, stabbed him to death and got off because of SYG.  Similar to Zimmerman where someone leaves safety in order to pursue a perceived 'bad guy'.  That's not self-defense to me.  That's taking the law into your own hands.  Just like baiting a burglar and executing them.

I think again the latest 'trap' case will be a guilty verdict.  I think the movie theater shooter is going down too. 

But you never know- the GA man that shot the old man with dementia for 'not complying with his orders' in his backyard got away with it because the DA refused to prosecute- because it would be too hard to prove.  I think it is plain as day that if there is a burglar or suspicious person rooting around in your yard you call police and prepare yourself to use force if someone busts in.  A lot of people have a problem with that- and I can see their point- but they need to realize they are not trained to deal with suspicious people hence another unarmed person shot that would not have been had he waited on the police.  They might get away with it- but they are going to have to live with it. 

I'd like a new law- firearm negligence similar to reckless endangerment.  You could have got Zimmerman, the man in GA, and others that contributed to a shooting incident by being irresponsible with a weapon.  Rule #1- when armed you do not initiate confrontations that have a potential to escalate.  You avoid conflict. 

 

[Virgil Showlion]

May 15, 2014 19:47:03 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

I think it emboldens a very small group of people- ...

Fair enough. You make a reasonable case.

But looking at it from that perspective, we also have to account for the small group of people who'd be "beneficially" emboldened by the law.

For example, a citizen facing mortal peril might spend precious seconds firing rounds into an attacker rather than dithering out of fear of the legal consequences. Since the shooting is justified in such a case, the emboldening is a benefit of the law.

Admittedly I wouldn't expect the legal consequences to factor into shoot-or-don't-shoot decisions most of the time, but the same could be said for the "detrimental" emboldening principal. An individual who's angry enough, scared enough, or otherwise amped up enough typically isn't going to care about legal consequences (or lack thereof) in the heat of the moment.

SYG will also have some nominal effect as a deterrent, depending on how widespread "trapping" and "self offense" becomes. Some percentage of thieves and trespassers (specifically, the smartest thieves and trespassers) are going to spend an evening sitting on their duffs rather than breaking into garages if the latter option means bullets flying. Criminals may not all have risk assessment skills, but I'd wager that at least a few of them do.

Finally, on the 'con' side of SYG we have the "sooner-or-later effect": the possibility of repeat offenses by shooters exonerated by SYG.

As I see it, whether SYG is "worth it" depends entirely on whether the beneficial emboldening plus the deterrent effect of the law collectively outweigh the detrimental emboldening plus the sooner-or-later effect. And since we have no way of quantifying any of these factors, it really boils down to our gut feeling on how significant each factor will turn out to be.

[EVT1]

The only real difference SYG laws make is to eliminate the duty to retreat.

BUT the law always stipulated 'when it is safe to do so'- in other words you can still shoot dead an attacker on the street under the old law.

So why the need to eliminate a safe exit requirement?  I think I would take the retreat if I was able to anyway- the last thing I want to do ever is shoot another person.

I would say that really, SYG is not the problem, it is the handful of states that changed the burden of proof to the prosecution to disprove an affirmative defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

For an example- if someone argues they are suffering from affluenza, on a sugar high, sleep-murdering, etc.- then after all of the experts testify and what not the prosecutor would have to come in and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't the case.  Very tough bar.

That is a complete change from the way self-defense used to work- where the burden was on the defendant to justify their actions.  I think it is a horrible change- and I think if you look through states with this language- FL for instance- you will find that the criminals are the largest beneficiary of this law by a mile.

I really do not understand why there is such a push for it.  It makes no sense.  I fail to even see what the NRA gets out of it.  Just looks like a bad law all around.  Would say the same for the GA 'guns everywhere' law.  Why do we need it?  Are people really scared to go down to the local watering hole without a sidearm?

A good 90% of the reason I got a carry permit is so that I can transport my guns and go shooting without having to keep the ammo in the trunk.  The other 10% is so I can travel and be protected in case of a breakdown in the middle of nowhere.

I have never taken my weapon into a grocery store, restaurant, gas station, etc.  Do not see the point- but I could walk in with a huge Desert Eagle hanging off my pants if I wanted to.  Guess I am just not paranoid- it is a cultural thing maybe- I don't see strangers as threats and I am going to assume they are regular citizens just like me.  Loud music- I'll turn up mine   Apparently America is a very scary place for some people.

[Virgil Showlion]

What can I say?

If your crusade was written in the style of Reply #38 instead of this, this or this, you'd hear no more opposition from me.

[djAdvocate]

May 15, 2014 22:23:34 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

I really do not understand why there is such a push for it.  It makes no sense.  I fail to even see what the NRA gets out of it.  .

do you?  really?

how about gun sales?

if you have a license to gun people down, then the self defense part of the law is kinda moot.  that empowers you, as a gun owner, considerably.  if you KNOW that you can plug any demented granny or teen that enters your turf, and get away with it, it means that you no longer have to bother yourself with the inconvenience of making that call.  that makes your gun a much more powerful weapon- not just for defense, but for legal killing.  in other words, it expands the utility of the gun to Wild West proportions.

[zibazinski]

If you take the classes required, you learn it isn't that simple. 

[djAdvocate]

May 16, 2014 13:09:51 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

If you take the classes required, you learn it isn't that simple. 

edit: i was talking about SYG.  sorry if that was unclear.  my understanding is that there are really only two requirements:

1) that you feel threatened
2) that you are on "your turf".

what part of the law did i get wrong, zib?

[zibazinski]

Well, the 3 hour lecture from the lawyer said it isn't all that simple so I'm going with that. Any sane person prays they never have to defend themselves against a perp but I sleep better at night knowing that I can if I must. But they do need to come inside my home. I don't care about the property or the garage. My garage is always closed anyway. My alarm system is to alert me and hopefully make the perp run away!!

[djAdvocate]

May 16, 2014 13:27:18 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Well, the 3 hour lecture from the lawyer said it isn't all that simple so I'm going with that.

i don't need any details.  just give me an example of how what i just said doesn't cover it.

Any sane person prays they never have to defend themselves against a perp but I sleep better at night knowing that I can if I must. But they do need to come inside my home. I don't care about the property or the garage. My garage is always closed anyway. My alarm system is to alert me and hopefully make the perp run away!!

so, if a person enters your home or garage, and you fear for your life, do you have the right under SYG to plug them?

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

May 16, 2014 13:32:21 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 16, 2014 13:27:18 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Well, the 3 hour lecture from the lawyer said it isn't all that simple so I'm going with that.

i don't need any details.  just give me an example of how what i just said doesn't cover it.

Any sane person prays they never have to defend themselves against a perp but I sleep better at night knowing that I can if I must. But they do need to come inside my home. I don't care about the property or the garage. My garage is always closed anyway. My alarm system is to alert me and hopefully make the perp run away!!

so, if a person enters your home or garage, and you fear for your life, do you have the right under SYG to plug them?

You have to feel threatened.  If someone comes at me when I have my 1911 pointed at them rather than turning tail and exiting stage right, the implication is that they do NOT mean to invite me to a tea party.  To me, that is a threat.

[djAdvocate]

May 16, 2014 13:34:35 GMT -5 The Walk of the Penguin Mich said:

May 16, 2014 13:32:21 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

so, if a person enters your home or garage, and you fear for your life, do you have the right under SYG to plug them?

You have to feel threatened.  If someone comes at me when I have my 1911 pointed at them rather than turning tail and exiting stage right, the implication is that they do NOT mean to invite me to a tea party.  To me, that is a threat.

i'm just looking for a "yes" or "no".  was that a YES?

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

My response depends upon their response.

So if they exit when they see the gun, then it is very likely that they'd get out of my home unscathed. If they continue to come at me, I am going to assume that they intend to harm me, therefore I feel threatened and will shoot.

[zibazinski]

YES, yes, I WILL shoot them. My life is more important to me than theirs is to me.

[djAdvocate]

May 16, 2014 13:42:01 GMT -5 The Walk of the Penguin Mich said:

My response depends upon their response.

does it?  really?  you stated that if you felt threatened, then it is an SYG case.

So if they exit when they see the gun, then it is very likely that they'd get out of my home unscathed. If they continue to come at me, I am going to assume that they intend to harm me, therefore I feel threatened and will shoot.

what if they just stand there, like the old lady did?

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

If the old lady was threatening ME with a gun, I'd shoot. Guns are great equalizers, in that you do not necessarily need to be of great strength or stature to do a lot of damage to someone else. A little old lady shooting a gun has just as good of a chance of killing me as a 22 year old meth addict.

Oh, and BTW.....the old lady did not just stand there. Reports were that she was waving the gun around, did not drop the gun on the request of the cops and she had fired shots.

One of the first things that they tell you when you go to gun class is that if you are carrying, you inform the cop that you are carrying and put the gun down where they can see it and you can't touch it once they are involved. The old lady did neither.

[djAdvocate]

May 16, 2014 14:21:44 GMT -5 The Walk of the Penguin Mich said:

If the old lady was threatening ME with a gun, I'd shoot.

what if the old lady was unarmed?

i am just wondering how far this law goes, Mich.  i think that zib's answer makes the most sense.  you feel threatened, you shoot.  tough shit if the person dies.  they are in your house, and you feel threatened, they are dead.

agree or disagree?

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

May 16, 2014 14:52:32 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 16, 2014 14:21:44 GMT -5 The Walk of the Penguin Mich said:

If the old lady was threatening ME with a gun, I'd shoot.

what if the old lady was unarmed?

i am just wondering how far this law goes, Mich.  i think that zib's answer makes the most sense.  you feel threatened, you shoot.  tough shit if the person dies.  they are in your house, and you feel threatened, they are dead.

agree or disagree?

If I feel threatened, then they get shot.  THAT is the basis of the law.  

That is what I said, and that is what the law says.  So if it's an old lady who is in my house and she's confused, I'm likely not going to feel threatened.  However, if she is waving a gun around, I will.

[djAdvocate]

May 16, 2014 15:00:31 GMT -5 The Walk of the Penguin Mich said:

May 16, 2014 14:52:32 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

what if the old lady was unarmed?

i am just wondering how far this law goes, Mich.  i think that zib's answer makes the most sense.  you feel threatened, you shoot.  tough shit if the person dies.  they are in your house, and you feel threatened, they are dead.

agree or disagree?

If I feel threatened, then they get shot.  THAT is the basis of the law.  

That is what I said, and that is what the law says.  So if it's an old lady who is in my house and she's confused, I'm likely not going to feel threatened.  However, if she is waving a gun around, I will.

ok, i am not confident i can tell the difference, so i am going with zib on this one.  but if you are, i get it.  thanks.

[truthbound]

May 16, 2014 13:35:56 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 16, 2014 13:34:35 GMT -5 The Walk of the Penguin Mich said:

You have to feel threatened.  If someone comes at me when I have my 1911 pointed at them rather than turning tail and exiting stage right, the implication is that they do NOT mean to invite me to a tea party.  To me, that is a threat.

i'm just looking for a "yes" or "no".  was that a YES?

If they are in my garage the answer is yes.