Rewritten deadly force bill clears first committee (Alaska)

[shadowrider]

JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) - A rewritten bill expanding the right to use deadly force in self-defense cleared its first committee Monday. That's over the objection of the Department of Law, which maintains it will encourage unnecessary violence.

Current law authorizes use deadly force in self-defense to stop a few specific crimes, including robbery, sexual assault, kidnapping and murder. But if someone can safely withdraw, he's obligated to do so. That duty to retreat doesn't apply at home or the workplace.

Rep. Mark Neuman, a Republican from Big Lake, is the sponsor. His bill essentially eliminates the duty to retreat.

The bill now goes to the Finance Committee.

http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=12224278

[DirkGently]

1. Emblematic of gun lobby nuttery

The duty to retreat rather than kill when you can safely do so is a perfect example of a reasonable limitation. The fact that pro-gun groups appear to universally support "stand your ground / make my day" (I"m not making up these names) laws is a good example of why it's pro-gun, not gun control advocacy, that is out of balance in America.

[cowman]

2. I think

you'll find that the vast majority of us gun owners will retreat if given the chance. Your implied notion that we would rather shoot that try to get away is just stupidity on a grand scale. Don't fall for the crap you hear from the Brady Bunch or the VPC or other gun control groups.

I will try to get away from a situation unless the asshole of a criminal left me absolutly no choice or if I were in my home.

[DirkGently]

3. If it's "stupid," then the law empowering people to do it must be

stupid, too, right? That's the whole point of the law we're talking about -- it gives people the right to shoot INSTEAD of fleeing when they can safely do so. So it's not my "implied notion" -- it's exactly the policy this law endorses.

Why would the traditional law saying there is a duty to retreat if it is possible to do so, except in one's one home need to be changed, if that's the correct standard?

The gun lobby can't have it both ways. They can't say gun owners want to act reasonably while trying to make it legal to act unreasonably.

[AtheistCrusader]

69. Most states have no 'duty to retreat'

Washington State would be a good example. No 'castle doctrine' either, but we do have appropriate statues for excusable homicide, and justifiable homicide, and no duty to retreat.

This proposed law will bring Alaska in-line with more progressive states like WA.

[pipoman]

146. This is as much about protecting

a person who were, through no fault of her own, put in a justified position of having to defend herself. If the law has a requirement to retreat, then without regard for the clarity of the actions of the defender, there will need to be a finding by someone that there was in fact no way to retreat. Now 6 months later, after 7 court hearings which required defense professionals, it is determined that it was in fact an escaped convict with a hand cannon who threatened the life of the defender, therefore a justifiable homicide. Oh, and during that 6 months the brother of the deceased who happens to be serving 12 years in San Quinton lawyers up and is suing the defender for $Brazilian dolars for the loss of his dearly departed sibling..

People shouldn't loose their life savings for the actions of a criminal doing what criminals do...I have seen it happen without the flourish of the above scenario, but devastate a family trying to defend themselves. These laws usually shield people from civil actions resulting from the criminal actions of others. It doesn't allow for killing anyone. You can bet if you shoot an intruder breaking into your home, it will likely be a long night of not too fun cop-on-you action... as it should be. The police will investigate to be sure. But in cases where it is apparent what happened, there will be no further legal action nor huge legal bills. If OTOH it is determined in the police investigation the shooter is in some way involved, there are appropriate laws on the books to prosecute. The net result of these types of laws is to shield innocent people.

[one-eyed fat man]

4. mixed feelings

If it's true that all that is need for evil to triumph as that good men do nothing, then I'd venture a guess that 'cut and run' is about as enabling. If an uncooperative crime victim manages to shoot his/her assailant I'd say the net benefit to society is positive. We are often told 80% per cent of criminal activity is result of 6% of the population Since most of those are repeat offenders, thinning out their numbers must be a net benefit. Surely nothing is as absolutely effective in ending recidivism as death.

Now I am sure they all loved their mommas and were trying to turn their lives around since they found religion, not counting the occasional liquor or convenience store hold-up.

Yes. it is a shame that peacable folks in a civilized society find need to go about their business armed. As long as there are predators in that "society" who regard the productive members as chumps and targets, the civilized will have to deal with the "uncivil" one way or another. You can choose to "bend over and spread 'em" or to "fight back" Somehow, I find the notion of relying on the tender mercies of somebody who has already decided to rob me by sticking a gun in my face as profoundly stupid.

To my mind the only thing worse are their enablers who make excuses for the criminals' violent behaviors by refusing to hold them accountable for for their own deaths because of circumstances the criminals themselves precipitated.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x304086

[DirkGently]

27. An honest position -- cannot agree ... but still

This is the vigilante strain in pro-gun arguments -- let's "clean up the streets" by shooting "bad guys" whenever possible.

But we have a societal preference against vigilantiism. It's been a long discussion, but we don't want the citizenry carrying out their own punishments most of the time. Some disagree, but there you have it.

Just as an example, one reason we got to this "leave it to the cops" approach as far as who deserves to get drilled to clean up the streets is that there are considerable practical problems with that approach, even if you favor it. For one, the black / white assumption that most cases of one person killing another will be clear cases of properly costumed villain assaulting a ramrod straight Armed Citizen does does not pan out all that often. Most murders aren't committed by masked marauders but by the victim's own family or acquaintences.

Start introducing laws where any killing MIGHT be okay if the victim was "bad" enough, which is exactly the logic behind the "stand your ground" nonsense, and you muddy those waters considerably. Is it okay to kill the sleeping wife beater? How about the school bully? The guy who brake-checked you on the highway?

The big pro-gun fallacy there is that the argument has leapt far beyond the reasonable notion that people can and do keep and bear(of all kinds) responsibly, into the false notion that American gun owners, once properly licensed, are all clear-headed upholders of the peace. At best, they're like everyone else, and everyone else is subject to laws that say you don't get to decide who's a "bad guy" who needs to be killed except in self defense.

[PavePusher]

34. Self-defense is not "vigilantism".

Why should I have to retreat or bend to the will of a criminal when I am going about my lawful business?

Also, even the loosest "Stand your ground" laws say that you must believe you are in imminent danger of death or injury.

Why should the law-abiding be legally put at a disadvantage to criminals?


"At best, they're like everyone else..."

The stats available show that Permit holders commit crimes at a far lower rate the the general population. So, yeah, they're doing a pretty good job.

[DirkGently]

45. I was responding to vigilantism

" an uncooperative crime victim manages to shoot his/her assailant I'd say the net benefit to society is positive. We are often told 80% per cent of criminal activity is result of 6% of the population Since most of those are repeat offenders, thinning out their numbers must be a net benefit. Surely nothing is as absolutely effective in ending recidivism as death."

No other way to read that.

And there are no legitimate stats to show that CCWers are more law-abiding than anyone else. No one tracks it reliably.

Besides which, how would that even be? It's magical thinking. What correlation is being argued -- that somehow when you get a gun you become morally superior?

And again, I know it's pro-gun gospel and everything, but it's irrelevant to self-defense statutes. :)

[X_Digger]

72. TX & FL do..

"And there are no legitimate stats to show that CCWers are more law-abiding than anyone else. No one tracks it reliably. "

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm

There's a similar site for FL permit holders, don't have it handy at the moment.

[AtheistCrusader]

73. There is another way to read it.

The side effect of justifiable homicide is (X) wherein (X) is fewer recidivist scum, and no other side effect, fewer scum being a net benefit to society, not a detriment.

There is nothing in that paragraph that encourages extrajudicial killing.

[TPaine7]

83. Precisely.

You beat me to it.

The fact that legitimate self-defense has a side effect of cleaning up society does not imply that an individual has a right to shoot someone in order to clean up society.

I sincerely wish that the BTK felon (that's Bind, Torture and Kill for readers who don't know) had run into an armed "victim" who hadn't retreated or surrendered early in his horrific career. The "victim", of course, would have acted solely in her personal defense. She would not have been motivated by a desire to remove a serial killer from the streets. She would not have know what kind of monster she was dealing with, nor for that matter would society have ever known. But her self-defense would have had a very positive SIDE EFFECT of removing a monster from society.

There are very many less dramatic but still effective SIDE EFFECTS that laws like this allow.

[GreenStormCloud]

93. You have it backwards.

Getting a CCW does not make the person morally superior. No one here claims that. What we claim is that in most states there is a screening process such that those people who have demonstrated bad moral choices are not allowed to get the permit. By removing thoe people from the pool of those who can get permits one is left with a much cleaner pool to select from.

[paulsby]

113. we call it "frequent flyer syndrome"

it's a small %age of the population committing the vast bulk of crime

i remember when we finally put away this major scumbag about a year ago based on aggregation of many cases that got him pegged as a high impact offender.

you could IMMEDIATELY *hear* the difference. radio calls (burgs, car prowls, etc.) went way down

one guy

victimizing an entire community

very common

[PavePusher]

134. "uncooperative crime victim manages to shoot his/her assailant"

I don't see how you can stretch that to cover "vigilantism".

As for the rest of the comment, generally speaking, when defending oneself with a firearm, the law says you may shoot until the threat is no longer present. Most often, no shots are fired. Sometimes the criminals is wounded. Hazard of the trade, wouldn't you say? And, rather infrequently, the criminal dies from her/his wounds. Since the rules also, generally, say that you can't use deadly force unless you believe you are in imminent danger of injury or death, well, I can't complain if a criminal dies and their intended victim lives. And I don't know why anyone would. And again, that doesn't equate to "vigilantism".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigilante

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vigilante

[one-eyed fat man]

49. let's suppose YOU

are walking through the parking lot some evening, and a stranger comes up, pulls a gun or knife, and demands your wallet, your watch and car keys. Will you have any doubt as to who is being victimized?

Is it sufficient that he doesn't suddenly remark what a cute ass you have?

Are you sure he won't kill you anyway just to be sure you don't pick him out of a lineup? Maybe he'll just shoot you because you only had three dollars and twenty-seven cents in your pocket and he is pissed at risking an armed robbery beef for chump change?

If under that threat, you shoot the son-of-a-bitch,(not that someone as morally superior as you would contemplate such an act when you can hire it done) that would be self-defense!

On the other hand, if a week later, after you get out of the hospital from the beating he gave you, you spot him at the car wash, wearing your watch, and you cave his skull in with a ball-bat while he is bent over washing the hubcaps on your car, that would be vigilantism.

[DirkGently]

67. Simple scenarios make for easy calls

Someone cuts you off. You raise the one-finger salute. He says he saw a gun, but arguably, under "stand your ground," he doesn't have to drive away, because he has every right to be in his car on the road. He shoots you dead. Cops find your gun on the passenger seat where you were preparing to defend yourself. Under the old law, he's toast for not driving away. Under the new law, his fear was "reasonable," as far as anyone knows.

Fair result?

As far as the vigilantism goes, you sound insulted, given that you're attempting to insult me in return. That was not my intention. I was struck by the part of your post about a "net benefit" to society where a burglar or other "bad guy" gets killed. That's vigilantism too. I wasn't accusing you -- it's a view many people have. It's not the current law in most places though.

What I was trying to get at is what I perceive to be a healthy chunk of the basis for what I consider the more extreme pro-gun positions -- this idea that it's a better world if, BEYOND defending ourselves and our families, we actually "take out the bad guys." I don't take a "morally superior" stand on that -- I just think it's an unworkable fantasy that ignores the ambiguities of life in complex society.

[AtheistCrusader]

79. Your scenario is all kinds of problematic

Cars are thin protection from even handguns. Driving away may not be feasible, especially since the 'other guy' with a gun could follow. Maybe if you were on opposite sides of a concrete k-rail and he couldn't pursue, then duty to retreat would come into play.

Your idea of what constitutes vigilantism is broken. Self defense, even standing your ground self defense as seen under Castle Doctrine statutes isn't vigilantism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrajudicial_punishment

THAT is vigilantism. Killing someone in self defense isn't punishment. Killing isn't necessarily condoned under such statues protecting self-defense anyway. Recent case, a man shot an armed robber. Robber hits the ground, unconscious, severely wounded. Defender walks over and shoots him again. That was ruled a crime.

Self-defense statutes normally revolve around language like 'a reasonable apprehension of a design to inflict greivous bodily harm' being present. Pre-empting that design isn't punishment.

[GreenStormCloud]

98. Part of CCW training in Texas is to NOT give the one-finger salute.

Because I have a gun on me, I carry a greater responsibility in the begining stages of a confrontation. I must attempt to cool things down. If there is a shooting, and it is found out that I contributed to the problem by such behavior then my claim of self-defense becomes clouded.

I have that responsibility because I know that the confrontation could escalate all the way to deadly force, while the other guy may be thinking that a few punches will be all there would be too it. I may not be required to physically retreat, but I am required to emotionally retreat if that will avoid a fight.

That I am aware of, all states have the same view on armed self-defense.

[one-eyed fat man]

107. We disagree on definition

You seem determined to to paint the death of a criminal who is killed while committing a robbery as vigilantism. That I consider the death of such an individual at the hands of his erstwhile victim a net benefit to society must irk you. Did you miss the link posted up thread? We are not talking about hotheads getting into a shoot-out out over dim-witted driving. Although, that has been the relentless cry of a certain segment, the facts have not borne this out.

The editors of the Toledo Blade were lamenting that a string of hold-up men had been shot DURING THE HOLDUP (and on camera) by various convenience store clerks. They posit that the hold up men carrying guns didn't deserve being shot as robbery is not a capital offense.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=304555&mesg_id=304555

"Self-defense gun use is a somewhat nebulous concept. Criminals, for example, often claim that they carry gun for protection and use them during crimes in self-defense because they feel threatened by the victim."

That is the considered wisdom of Dr. David Hemenway, from page 77 of his book, Private Guns, Public Health

It would appear you agree. It would seem the naked guy standing at the foot of your daughter's bed at 2AM only has the gun in case you object over strenuously to his obvious adoration. That otherwise peaceful and productive citizens MUST submit to the predations of those cretins who resort to criminality is incomprehensible to me. A criminal, killed during the commsiion of a crime with legal justification is a good outcome. As successful crime or a dead victim is a bad outcome.

I don't break into peoples' houses, I don't assault them, I don't steal, nor am I a lawyer. I don't look for trouble and prefer it would avoid me. BUT, that being said, if forced to, I would defend myself to the fullest extent the law allows.

[Euromutt]

120. How does this relate to the OP?

The law under consideration lifts the duty to retreat in the defender's home or place of business. It shouldn't be impossible to establish who is the aggressor in such a location.

[slackmaster]

5. There is no duty to retreat here in California

We've always had strong protections for people who make reasonable use of deadly force.

There's nothing reasonable about complicating the situation of someone who is in distress, by forcing him or her to assess whether or not a possible avenue of retreat is available.

[DirkGently]

6. But it's reasonable that anyone can kill anyone

they want, so long as they claim to have "felt threatened?" Sorry, but that's a bridge too far. A standard like that is far more susceptible to "complication" and abuse than the basic social precept that you don't elect to kill someone if you can safely avoid it (and you're not already in your house).

It's one thing to argue that gun owners aren't bloodthirsty and violent, but it's another thing altogether to claim that anyone, anywhere, has the right kill someone in the street because they wanted to "stand their ground" rather than exit the situation where it's possible to SAFELY do so.

The old law was more than fair as to self-defense. This is the gun lobby playing out a fantasy of making everyone a deputy sheriff.

[shadowrider]

7. I've searched online and looked in the paper

And I simply cannot find one story, anywhere, where a LEGAL CCW holder started blasting away simply because they felt threatened. On the other hand, there are plenty of stories of bad guys blasting away because they "felt" dissed.

But it's reasonable that anyone can kill anyone they want, so long as they claim to have "felt threatened?"

That is anti-gun hyperbole taken to the extreme.

[DirkGently]

9. And the difference between the two is what?

How hard is it for a "bad guy" to claim he felt threatened? How are the courts going to tell the difference?

While we're doing research, how many law-abiding "good guys" have gone to jail for a legitimate self-defense killing?



Did you see where another of these "Stand your ground / Make my day" laws was inspired by the charging of Jerome Ersland, the convenience store worker who walked around the unconscious, unarmed would-be teenage robber he'd just shot, calmly reloaded, and emptied the gun into the kid's head?

So the idea there was that ... what? Here's a case of a law-abiding shooter unjustly accused? The guy's a cold-blooded executioner who belongs in prison

And people need to let go of the "CCW holders can never do wrong" bit. What is that supposed to be based on, exactly? The magical goodness of firearms training? Why would someone's CCW status even be reported in a news story? It's laugably irrational, but it's one of the main fallacious pillars of the gun lobby.

[GreenStormCloud]

11. The truth is that CCW holders rarely do wrong.

The statistics are there and it is a proven fact that CCW permit holders are far safer with than the general public.

[DirkGently]

39. Unproven and irrelevant

First, no one is tracking CCW holders to see what crimes they commit, so the "truth" is that we don't know how many crimes they commit. We do know that many lawfully licensed gun owners have committed murder. I don't get what the logic is supposed to be behind this rather beloved notion. Is CCW training supposed to make people into good citizens? How would it DO that?

At the end of the day, we have to put the gun lobby's beloved, cherry picked statistics aside and be logical. It's great to say that owning or carrying a gun does not make you a bad person -- again, no one out there I know of even argues that -- but it's equally ridiculous to suggest that owning or carrying a gun someone makes someone a better or safer or more responsible person.

It doesn't. Gun owners / carriers are just people. Good and bad, smart and stupid. They dont' deserve any more criticism or any more credit or benefit of doubt than the rest of the population, so they don't get to do anything we don't entrust our biggest boobs and idiots with.

Second, no offense but, self-defense laws don't have anything to do with right-to-carry laws.

[cowman]

47. If you say you know

that many lawfully licensed gun owners have committed crimes, show us the stats. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander

[GreenStormCloud]

100. TX & FL track CCW holders and publish the stats.

Is CCW training supposed to make people into good citizens? How would it DO that?

No, but the screening of who is allowed to get the permits keeps most of the bad guys out.

I will use an example. In WWII, only short men were selected to be ball-turret gunners. (A big guy couldn't fit into the turret.) So it would be safe to say that no tall men were ball-turret gunners. It would NOT be correct to say that being a ball-turret gunner MADE a man short.

Similar with CCW permit holders. Only good citizens are allowed to get the permits.

Here is the list of questions from a Texas CHL application. The state then checks that the answers are truthful. Any "Yes" answer bars the person from getting a permit.

http://www.texasonline.state.tx.us/NASApp/txdps/TxdpsChlRenewalManager
1. I have not been convicted of a felony.

2. I am not charged with the commission of a Class A or Class B misdemeanor or an offense under Section 42.01, Penal Code, or of a felony under an information or indictment.

3. I am not a fugitive from justice for a felony or a Class A or Class B misdemeanor;

4. I am not a chemically dependent person;

5. I am not incapable of exercising sound judgment with respect to the proper use and storage of a handgun;

6. I have not in the five years preceding the date of application been convicted of a Class A or Class B misdemeanor or an offense under Section 42.01, Texas Penal Code.

7. I am fully qualified under applicable federal and state law to purchase a handgun.

8. I have not been finally determined to be delinquent in making a child support payment administered or collected by the Texas Attorney General.

9. I have not been finally determined to be delinquent in the payment of taxes or other money collected by the Texas Comptroller, Texas State Treasurer, or tax collector of any agency or political subdivision of this state.

10. I have not been finally determined to be in default on a loan made under Chapter 57 of the Texas Education Code

11. I am not currently restricted under a court protective order or subject to a restraining order affecting the spousal relationship, not including a restraining order solely affecting property.

12. In the 10 years preceding the date of this application, I have not been adjudicated as having engaged in delinquent conduct violating a penal law of the grade of felony.

13. I have obtained, or will obtain, a handgun proficiency certificate by completing a course of instruction taught by a certified Handgun Instructor.

Remember, the state WILL verify the truthfulness of the answers before that permit is issued. So only good guys are allowed to get the permit.

[safeinOhio]

135. This story has nothing to do with

legal CCW holders. It is about anyone with a gun in a home. Those anyones may be dick heads and have no training. All these replies that bring up CCW holders amount to straw man arguments in this case. Has nothing to do with them. Yes you must pass a rigorous background check and have classes to get the permit. Not so on home protections guns. I'm sure this change in the law will be taught in all the permit classes in the state, but for the average person it will mean little. Most find out about these types of laws from the lawyer they have to hire after they shoot.

[shadowrider]

138. I respectfully disagree

It has everything to do with legal ccw. This law does not address castle doctrine in which there is no "retreat" requirement. Rather it addresses the "retreat" requirement in areas other than the home. I agree you don't need a ccw to keep a weapon in the home, but in other areas (public) only two types will carry. Thugs with their gun (or other weapon) hidden in their waistband until they need it, and ccw.

[PavePusher]

35. Well, I certainly hope you'll be there when crimes occur, to help everyone decide properly.

What's that? You won't be there? Really?

Your lack of trust in the law-abiding is... disheartening.

[DirkGently]

40. Your assumption that everyone who kills is law abiding

is confusing. Not to paint with too broad a brush, but here's another confusing pro-gun assumption. Most killings are justified? Most murderers won't claim self-defense if given the opportunity?

There's a weird tunnel vision among these pro-gun arguments. It's always a scenario with an upstanding Armed Citizen versus the Marauding Stranger. The notion that everyone should be a deputy Sheriff.

Except things don't work that way. In most cases, if there's an altercation and someone is killed, both people will claim self-defense.

In a clear situation of someone breaking into a home or "sticking someone up" we haven't had a problem so far with the Armed Citizen going to jail.

So again, why the insistence on this pugnacious "right" to "stand your ground?," other than to justify hysterical claims of persecution from the gun lobby?

[GreenStormCloud]

101. Yes, we do have a problem with the righteous armed citizen being jailed.

Remember Benard Goetz? He was clearly being stuck up by four armed young men. He defended himself. He was cleared on the shootings but was jailed for carrying a gun. But without the gun the four young toughs may have killed him. The problem is a common one. Obama voted against an Illinois law that would have excused someone for having a gun if they had used the gun in self-defense. Goetz was NOT a vigilante, he was a guy that had been mugged before and was afraid it would happen again.

[paulsby]

117. um, no

we are not saying everybody should be a deputy sheriff (as a LEO myself, trust me... most people aren't cut out for law enforcement)...

we are saying anybody who CHOOSES to do so, assuming no felony convictions etc, should be able to arm themselves in defense of theirselves and those close to them.

while it is true, that the highest aim of law enforcement is to protect life (and property), it is only part of what we do. and we are often there way too late to do so.

if you are threatened, YOU are... by definition... there

we aren't. usually.

the job of an LEO, among other things, is to investigate crimes after the fact, and track down the bad guy. when citizens do that, THAT's vigilantism. especially when they mete out punishment after doing so

that is ENTIRELY different from what we are saying people should be able to do, which is to be able to defend themselves IN THE MOMENT the crime occurs

hth

[TPaine7]

123. A quibble

The Innocence Project (if that's their proper name) investigates crimes after the fact; I wouldn't consider them vigilantes.

In fact, I wouldn't consider a relative or friend who investigated a crime after the fact and turned the information over to police/DA to be a vigilante, especially if the police had given up or never took the time to investigate.

[paulsby]

125. i agree and that's a good point

heck, mark furhman did the same thing with the mary moxley case.

more correctly, i should have said it's vigilantism when the NON leo attempts to seek out and PUNISH the (perceived) offender.

merely investigating, is (usually) within the rights of most people (as long as they are not obstructing, intimidating a witness etc.)

good point

and of course journalists do this too. they are not vigilantes

[pipoman]

142. Paulsby answered

the question of vigilantism in his response to this post.

In my state a person can investigate anything or anyone they want as long as they aren't doing it for hire..for that a person needs a state detective license.

[AtheistCrusader]

82. The difference is a jury of 12 peers.

Whom, either a grand jury, or a trial jury, sitting in a comfortable room, in cold blood, unthreatened, you will have to convince that you had REASONABLE fear for your, or someone elses safety.

Reasonable being the key word. Washington's statute, where we have no duty to retreat:

RCW 9A.16.050
Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.

Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.

If there is any question by a DA that you did not have REASONABLE GROUND TO APPREHEND A DESIGN you will be explaining your position before a grand jury who will determine whether or not you warrant criminal charges and a trial.

'Criminals' are held to the same standard, and in fact some 'criminals' turned out able to prove that they IN FACT had reason to fire in SELF DEFENSE, and had murder charges dropped, at trial.

[X_Digger]

8. Are you forgetting the reasonableness test?

It's not enough to say that you felt threatened, you have to convince the investigating cops, the DA, and maybe even a jury that under the same circumstances that a reasonable person would fear grievous bodily injury.

[DirkGently]

13. What was wrong with the assumption that it's more reasonable

to leave the situation if you can safely do so? Why the demand for the "Stand your ground" principle?

The whole notion is based on the gun lobby's main fallacious premise, which is that law-abiding gun owners are under constant threat of attack in the U.S., the country with by far the developed world's most relaxed firearms regulation and, to my knowledge, most lenient laws for allowing violence in self-defense.

Where are the "law-abiding citizens" cruelly punished for killing the "bad guys?"

Every one of these increasingly extreme laws is based on the false premise that we are currently persecuting and punishing lawful gun ownership or self-defense in this country. The problem with that is that it isn't true, and that this type of "pushback" is based on a false sense of persecution manufactured by the gun lobby to keep its membership riled and its coffers full.

Frankly, I'd stay out of all of this, because the tenor of gun issues in the U.S. is that of religiouis fervor, but I keep seeing these echo-chamber notions here about how irrational the "anti gun forces" are, when the fact is the irrationality is largely on the pro-gun side, particularly when it comes it to these notions that gun owners are everywhere under attack.

They aren't. Pro-gun arguments have won every major issue already. Now, because the pro-gun lobby its supporters are so easily tickled politically, we have these ridiculous new pushes to bring guns into the workplace, guns into the parks, guns onto the buses, and this equally unnecessary push to make sure no gun owner ever has to "back down" from a "bad guy."

[slackmaster]

15. Many times it is more reasonable to leave a situation than to use deadly force

Again, you should study the topic before commenting on it.

I believe you would benefit greatly from taking a self-defense class. Any martial art - Empty hand, edged weapon, firearm, whatever you like. The message is always the same.

[DirkGently]

21. Deliberately missing the point?

The point is that we begin with the premise that retreat without killing someone is preferable. That's what the standard self-defense law WAS to begin with. The gun lobby wants that watered down to eliminate that presumption and replace it with the notion one has the "right to stand your ground" and kill rather than retreat. It's a bad premise.

Took the martial arts training already, thanks. Does that mean I win, or do we have to pull out our belts and see whose is bigger?

:rofl:

[slackmaster]

24. Of course not killing someone is preferable to killing someone

That's why I said you should take a self-defense class.

Every class I've taken, every one I have heard of, says the same thing - You use deadly force only when you have no other choice. Bad things happen to you when you kill someone, even if you are completely legally and morally justified in doing so.

Took the martial arts training already, thanks. Does that mean I win, or do we have to pull out our belts and see whose is bigger?

I mean you should drop your apparent assumption that use of a firearm is somehow different than any other martial art.

[shadowrider]

28. A good round-house kick can kill, as can hands

Someone that does that has to get in close to the threat and HOPE they don't catch the knife, shank, screwdriver, etc. on a lucky shot.

Me? I'd rather be 15' away.

[DirkGently]

33. Do you deliberately misread everything?

If we agree that retreat is preferable to killing, then there was no reason to change the law requiring a person to choose retreat when they could safely do so and were not in their home.

Again, it's a question of balance. We made that requirement law as a safeguard against bad-faith claims of self-defense. It's much easier to falsely claim self-defense if you do not have to show that you might have safely left the situation.

Again, a lot of this logic seems informed by the idea of the clean good guy / bad guy division. In most cases where there is an altercation and one person dies, both claim the other was the aggressor. It's more difficult to sort that out the person who killed can argue that they had the right to choose to stand and fight when they might have left safely.

[slackmaster]

52. The law was too restrictive and caused too much confusion in determining whether or not force...

...was justified in a particular situation.

The law was not needed, and created situations where people who properly defended themselves faced prosecution or lawsuits.

[AtheistCrusader]

92. A duty to retreat is irrelevant to determining 'reasonableness'

otherwise, most states are defective.

Where I will agree with you, is cases of the Castle Doctrine, which is only in effect in a few states, wherein there is nearly a wall preventing investigation of anything but a clearly suspicious DGU.

I like Washington's law better.

A duty to retreat places the burden of proof on the victim (alleged) to establish they had no choice.
Castle Doctrine places a barrier that actually hinders investigation of potential criminal foul play masked as self defense.

Washington has neither, so the investigating law enforcement is free to investigate, and the burden of proof is on the investigators to find criminal malfeasanse on the part of the alleged victim. Alaska is evolving to what we have now.

By all means, keep up the fight against Castle Doctrine, it is an extreme law with broad potential for mis-use. But lacking a duty to retreat is a good thing for the (alleged) victims, and no barrier to investigating law enforcement. It should be encouraged.

[spin]

109. Castle doctrine is in effect in only a few states?

Alabama,<9> Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,<10> West Virginia and Wyoming have adopted Castle Doctrine statutes, and other states (Montana

, Nebraska (http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=5348

), New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington) are currently considering "Stand Your Ground" laws of their own.<11><12><13>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine_in_the_United_States#Adoption_by_States

If it was indeed a defective law, it would never have been enacted in all these states or it would have been revoked in at least some.

[AtheistCrusader]

110. WTF

That is easily double the number of states I thought had enacted 'castle doctrine'.

[spin]

114. Like concealed carry law, Castle Doctrine has spread fast...

based on what I've seen in Florida, it really hasn't caused any serious problems.

I like the fact that it limits civil law suits. Before, you could legitimately use a firearm in self defense and lose all your savings in a civil suit.

It's still not a "license to kill". If the shooter is in the wrong, he can easily end up in prison. That's how it should be.

[paulsby]

121. the issue is NOT "is retreat preferable"

it is this. should there be a LEGAL BURDEN to do so?

there is a HUGE difference between saying "retreat is preferable when safe and available" and "you have a legal duty to retreat when safe and available"

hth

[AtheistCrusader]

86. Only in a couple states.

Can you name any others off the top of your head?

[X_Digger]

81. Harold Fish n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

84. I am a tool-using mammal, and I do not turn my back on threatening predators.

Not under any circumstance. Not bears. Not cougars. Certainly not humans.


Some of your assertions are interesting. I carry. I use public transit. Would you prefer I be stuck in my single-occupant vehicle, just because I carry?

National Parks can sometimes contain hostile animals, and humans, running meth labs and grow ops. My potential need of a firearm for self defense increases out-of-doors, not decreases, and it does not evaporate when I step across an imaginary, human set line on the ground that denotes the start of national park property. Aggressive predators of all types recognize no such lines.

[slackmaster]

14. People who are ignorant of the subject aren't even aware of the reasonableness test

They haven't done their homework. Usually they're just parroting hysterical anti-choice propaganda.

[DirkGently]

46. I haven't seen any hysterical anti-gun propaganda

... just pro-gun. And I'm a lawyer. It's not a foreign idea to me.

[cowman]

48. You really should

read some of the crap that the Brady Bunch and the VPC put out, like every time a state allows for concealed carry there will be shootouts over traffic accidents and blood will flow in the streets and when the AWB was allowed to sunset that the streets of america would turn into war zones with more cops being killed with "assualt weapons" and how about the gun controllers ridiculous statement on "cop killer bullets

There's just a few of their anti-gun hysteria

[DirkGently]

51. I'd love to address some of these points with a reasonable

group. No one's called me a commie pinko whose loved ones deserve rape and murder while I stand impotently by with my namby pamby "pacifist" (not) views so far (on this forum) so maybe I'll dip my toes in here a bit more often.

I'm sure there are hysterical anti-gun views out there. I just don't see them ever getting anywhere, so I tend to throw my weight to the other side out of a sense of balance.

Really, has the gun lobby LOST any major principle or issue in recent memory? What happens when every gun right everywhere has been granted? Will it dry up and go away, or is it an "Ever Vigilant" type situation?

:D

[cowman]

57. Did it occur to you

that the "gun lobby" hasn't lost any major principle or issue lately is because the majority of people want these changes, now I'm not a lawyer I'm just a dumb ole Firefighter/Paramedic but I seem to remember that the will of the people should be honored

Correct me if I'm wrong

[DirkGently]

59. So straight majority rule, not intelligence, governs the law?

And stop bringing up my profession. I mentioned it in response to the idea that I had no notion what "reasonably" could possibly mean in a piece of legislation. I don't apologize for being a lawyer, but neither do I claim superiority on that basis, so put it down and back away, or this conversation is over. If I didn't think you were smart enough to talk to, I wouldn't. :)

Back to the point. As far as that goes, I don't know that pro gun positions enjoy an actual majority or not -- certainly there is a an effective, well-financed, vocal chunk of the population that consistently gets whatever they want on these issues.

But that's not germane to whether these ideas are right or wrong. Should a FALSE assertion, like the idea that hordes of gun haters stand by waiting to repeal the Second Amendment, govern the decisions we make?

I'll lay this down: We have PLENTY of weapon and self-defense freedoms in this country. If you or anyone claims to reject "hysterical" views, you ought to at least acknowledge that not only is the Second Amendment not in danger, but that Americans in general are well-protected as it is in this regard.

Why, then, is the primary gun lobby argument this vision of the Government, knocking on doors and collecting firearms? Does that not strike you as a wee bit overreaching?

[cowman]

61. I didn't bring

up your profession,you did all I said was that I'm not a lawyer, I have a lot of respect for lawyers, I should, my younger brother is one

[cowman]

63. Well it

could be because certain members of Congress have repeatedly called for the banning of firearms, Hell just look at Pres. Obama's record on firearms while he was a IL Senator, now that he's Pres he has backed off but I don't think he has changed his stripes.

I aknowledge that there are fringe groups that are hystrical about anti-2nd amend groups just like there are groups like the VPC that have outright called for the banning of all handguns, so please excuse me if I seem passionate about the 2nd amend.

[AtheistCrusader]

96. Duty to retreat is generally offensive to Americans.

Consider the source, british common law. We had... issues with their laws.

There are a select few states that have some hold-over concepts from that time. How it worked into Alaska, one of the last states to enter the union, I am not sure, I suspect it's proximity and population at the time, to British Columbia had something to do with it, but I will research more on that point.

If someone had asked me yesterday if Alaska had such a law, I would have assumed not. Most states do not. California doesn't even have it. I would have expected it, where it survives at all, to have been only found in the states comprising the original 13 colonies.

[DirkGently]

115. Florida always had it

Never seemed to cause a problem. As for British Common Law, it's still the law of the land where it hasn't been otherwise displaced.

A duty to retreat, with the attendant provisions that it doesn't include the home and isn't require when it isn't safe, seems like a perfectly reasonable restriction, for the reasons I laid out earlier: namely that 1) a reasonable person WOULD retreat rather than kill if they could and 2) It's a useful tool for examining a situation after the fact. E.g., a bad faith claim of self-defense. It also just seems like a good principle that if we can avoid killing someone, we do that.

But that's my last word on the subject, because, present company aside, the advice I received that this is an absolutists forum has been confirmed. I have no further intrest in having my motives, profession, literacy, etc. etc. further attacked because I have the audacity to disagree with the NRA.

This forum is exactly the lunatic echo chamber it has the reputation of being.

[AtheistCrusader]

118. Best way to fix any issues you might see around 'echo chambes' is to engage in disucussion

I don't see the post where it supposedly happened, but your status as a lawyer of unknown specialty should have no bearing, and it is unfortunate that it came up.

In Florida it caused a problem every time there was a defensive gun use. Law enforcement was bound to investigate it with the presumption that the alleged defensive user must prove he or she didn't have opportunity to escape. I cannot agree with placing that burden of proof on the alleged victim.

Absolutely, DGU's of a suspicious nature must be investigated, but barring probable cause, I don't think the burden of proof should be on the alleged victim.

Therein lies most objections to 'duty to retreat' laws. There is a happy medium between Duty to Retreat and Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground, and I believe Washington State has found it.

Although I would like to see the provision where if a victim that uses a gun in self defense is truly ruled self-defense, he or she should acquire immunity from civil suit, excepting negligence. (If the victim fires wildly and hits 10 children in the distance, etc) Same bar we have around good samaritan laws, where you are immune, as long as you acted in good faith, and without wilful negligence.

[spin]

126. Whether the Gungeon is a lunatic fringe...

greatly depends on your feelings toward gun control.

Most of the pro-gun posters here believe in actual reasonable gun control. Reasonable is largely in the eye of the beholder.

Suppose that you lived in the middle ages and you felt the world was flat. You would present your augments and at first you might disagree with the arguments of those who felt the world was round. The church would agree with you and you would consider that those who were "round earthers" were heretics. Torture and burn them! They are ruled by the Devil!

But if you were open minded, you might realize eventually that they had a point.

Present your arguments and listen carefully to the counter arguments. Analyze the data presented and do some research. If your ideas hold water, you should win. If you fail, don't merely just walk away in disgust. Try some new arguments and support them with statistics and facts.

People differ. Motivations, background and life experience form opinion, often the results are false and incorrect. Life is a learning experience and the object is to learn and evaluate and evolve.

Many posters who oppose firearms end up resorting to insults and degrading gun owners. Recently, this has been frowned upon by the management of DU. Sadly, this has reduced the fun of posting here. You know you are winning when the only reply your opponent can come up with is that you are under endowed.

Still, I could present many good arguments FOR draconian gun control if I chose to. I'm sure you can too if you put some time and effort into it. Perhaps I should sign up with a different name and do so just for fun. It might cause some interesting discussion. I could end up arguing with myself.

We come here to discuss our ideas and present our arguments in support of our position. In the end run we come here to learn. Preconceptions and stereotypes hinder the quest for truth. Learning is always ongoing and subject to changes in opinion.

If you oppose firearm ownership as is currently legal in many states in our country and feel you have a valid, solid and irrefutable argument please participate in further discussion. If you fail, reconsider your position and modify it.

I came to DU because first I am a Democrat and second I was totally pissed at the Bush the Junior administration. I post mainly on the gun forum because I own and enjoy firearms and have a concealed carry permit and carry. I found the Gungeon a good place to evaluate my own opinions on gun control and I have to admit I learned a lot.

I don't want you to run out and buy a firearm if you fail. That would be entirely up to you. I might mention that if you did and found a good gun range to shoot at, you might find a new hobby that you would thoroughly enjoy.

Actually, I look forward to discussing the issue of gun control with you. I may disagree with your viewpoint but many times people disagree and respect the other person. You are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. Many times lurkers view discussions on DU and form opinions without participating. Often when I Google subjects on gun control, the results come up with discussions on DU. We have a broader audience than most realize.

[PavePusher]

137. You ask this:

"Why, then, is the primary gun lobby argument this vision of the Government, knocking on doors and collecting firearms? Does that not strike you as a wee bit overreaching?"


And we answer: Because it has happened many times in other countries, and a few times in our own nation. Do you deny this? We will not let it happen again, here. We are not over-reaching, we are vigilant. As we must be for ALL our liberties.

I will note that almost every Second Amendment supporter I have ever met or conversed with has vigorously defended the entire Constitution and all it's Amendments (well, maybe not the 18th), no matter what political party they were in, even if they had to defend a lawful action they personally found distasteful or abhorrent. And if they thought something bad enough, they advocated an Amendment to change the Constitution, instead of playing legal jiggery-pokery, even when they knew they had no chance of seeing it come to pass, because they had that much intellectual honesty and personal integrity.

I dunno, maybe I'm hanging out with the wrong people.

[cowman]

66. I think you'll find that

most of us here are reasonable people who are passionate about the 2nd amend.. there are some anti-gun posters who love to do drive by postings but for the most part we are reasonable people.

Sounds kind of redundant

BTW welcome to the guns forum

[GreenStormCloud]

102. You're a lawyer?

I am sorry, but you don't demonstrate the knowledge of law and logic that I would expect of an attorney. You have the logic of selection of CCW permit holders backwards. You don't seem to understand self-defense.

[AtheistCrusader]

111. Many kinds of lawyers

and laws vary from state to state.

One of my friends is a patent lawyer. Whatever he may have learned about self-defense laws and cases, he's probably long since forgotten.

[GreenStormCloud]

116. True, However...

...this guy is in a discussion regarding deadly-force self-defence and then makes an appeal to establish himself as an authority by claiming that he is a lawyer. Yet he makes mistakes that a legal layman can catch. An lawyers do get certain training in logical argument that is supposed to apply in all areas of law. Yet he abandons that logic when he talks about CCWers. I would expect an attorney to do better.

[slackmaster]

12. No state allows anyone to kill someone simply for feeling any particular way

In all cases, there has to be a reasonable fear.

You should read up on the subject before commenting on it.

It's one thing to argue that gun owners aren't bloodthirsty and violent, but it's another thing altogether to claim that anyone, anywhere, has the right kill someone in the street because they wanted to "stand their ground" rather than exit the situation where it's possible to SAFELY do so.

That is a classic Straw Man argument. Nobody is claiming that simply standing one's ground justifies deadly force.

[DirkGently]

17. So the "Stand Your Ground" law

doesn't mean you can "stand your ground?" That's what the Florida version is called.

And no, the "straw man" argument is yours. The reasonableness standard is a "gimme" with this type of law and non-dispositive.
What -- you thought I was arguing that the law literally says "kill who you want?" I guess that's next on the NRA's agenda for "reasonable" gun laws, eh? :)

The point is that the effect of this kind of law is much MORE "kill who you want" than requiring a safe retreat. All we're talking about is what is to be considered in court.

So again, WHAT was wrong with the presumption that it is MORE reasonable to safely retreat if you can do so?

[slackmaster]

18. Read up on the subject before commenting on it

The reasonableness standard is a "gimme" with this type of law and non-dispositive.

Not true. You obviously have no idea what you are writing about.

So again, WHAT was wrong with the presumption that it is MORE reasonable to safely retreat if you can do so?

How about this - You read up on California's deadly force laws and tell us what you think is wrong with them.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=187-199

[DirkGently]

20. Alaska's the topic

And yes, "reasonableness" is a gimme standard in all such laws. Almost all laws, civil and criminal, regarding one person's duty to another, have a "reasonableness" standard. It's the foundation of civil negligence law and likewise applies in most self-defense situations.

If I'm wrong about that, please be more specific than "go read the California criminal code."

:)

[slackmaster]

26. I haven't seen the bill yet

Do you have a link?

[spin]

29. The Florida "stand your ground" law explained ...

The Florida law is a self-defense, self-protection law. It has four key components:

* It establishes that law-abiding residents and visitors may legally presume the threat of bodily harm or death from anyone who breaks into a residence or occupied vehicle and may use defensive force, including deadly force, against the intruder.

* In any other place where a person “has a right to be,” that person has “no duty to retreat” if attacked and may “meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”

* In either case, a person using any force permitted by the law is immune from criminal prosecution or civil action and cannot be arrested unless a law enforcement agency determines there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.

* If a civil action is brought and the court finds the defendant to be immune based on the parameters of the law, the defendant will be awarded all costs of defense.
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/florida-self-defense-law.htm

Here's the text of the bill.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0776/SEC013.HTM

[DirkGently]

31. Thanks

I'm familiar with the law and followed its passage. It unneccessarily deleted the duty to retreat in traditional Florida self-defense law. Prior, we already had the "castle rule" where one did not have to retreat in one's home.

"No retreat(no surrender?)" is gun lobby rhetorical nonsense. The duty to retreat when it's safe is a good standard to protect against overzealous "self defense" and created no rash of unduly persecuted self-defenders in the first place.

Again, the paranoia-driven gun lobby solves a problem that didn't exist. Keeps the donations flowing.

[slackmaster]

32. Meanwhile, the paranoia-driven anti-choice lobby whines about a problem that doesn't exist

Laws that explicitly state that someone faced with a reasonable fear of injury or death has no duty to retreat, haven't caused any real problems.

[DirkGently]

36. Isn't the burden on the one changing the law?

There wasn't a problem with law-abiding gun owners being persecuted for defending themselves in the first place. Therefore, it is the gun lobby who was paranoid in insisting upon the change. It's a bad change which does it make it easier for an aggressor to claim self-defense falsely.

But that's the balance the gun lobby claims we need. First, make absolutely SURE no one is made to feel cautious about killing in self-defense. THEN worry about the possibility that "bad guys" will escape prosecution for murder because of it.

It's the wrong balance, because, like most of the pro-gun legislative agenda, it relies on false claims that gun owners are everywhere persecuted and threatened.

[slackmaster]

53. Useless laws are inherently bad and should be repealed

Automatically if possible.

[DirkGently]

56. So what, specifically is inherently bad

about the notion that a good citizen retreats rather than kills, when it is safe to do so? Absent vigilantism, there really is no argument there, is there? Have we had a lot of trouble with decent folks being railroaded based on this notion?

Seems like viewpoint blindness to me. The governing assumption is "What law would you want in place if YOU had to kill in self-defense?" Well, if it's ME, I'm good and responsible and wise, to I'd say just take my word I (reasonably) "felt threatened."

On the other hand, what if it's not you doing the killing? What standard do we want in place for the person who killed a loved one in an altercation along the roadside or in a bar? Because we understand -- don't we? -- that the aggressor will argue self-defense in bad faith not some of the time, but virtually ALL of the time, if the circumstances permit it.

Isn't requiring a safe retreat a good standard to guard against the inevitable unjust claim of self-defense? Shouldn't the OTHER guy have to drive away or walk away if he can? What standard do we want when it's not The Law Abiding Armed Citizen left dead?

[slackmaster]

65. A good citizen WILL retreat rather than kill, when it is safe to do so

A point you seem to keep missing.

Isn't requiring a safe retreat a good standard to guard against the inevitable unjust claim of self-defense?

No. We're doing perfectly fine without it in California.

[AtheistCrusader]

94. It places the burden of proof on the victim

and not the police apparatus investigating a potential crime, where it belongs.

Duty to retreat automatically places the victim in front of, most likely, a grand jury to explain their actions.

Remove Duty to Retreat, and without a Castle Doctrine, the victim is only hauled before a jury if the investigating party finds evidence warranting criminal charges.

[Euromutt]

141. Not only that, it requires the defendant to prove a negative

Essentially, you have to prove that you could not get away safely; the only way to demonstrate that with certainty is to have tried and failed (in which case you would presumably be dead, or at least permanently injured, which is what you were trying to avert by defending yourself in the first place).

[GreenStormCloud]

108. Who decides whether or not it is safe to retreat?

The defender in the crisis of the moment, or an overzealous prosecutor with amble time in an easy chair after the event?

[spin]

103. The reasons behind the "stand your ground' law ...

were described by Marion Hammer in a radio interview.

HAMMER: The castle doctrine law was signed into law on April 26th of this year. It did not take effect until October 1st because jury instructions had to be re-written. The jury system and the prosecutors in this state had started changing the law and jury instructions to simply give the edge to criminals. So because there was a delay in the legislation taking effect, the Brady Campaign, who had been unsuccessful in defeating the campaign, had decided to run a campaign and get a lot of publicity and in essence terrorize our tourists by attempting to make them think that if they came to Florida they could be shot. That is absolute nonsense.

The castle law doctrine has three major components. It restores the right of a law-abiding citizen to protect himself and his family in his home. It establishes the presumption that if someone breaks into your home or forcefully intrudes into your home of your occupied vehicle, that they are there to do harm and that you may therefore use force, including deadly force, to protect yourself and your family and you are not going to be badgered by a justice system that protects criminals.

The second thing that it does is it removes the duty to retreat when you are under attack by a criminal. The duty to retreat had been imposed by the system and essentially if someone had tried to drag a woman into an alley to rape her, the women – even though she might be licensed to carry concealed and ready to protect herself, the law would not allow her to do it. It required her to try to get away and run and be chased down by the perpetrator before she could then use force to protect herself. That was wrong. So the duty to retreat from any place that you have the right to be has been removed. If you are attacked, you can still run if you want to. But if you want to protect yourself, you can in effect stand your ground and protect yourself.

The third component deals with a prohibition against civil lawsuits by criminals or the families of criminals who had begun to profit by their crimes by suing victims who may have harmed or killed criminals who were attacking them or intruding into their homes. It is just wrong for a system to allow criminals who have attacked you to turn around and sue you when you defend yourself and do harm to them.

So that basically is what the law does. When you are outside the home you can only meet force with force and then deadly force only if you reasonably believe that it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm. In your home, they break in, you can use whatever force you choose.
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/marion-hammer-nra-interview.htm

If someone breaks into my home while I'm there, I have a right to assume that he intends to do me harm or plans to harm my family. It's not rocket science to determine if I am home. If I am home, he can move on to an unoccupied home or wait until I leave. I have insurance to reimburse me for a robbery, but it can't bring me or those in my family back to life or guarantee that we will recover from serious injury.

That doesn't mean that I shoot first and ask questions later. I live in what was once a hotel with not only my own family but often people who are staying with us on a temporary basis. Several times during the night I have heard a strange noise and walked out of my bedroom to confront a stranger in the kitchen or living room. I determined that they were visiting and they never knew I was armed with a snub nosed revolver in my pants pocket.

If I did determine that they had bad intentions, that doesn't mean mean that I would draw and fire. Much depends on the circumstances and the individual. If they turned and ran, I would not shoot them. Of course, I would watch to determine that they were indeed were leaving rather than turning to grab a hidden firearm.

If I am attacked on the street, I personally can't turn and run as I have physical limitations such as a hip that needs to be replaced and fairly severe degenerative disk disease. Running is not an option, while limping away might be. Still, why should I turn my back on an attacker if I am entirely in my right and he is armed with a firearm. True, most bad guys can't shoot worth a shit, but there is still a chance that he might get lucky and hit me. If I do decide to "stand my ground" and I shoot him, should I be prosecuted. I didn't start the incident, therefore I am not at fault.

Again, I could add that the circumstances would determine my response. If I felt that the attacker merely wanted my money, I would gladly give it to him. I can replace my wallet, credit cards, drivers license and money. I can't restore my life or my health. If however I looked into his eyes and realized that he wanted far more, I should have the right to "stand my ground" and fight for my life. As Marion Hammer said in the interview, "If you are attacked, you can still run if you want to. But if you want to protect yourself, you can in effect stand your ground and protect yourself."

And if I do "stand my ground" and shoot and injure or kill the bad guy, why should I face a lawsuit from him or his family? (Assuming that the investigation that follows clears me of blame.) I did no wrong.

I would have reacted the same before the law as after its passage. In all probability, I would have not faced criminal charges. In reality, under the new law, I will still will face charges if I misuse my firearm. It doesn't grant me a license to kill.

But I shouldn't have to face a civil lawsuit if I reacted properly. To me that is the biggest advantage of the new law.

[AtheistCrusader]

88. Standing your ground need not result in death of any party involved.

The attacker could back down.
The attacker could surrender.
The attacker could be delayed long enough for law enforcement to arrive.

Again, this IS the current law in progressive, blue, Washington State. Alaska's old law requiring a duty to retreat is an archaic throwback to british common law, and was rarely implemented in the United States.

[GreenStormCloud]

106. Here is why such laws are needed.

In the crisis of an imminent attack a defender may not be aware of an avenue of retreat, or may decide that such an attempt would be unsuccessful. Later, an overzelous prosecutor, who has amble time to think from the safety of his chair, may decide that there was a possible avenue of retreat and go after the defender for not taking that avenue. The law stops such a prosecutor.

[spin]

129. Exactly, and it happened in Florida ...

the prosecutor was more interested in futuring his career and running for higher office.

The incident I'm reminded of happened in Tampa a good number of years ago. Unfortunately, I can't draw it up on the internet for reference.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

16. Simply because one "perceives a threat" does not mean a genuine threat existed .

The shooter will have to demonstrate to the investigating officers and the DA (possibly a jury too) that a threat existed and there was a reasonable fear of grievous injury or death. This law simply states that IF LETHAL FORCE IS JUSTIFIED then you may readily use that option to defend yourself as well. More or less, this law shifts the onus of proving a bad shoot to the plaintiff. This law will in no way protect or allow people to walk away from a "bad shoot".

People will not be able to kill anyone they want and simply claim they were threatened.
Hopefully, you've just been misinformed.

ALSO... this law is not geared towards guns and shooting specifically.
This law applies to the use of any deadly force.

[TPaine7]

37. "Reasonable"

But it's reasonable that anyone can kill anyone they want, so long as they claim to have "felt threatened?" Sorry, but that's a bridge too far.

No, that's at least two bridges too far:

1) Bridge 1 - Neither citizens nor police are entitled to "kill" someone. Even if they are in their homes or unable to flee, they are only entitled to "stop" them. If an attacking criminal dies as a result of a legitimate defensive effort that is a side effect, not the objective. Executions happen after trials.

2) Bridge 2 - Simply claiming to feel threatened as a justification to kill someone, or even shoot to stop them, is a silly straw argument. If this were the case, a person could shoot his enemy in the back in front of hundreds of witnesses and "claim to have 'felt threatened.'" The testimony of the witnesses wouldn't matter any more than the fact that the victim was shot in the back. So long as the shooter could "claim" to have "felt threatened" he would walk. Need I actually refute the claim that anyone anywhere actually thinks this is what the law says or means?

It's one thing to argue that gun owners aren't bloodthirsty and violent, but it's another thing altogether to claim that anyone, anywhere, has the right kill someone in the street because they wanted to "stand their ground" rather than exit the situation where it's possible to SAFELY do so.

What does "safely" mean? I think I can outrun that thug with a knife, but am I sure? And felons often work in teams; will I retreat into a trap? Should I bet my life on either of my guesses? Should I be REQUIRED to bet my life on what a safe and comfortable jury might conclude in order to protect the life of a felon, so that he can live to victimize more innocents?

There is another problem. By this standard, aggressive thugs enjoy the liberty to travel freely in all public spaces, while decent folks are legally required to leave any public space that the violent thugs command them to leave; freedom is inversely proportional to innocence. I strenuously disagree.

While it is true that most people will choose to avoid conflict when they can, the choice should be left entirely up to the attacked person. The legally codified authority of the felon to forcibly dismiss the law abiding from a public area is wrong on multiple levels.

The old law was more than fair as to self-defense. This is the gun lobby playing out a fantasy of making everyone a deputy sheriff.

I am frightened when I see Americans thinking like this. You assume that while an American citizen is legally bound to respect a criminal thug's sacrosanct right to dismiss him from a public space, one of that American citizen's hired servants is not so bound.

Americans have hired servants to supplement their self-defensive efforts and to investigate completed crimes. These servants' powers are simply the delegated authority of their masters--the American people.

But while most Americans don't have the technical skills to evaluate crime scenes or catch long-fled murderers, they do retain the authority and the right to defend themselves. In fact, civilians do better in defensive shootings than do police officers.

The police instructor in the use of force who taught me told the class that police are bound by the exact same rules in use-of-force as are civilians. Too many Americans are far too eager to submit and defer to "the authorities."

[DirkGently]

42. Life isn't Citizens vs. Thugs

Most of the time. The laws give criminals the same right to judge life and death on the street as they do to law abiding citizens.

This is again the false notion of Upstanding Citizens vs. properly costumed Thugs that informs most of the hyperbolic, irrational gun lobby rhetoric. The thug that shoots someone in a bar parking lot can likewise argue he was "standing his ground."

People don't have signs over their heads identifying whose intentions are good and whose are bad. One way we used to tell who the aggressor was, was by investigating who pushed the situation when they could have left to avoid killing.

It's not much to ask a law abiding citizen to flee if they safely can -- even this thread shows that most agree that's exactly what a reasonable person does. So where is the logic in removing that standard? What it points to is a desire for vigilantism and an impulse to annoint oneself as the keeper of law and order. This isn't 1776, and society doesn't work that way anymore.

[TPaine7]

64. Consult a dictionary and look up vigilante. Most of the time people use it incorrectly.

The laws give criminals the same right to judge life and death on the street as they do to law abiding citizens.

Not really. The law forbids criminals--convicted violent felons, at least--from TOUCHING firearms.

This is again the false notion of Upstanding Citizens vs. properly costumed Thugs that informs most of the hyperbolic, irrational gun lobby rhetoric.

I see lots of irrational hyperbole, but I'm guessing you're not an NRA spokesman...

The thug that shoots someone in a bar parking lot can likewise argue he was "standing his ground."

He can claim it, of course. He could also claim he was President Obama, acting in the national interest.

Unless he's a minor league thug--one with a clean record--he will be in hot water on the weapons charge alone. If he really was standing his ground and the evidence supports it, the weapons charge should be the only one he faces. Criminals have been acquitted based on self-defense, but real thugs know that juries will tend to look on their claims with a jaundiced eye. Smart felons who don't want to go back to prison WILL retreat if they can.

People don't have signs over their heads identifying whose intentions are good and whose are bad.

No, it usually takes verbal threats or actions to determine whose intentions are bad.

One way we used to tell who the aggressor was, was by investigating who pushed the situation when they could have left to avoid killing.

I agree that "pushing the situation" is wrong behavior for an armed person to engage in. Their aim should be peaceful resolution when possible. Instigating can and should weaken or defeat their self-defense argument, but declining to run or retreat is NOT "pushing the situation." Remaining in a place where one has a total right to be is not a provocation. Yours is a false dichotomy.

It's not much to ask a law abiding citizen to flee if they safely can -- even this thread shows that most agree that's exactly what a reasonable person does.

Actually it is much. I notice you totally ignored my request that you define "safely."

What does "safely" mean? I think I can outrun that thug with a knife, but am I sure? And felons often work in teams; will I retreat into a trap? Should I bet my life on either of my guesses? Should I be REQUIRED to bet my life on what a safe and comfortable jury might conclude in order to protect the life of a felon, so that he can live to victimize more innocents?

So where is the logic in removing that standard?

See the highlighted part above about the "safe and comfortable jury." Keep in mind that there are lots of people in the jury pool who think like this poster (talking about armed and masked thugs who knocked over a wheelchair bound man in his own home):

Oops, hang on. My crystal ball seems to be experiencing some interference here. Too much right-wing gun militant chatter going on in the ether ...

Maybe if I wait a bit it will clear up, and it will be able to tell me how many people in wheelchairs were killed by burglars in the last few years.

I mean, this can't just happen to people in wheelchairs with guns. It must sometimes happen to people in wheelchairs without guns. And they must all be dead.

Anybody got a body count, or shall I just wait patiently for the noise in the crystal ball to clear?

And I'll wonder why somebody would bother wearing a mask when they decided to rob somebody else, if they were planning to kill them. I mean, surely the mask wasn't just a fashion accessory they put on when they get up in the morning.

But maybe I've got something wrong here. Maybe I've missed the bit where it's right and good to kill somebody for trying to steal your stereo ... that death penalty stuff, I do just have a hard time getting my head around it ...

Source: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=275101&mesg_id=275134

She thinks the man shouldn't have defended himself in his own home! There are many others who are somewhere between her and you. The logic of the new law is to keep them, in their warm, safe, comfortable jury room, from sitting in judgment on somebody who had to actually weigh questions like "can I outrun that thug?" and "does he have accomplices?" and "what if I trip while walking backwards to my car?"

What it points to is a desire for vigilantism and an impulse to annoint oneself as the keeper of law and order.

Protecting oneself from deadly aggression when you could have run in someone else's opinion = anointing oneself keeper of law and order? Really? And look up vigilante.

This isn't 1776, and society doesn't work that way anymore.

If this were 1776, the Constitution would not yet be written, never mind the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Of course you would never use that hackneyed "logic" on any of the other Amendments, at least if you're like most who use it.

I know it's not 1776. The year on this story is 2010. You're mistaken, society clearly does work that way in 2010, at least in many states. A better statement might be, "it's not 1980 anymore."

Welcome to the 21st century.

[DirkGently]

78. Look it up yourself and drop the condescending attitude

while you're at it, please.

"Not really. The law forbids criminals--convicted violent felons, at least--from TOUCHING firearms."

As pointed out repeatedly, "Stand Your Ground" laws aren't limited to firearms. They're self-defense statutes.

"She thinks the man shouldn't have defended himself in his own home! There are many others who are somewhere between her and you. The logic of the new law is to keep them, in their warm, safe, comfortable jury room, from sitting in judgment on somebody who had to actually weigh questions like "can I outrun that thug?" and "does he have accomplices?" and "what if I trip while walking backwards to my car?"

I'm not arguing with other people you're unhappy with. The point here is to have a rational, moderate discussion. My entire issue with pro-gun arguments is when they are based on false concerns and strawman arguments. Go fight with her if you're mad and stop attempting to talk down your nose to me.

[TPaine7]

90. I already know that shooting someone who is trying to kill or grievously harm you isn't vigilantism

Why should I look up a word because you misuse it?

[DirkGently]

97. But you don't know how to argue without mischaracterizing

the other argument? The post I responded to talked about the "net benefit" of killing petty criminals.

I was warned about the futility of trying to have an honest debate in this forum.

Bye.

[TPaine7]

105. A taste of civil argumentation, avoidance of mischaracterizing and the like, courtesy of DirkGently:

Post 6:

But it's reasonable that anyone can kill anyone they want, so long as they claim to have "felt threatened?"


Post 27:

This is the vigilante strain in pro-gun arguments -- let's "clean up the streets" by shooting "bad guys" whenever possible.

…we don't want the citizenry carrying out their own punishments…


Post 40:

So again, why the insistence on this pugnacious "right" to "stand your ground?," other than to justify hysterical claims of persecution from the gun lobby?


Post 42:
This is again the false notion of Upstanding Citizens vs. properly costumed Thugs…


Post 45:

And there are no legitimate stats to show that CCWers are more law-abiding than anyone else. No one tracks it reliably.

Besides which, how would that even be? It's magical thinking. What correlation is being argued -- that somehow when you get a gun you become morally superior?

(TPaine7: No it’s that only morally superior people—or at least only people with clean records—are legally allowed CCWs. )


Post 46:

I haven't seen any hysterical anti-gun propaganda

TPaine7 :rofl:

[TPaine7]

133. That post, along with post 78, is a microcosm of the source of your problems on this thread

In post 78, you took offense at my "condescending attitude" and my "attempt{} to talk down {my} nose to {you}.

You explained that your "point here is to have a rational, moderate discussion. {Your} entire issue with pro-gun arguments is when they are based on false concerns and strawman arguments."

No doubt you thought informing me that it wasn't 1776 was civil and respectful. I feel sure that you also missed your less that rational and moderate arguments (see post 105 for a few select examples).


And while I will grant that it was probably an honest mistake on your part, you got your facts wrong. I challenge you to find a mischaracterization in the post you're complaining about.

The post I responded to talked about the "net benefit" of killing petty criminals.

No it didn't.

Here is what you said (Post 42):

Life isn't Citizens vs. Thugs


Most of the time. The laws give criminals the same right to judge life and death on the street as they do to law abiding citizens.

This is again the false notion of Upstanding Citizens vs. properly costumed Thugs that informs most of the hyperbolic, irrational gun lobby rhetoric. The thug that shoots someone in a bar parking lot can likewise argue he was "standing his ground."

People don't have signs over their heads identifying whose intentions are good and whose are bad. One way we used to tell who the aggressor was, was by investigating who pushed the situation when they could have left to avoid killing.

It's not much to ask a law abiding citizen to flee if they safely can -- even this thread shows that most agree that's exactly what a reasonable person does. So where is the logic in removing that standard? What it points to is a desire for vigilantism and an impulse to annoint oneself as the keeper of law and order. This isn't 1776, and society doesn't work that way anymore.

First off, as I read this the antecedent to "it" (italicized above) is "the logic in removing that standard" or the logic of updating the law as described in the OP. You are saying that the logic of updating the law points to a desire for vigilantism.

But even if the "it" that "points to... a desire for vigilantism" is something I said in the post you responded to, nothing in that post (post 37) talked about the "net benefit" of killing petty criminals.

You are having issues because you don't see your own attitude problems, you're sensitive, and you vigorously assert false and unsupported opinion as fact.

If you want respect, give it. Believe it or not, I can be as gentle, as respectful as rational and as moderate as you can. I'd be glad to prove it.

I was warned about the futility of trying to have an honest debate in this forum.

Turn on the light and look in the mirror. Carefully examine your comments on this thread, or only the ones I reference in post 105. And tell yourself, honestly, shouldn't they rather have warned us?!

[TPaine7]

99. "As pointed out repeatedly, 'Stand Your Ground' laws aren't limited to firearms."

As pointed out repeatedly, "Stand Your Ground" laws aren't limited to firearms. They're self-defense statutes.

I was responding to your post:

The thug that shoots someone in a bar parking lot can likewise argue he was "standing his ground."

And if you use a term incorrectly you give me but two choices, to assume that you're ignorant or to assume you're dishonest. You shouldn't take offense when I assume the lesser of the two negatives; we're all ignorant, just on different subjects.

The misuse of "vigilante" to smear self-defense is a pet peeve of mine.

If you wanted a moderate, rational discussion, you sure used a lot of hyperbole and implied insults to start it. And you totally missed my point about that poster. I don't impute her position to you, I am simply taking into account the fact that people like her, far too many of them, sit on real world juries.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

75. "The thug that shoots someone in a bar parking lot can likewise argue he was 'standing his ground.'"

Typical instances of Castle Doctrine law require that the person exercising their right to primary defense:
1) Must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force.
2) Must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit serious bodily harm, murder, or another felony such as arson/burglary.
3) Must establish the intruder to be acting illegally (Castle Doctrine does not allow attacking LEO acting in the course of duty.
4) To be there legally, not be a fugitive from the law, not be using the Castle Doctrine to aid or abet another person in being a fugitive from the law, and not use deadly force upon an officer of the law or an officer of the peace while they are performing or attempting to perform their legal duties.

If a "thug" is not breaking any laws and is defending themselves in accordance with castle doctrine... then they were justifiably defending themselves from another. In fact, if they are not acting the thug... then they're not a criminal in that case at all. That person's profession or life choices have little to do with their right to defend themselves using deadly force - so long as they are not engaged in criminal action at the time.

This law is about affording more options to those in distress. Usually, the most civil/reasonable course of action is to remove yourself from harms way. This choice to retreat will still exist after this legislation passes - the action just will not be mandatory. For reasons left to the distressed to demonstrate (to prove under scrutiny), if a certain situation is better dealt with via lethal force than avenue may be chosen. More options, more choices, more freedom for victims - this is a liberal shift, you see.

Just stop it already. You're really starting to sound ignorant here.


Pl

[DirkGently]

85. Erm, speaking of "ignorant"

"Castle Doctrine" is the old, good law. "Stand your Ground is the new, 'liberal' law" we're talking about.

And no matter how you put it, "Stand your Ground" can be argued by a bad guy as well as by a good guy. That's the essence of the problem. Good guys are happy to leave rather than kill if they can. When you give good guys "the option" to stand and kill, you give bad guys the same argument.

I think that's really key to the disagreement here. Those in favor of these ever-broader laws don't ever seem to contemplate any scenario but Good Citizen Shoots Thug. It's a compelling vision, but it's not how the majority of killings or shootings occur. Lots of times it's Guy Shoots Guy. Or girl. In those situations, you're giving a murderer a gift letting them argue that the fact they could have walked away and left everyone alive is irrelevant.

Look, I feel good about the points I've tried to make here. I think I've articulated an argument against these new laws, but I don't need to "win" or convince anyone. I thank the most reasoned pro gun folks I've run into so far for the conversation.

But I'm also noticing from others a decrease in reasoned discourse and and in increase in "You're ignorant / Go read the dictionary / You want to hold hands and sing with the bad guys." For those that feel like pro gun control folks get out of hand and insult you and ascribe false, extreme positions to you without justification, this COULD be why, in some cases. :)

If anyone cools down and wants any further lip out of me, drop me a line and I'll see if I can take a break from "reading the dictionary" and "singing kumbaya with the thugs." Otherwise, I think this foray into the Gun Forums is over for now.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

104. When you say "bad guy", are you talking about a criminal (or somebody engaged in criminal action)?

The stand your ground laws DO INCLUDE provisions requiring the person invoking the law's protection to meet MANY of the same requirements Castle Doctrine requires. The only difference is that the protections of Stand Your Ground Law extend beyond the property of an individual (Castle Doctrine generally only applies to the home or vehicle). In fact... most stand your ground laws are little more than CLAUSES found WITHIN castle doctrine or defense legislation.

If one wishes to invoke the protections of a Stand Your Ground Law, they must still:
be there legally
not be a fugitive from the law
not be aiding or abet another person in being a fugitive from the law
not use deadly force upon LEOs while in the line of duty
not have instigated or escalated a situation involving the assailant
be able to demonstrate a reasonable fear

In layman's terms: you can't be "looking for trouble", you can't be a criminal, and you must be face a genuine/justifiable threat.
This law is DESIGNED not to behave like you are trying to portray it to be. You sound like the freepers saying HCR will kill people.
Such laws exist in many states and the incidents are hypothesizing/worrying about simply aren't happening...
Real world evidence - blood is not running in the streets and thugs aren't getting away with murders.

[Euromutt]

145. Even under "stand your ground," you need to demonstrate Ability, Opportunity and Jeopardy

When you give good guys "the option" to stand and kill, you give bad guys the same argument. <...> In those situations, you're giving a murderer a gift letting them argue that the fact they could have walked away and left everyone alive is irrelevant.

Not really, because for the use of lethal force to be ruled justified (if it goes to trial), the defendant still has to demonstrate that he reasonably believed that the alleged assailant against whom he used lethal force was physically capable of inflicting lethal injury (Ability), was sufficiently close and unobstructed from doing so (Opportunity), and had demonstrated by words or behavior an apparent intent to do so (Jeopardy). "Stand your ground" laws do not remove this requirement.

What they do remove is the possibility that, even if the elements of Ability, Opportunity and Jeopardy were all demonstrably present, the person acting in self-defense can still be prosecuted on the grounds that he or she didn't try hard enough to get away. I don't know that such a prosecution would result in conviction (if I were on a jury, I'd sure as hell be voting to acquit), but it still saddles the defendant with financial and emotional costs for no apparently useful purpose.

[GreenStormCloud]

10. Yes, the gun-control advocates are making some of that up.

"Make my day" is made up by the gun-controller. "Stand your ground" is used by both sides to describe the bills.

The main thing that the bill does is that it stops an overzelous prosecutor from find a way that a defendant could have retreated but didn't.

Most of us who carry concealed will retreat is we have a chance, but there can be valid situations where retreat isn't a real option.

Numerous states now have that law, as well as Castle Doctrine, and it hasn't been a problem.

[DirkGently]

19. What overzealous prosecutors?

Here again, the gun lobby's imaginary threats dictate everything. Where are the law-abiding home defenders rotting in jail? Why was one of these laws sought to be expanded as a direct reaction to prosecution of the cold-blooded murder of that would-be teenage robber?

These laws should be about balance. What IMBALANCE is sought to be addressed by telling citizens they have no duty to avoid killing someone else if they can SAFELY do so?

How far, exactly, do we need to go to make it easier and legally safer for Americans to shoot other Americans?

Another irrationality that typical muddles this debate is the notion of crisp, clean divisions between good guys and bad guys. There's nothing whatever in these laws to prevent someone who was the true instigator from killing their opponent and then claiming they felt threatened. Honk at guy on the freeway? Maybe you waved your gun. Or he says you did. He shoots because he's "reasonably afraid." You're dead -- who testifies on your behalf?

"Reasonableness" is a common but vague standard that can be argued endlessly.

So what these laws favor, at the end, is more violent disputes ending with someone getting killed. And here's where I openly question the motives, not of the forum members here, but of a significant portion of the pro-gun lobby / movement. There is an underlying preference in the pro-gun movement writ large for the notion that good guys should kill bad guys whenever possible. The irrational assumption of course, is that it's always easy to tell the difference.

[shadowrider]

22. Not true

So what these laws favor, at the end, is more violent disputes ending with someone getting killed.

Please provide links showing this is the case, and has happened, with LEGAL CCW holders. FYI it hasn't happened in Florida, and as I recall, anti-gun people swore there would be blood in the streets.

I'll wait for your links.

[cowman]

23. I've researched NV

and can't find a single incident yet although the day is young. Look, you may not like it but if you have proof that this new law has caused any CCW holder to shoot someone because they shot rather than retreated please provide a link, as far as that store clerk, he should be charged because at that point when the robber is down and unconscious the threat was neutralized

Whoops sorry about that, I meant to respond to the other poster

[shadowrider]

25. You are forgiven

[DirkGently]

30. Right after your links on good guy gunnies in prison

For defending themselves. Point being, we don't need "stand your ground laws." The potential for muddying the waters is obvious, and we didn't have a problem that we needed the gun lobby to solve in the first place.

The big, consistent hole I'm seeing here is that everyone seems to agree that safe retreat is the best policy when it's possible, but somehow we just can't entrust law enforcement or the jury system with that standard, and instead have to give people this imaginary "right" to stand and kill someone rather than do so.

The inherent logic in the older law is plan: By requiring people to retreat instead of kill if they can safely do so, we provide some protection against a bad-faith argument of self-defense. If someone could safely retreat BUT chose not to, we question whether they really needed to defend with deadly force.

But instead, it's now argued that giving the right to choose between killing and retreating is essential to make sure people aren't unduly hassled for killing people that needed it.

It's nonsense. It's irrational because we weren't having problems with too many justified self-defense killings being prosecuted in the first place, and shifting the balance increases the countervailing risk that an agressor who murders someone can argue the right to "stand your ground."

[PavePusher]

38. Harold Fish, Arizona.

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2009/06/harold_fish_shooting_case_sent.php

[DirkGently]

43. Ersland inspires "Make my Day" expansion

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=16&articleid=20100319_11_0_oklaho77425

[shadowrider]

41. Uh uh

YOU made the claim. You back it up. Don't shift responsibility to me.

[DirkGently]

44. Nice try. My claim is that the law was fine as is

and didn't need to grant the right to "stand your ground." You're arguing in support of a radical, sweeping change to decades-old self-defense principles being pushed by the radical gun lobby. Nice try flipping it around, though.

:thumbsup:

[cowman]

50. Radical gun lobby

You've just shown your true colors. That's how most anti gun people describe the gun lobbies, why don't we call the lawyer's lobbys radical?

[DirkGently]

54. Oh ad hominem how we love thee

... so you can make constant reference to the "hysterical" anti-gun lobby, but there IS no radical gun lobby that may be fairly referenced, is that it?


:)

[shadowrider]

55. You said

"So what these laws favor, at the end, is more violent disputes ending with someone getting killed."

I say, back up that claim with links and news stories where LEGAL CCW owners got into a dispute with someone OTHER than a bad guy. Again, this was predicted for Florida and it never happened.

You said it, please back it up.

[DirkGently]

58. I said these laws favor easier killing

in disputes. They do -- it's in the language. The gun lobby says the change was needed to protect the law abiding citizen from being prosecuted. Even though that wasn't a problem.

You're trying to create a zero-sum game where massive injustice reigns either way. But that's exactly what's wrong with the gun control debate. You can't complain about hysterical anti-gun positions on one hand, and then insist that the only argument against sweeping new pro-gun laws must be mass hysteria.

The bottom line is that these laws are poorly planned and worded and were created for lobbying and political purposes, to appeal to the false notion that law abiding citizens are (excuse me) under fire every time they lawfully defend themselves. THAT IS FALSE.

[shadowrider]

60. So if I don't have a gun and have a direct imminent threat to my personal safety

I can use a 12" knife instead? bat? vase? crowbar? tire iron? box cutter? How about inviting the bad guy to hold hands around a campfire so we can sing kumbaya.

I also carry a knife with a 3.5" serrated blade. Can I use that instead? Or will you get upset I carry it too?

Massive injustice would exist if I weren't armed and a bad guy did me in.

[DirkGently]

62. I read your sarcasm, but not the point

If you're saying gun vs. other weapon isn't the point of self-defense laws, I agree. If you're saying the gun lobby isn't what's behind this push for "stand your ground" laws, we disagree.

-1 "Holding hands / kumbaya" snark. It's kind of a jumping the shark moment in this kind of debate. If you want to debate honestly, characterizing a moderate gun control position as naive and wimpy makes as much sense as the "bloodthirsty" meme you complain the other side has, and I have not gone there. Do me the same courtesy if you want to converse.

[shadowrider]

70. So what if the gun lobby is behind it

All this law does is enable the good guy to defend himself against an imminent threat to his/her safety, the safety of their family or the safety of a stranger without losing concentration while looking for a way out.

Want to try and retreat from a bad situation with 4 and 5 year olds? I'm not retreating anywhere if I'm not familiar with the route I'm going to take. I really wouldn't want to put myself in a worse situation than I'm running away from.

[DirkGently]

74. But I thought we could rely on "reasonably"

You only have to escape if you can reasonably do so in safety. Why is that standard untrustworthy in one scenario, but trustworthy under "stand your ground?"

[shadowrider]

80. Ok, let's assume you win and this scenario happens

While walking down the street, an armed thug exited a drugstore he just robbed. He's armed and approaches me and two friends walking down the street in a menacing manner. We're all armed, but turn and run (seek escape) to get out of harms way, just the way you suggest we do.

Here's the headline the next day:

Mrs. Gladys Bumblebee, 37, was gunned down by a ruthless robber who had just held up the drug store when she inadvertently blocked his escape. She leaves 3 children, a husband, and would have celebrated her birthday next week. It's also noted, 3 armed citizens who could have stopped this senseless crime, turned and ran for their own safety.

[friendly_iconoclast]

68. You *could* demonstrate any problems that Florida's "stand your ground" law has caused

The state of Florida publishes more statistics than most, so if there were problems with this, you could probably
find them with some research.

Some empirical evidence would add much credibility to your arguments.

[DirkGently]

71. The Orlando Sentinel

did a piece a while back -- shortly after the change in the law, so it really couldn't be definitive. What they described were several scenarios where self-defense was claimed, and maaaybe the killing party could have escaped, which would be different under the new law. Out of five or so incidents, none of the shooters were charged, but nothing was a clear disaster either way

But again, credibility is not my burden. I didn't launch a nationwide crusade to have the law declare that reasonable citizens shouldn't leave a violent encounter without killing someone if they can.

[shadowrider]

77. I don't see this printed in any law

Care to enlighten me?

"I didn't launch a nationwide crusade to have the law declare that reasonable citizens shouldn't leave a violent encounter without killing someone if they can."

[DirkGently]

87. Typo

"Shouldn't HAVE to leave without killing someone if they can."

The other way miiiight be on some NRA agenda next year. :D

[friendly_iconoclast]

91. "...credibilty is not my burden". You're certainly carrying a light load at the moment.

I asked if you have any statistics from the Department of Justice or the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, both of
which have lots of publicly available information on their websites, and we get:

"ISTR an article in the Orlando paper about some questionable cases. But I still don't like the idea and it's
not my job to back up what I have to say".

Fair enough, you have every right to say so. And we have every right to claim it won't be a problem in Alaska.

[DirkGently]

95. Since when is principle not a basis for argument?

I am getting out of this thread and the increasing barrage cheap shots and cheap arguments, but you're not getting away with that one.

Where's YOUR backup? Since when do the people backing radical change on the basis of supposed injustice not have to put up a single fact? Why does the gun lobby get to continually to argue that gun rights are too narrow and under to much attack, when that is demonstrably not the case?

You can argue from principle but no one else can? You have no answer for the fairly basic ethical principal that you don't kill someone if you can reasonably avoid it, but now that the NRA doesn't think so nothing but a peer reviewed study proving instantaneous mass killings is sufficient to rebut the presumption that whatever the American gun lobby says is gospel?

Hilarious.

[friendly_iconoclast]

119. The "gun lobby" haven't passed these laws, state legislatures have.

And you haven't demonstrated that democracy was subverted, you have asserted that it was subverted (apparently
because you disapprove of "stand your ground" laws).

No one is advocating shooting people if they can reasonably avoid it, and other posters have cited the actual text of
laws requiring the shooter have reasonable belief that they are at risk of death or serious injury before they can invoke said laws as a defense.

Of course, the persons who were (or will be) shot might help by not acting in such a way that a reasonable
person would be put in fear for their lives...

I would suggest that your feelings about this do not reflect the views of the majority in either Florida or
Alaska.

[slackmaster]

139. There's that recurring straw man

I didn't launch a nationwide crusade to have the law declare that reasonable citizens shouldn't leave a violent encounter without killing someone if they can.

Of course nobody has actually done that.

[shadowrider]

76. He/She isn't interested in proving their point

"So what these laws favor, at the end, is more violent disputes ending with someone getting killed."

That's pretty much a statement of fact, but there is no evidence to support that argument at least among LEGAL CCW holders. I've repeatedly asked for links proving the statement and so far, none have been forthcoming.

[DirkGently]

89. Riiiight

Because the "CCW holders don't commit crimes" argument trumps all. And these laws apply only to CCW holders. And CCW holders are relevant to the discussion somehow.

I bow before the logic and retreat in shame.


:rofl:

[GreenStormCloud]

112. CCW holders are complety relevant to the argument.

What other civilian is going to be legally carrying a gun in public? Only CCW holders. The "stand your ground" law does not effect those who do not have CCWs because they can't legally carry anyway, and they already didn't have to retreat from their homes and businesses. The no-retreat-needed law is for CCWers.

[DirkGently]

127. It's not irrational when WE do it

1. It's a self-defense law. Guns are not always at issue.

2. Guns may be at issue anyway. Self-defense law applies where you use a gun, whether you're legally carrying it or not. At home, at work, in the car, people have guns, knives, etc. You cannnot reasonably argue that this law applies exclusively to CCW people.

3. The "CCW'ers are Angels" gospel is a bad argument and it's it's used dishonestly. I get it -- but it's rhetoric, not logic.

What you're supposed to conclude, I guess (?) is that because certain questionable statistics compiled by the gun lobby insist that crime rates among CCW holders are lower than the general population ... we don't need gun laws anymore. One size fits all :D

Nothing about getting a concealed carry permit guarantees superior judgment or behavior. And this is America. We're all equal here.
You don't get MORE benefit of the doubt because you were good enough to get a carry permit, which, by the way they're now apparently giving away on the Internet (what the hell?) Take all the cherry-picked NRA statistics you want, but there's no actual reason to assume someone with a carry permit is okey dokey.

(http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/83620277.html?cmpid=15585797)

Obviously an idiot is going to want to carry a gun just as much as a responsible person. More, probably. Yes? :silly:

[X_Digger]

128. Hyperbolic silliness..

"giving them away on the internet"??

The application process for many states' permits can be initiated online, but you have to fill out affidavits (consent to run a records check) and submit fingerprint cards (some are electronic but not all)- every state I'm aware of that has a permit* requires some paperwork eventually be submitted. (And no, none are free.)

The article you linked to has been discussed here before. It's a beef not between Philly and Florida, but really between Philly and Pennsylvania proper, which has passed preemption laws. Philadelphia has a "character and reputation" test for permits that Pennsylvania proper doesn't have. Want to guess whose character and reputation is most often used as a grounds for denying a permit? (hint: think urban black.)

*Alaska and Vermont don't require a permit to carry in their state, but do provide a means for residents to obtain a permit for the purposes of reciprocity (which requires paperwork.)

[TPaine7]

130. The real problem causing "internet" CCW permits

"You can purchase a firearm but you can't get a permit in Philadelphia to save your life," said Richard Oliver, a firearms instructor in Northeast Philadelphia who teaches safety courses for those seeking permits out of Florida and Utah. "That's what causes people to go to other states to get the permits."

That's the real problem--lack of equal protection under the law. Big city officials think that they only have to obey gun laws they like.

She also said that Florida looks only at convictions, not arrest history or one's character and reputation, as the Philadelphia police do.

"If somebody has been arrested a dozen times and the cases have just been dismissed or discharged, that doesn't mean the crime didn't happen," she said.

Then the big city government officials should not waste taxpayer money bringing cases they can't win. This "prove your innocence" attitude is official thuggery, and very un-American. Street level thugs deprive individuals of their rights; government thugs deprive cities, regions and even the nation (think GWB). They should be sentenced accordingly and thrown in with the general population, at least.

Susan Harrell, bureau chief for the Florida Department of Agriculture's Division of Licensing, said that all applicants' names and fingerprints are run through the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and then the FBI.

Philly should report all of its violent crimes to the national system; if they don't, whose fault is that?

...certain questionable statistics compiled by the gun lobby...

"cherry-picked NRA statistics"

You talk about honest discourse and not misrepresenting one's opponent's arguments, but you are a leading offender. I've seen lots of posts with statistics on this site pertaining to crime rates among CCW holders. Off the top of my head, I never recall a citation to the NRA. The only posts I recall had to do with state figures, compiled by state officials. Do you have evidence that the NRA is in control of state governments? Do you have anything to back up your NRA statistics jab--any citations of people on this site using NRA statistics on CCW crime and/or revocation rates? Are you making things up to fit your worldview?

[friendly_iconoclast]

131. Wharrgarbl aside, carry permit holders *are* more law abiding than the average citizen.

Nobody claims they are angels or guarantees the behavior of carry permit holders. They have, however, demonstrated that they act quite responsibly as a group.

As Yogi Berra said: You could look it up. The FDLE (whose website you seem strangely averse to) has revoked for cause less than 1/10 of one percent of all the permits it has issued since 1987.

And, frankly, carry permit holders have a lower rate of violent crime than the Philadelphia PD.

[DirkGently]

143. Do you at least acknowledge the illogic

of the way people are trying to use the argument, or not? This was a thread about "Stand Your Ground" laws. The argument presented, in increasingly hostile and accusatory tones, (and in lieu of addressing the actual issue of whether or not a reasonable person should retreat rather than kill when possible) is:

1. CCW holders rarely if ever commit crimes. There's no guarantee of that, or reason to think it would always be the case, as it's not hard at all to get one if you're not a felon, but let's assume it's some kind of universal truth anyway. Based on "statistics."

2. Self-defense laws like "Stand Your Ground" really only apply to people with CCW permits, because no one else is supposed to have a gun.

3. Therefore, we don't really need any safeguards against bad-faith claims of self defense such as the duty to retreat.


It's a beautiful piece of illogic, isn't it? And one which you can apply to any proposed gun legislation. It essentially assumes no restrictions on shooting people in claimed self-defense are necessary, because only people not licensed to carry commit crimes, and they're already in trouble for the unlicensed firearm.

I'm not going to spell out everything that's wrong with that argument, but it's fallacious on its face. It's structurally similar to another NRA-created gem of false logic, the old, "If you outlaw guns, only outwlaws will have guns." Cute, but it's bumper-sticker logic. If you follow it, you get to anarchy. The fact that people don't obey laws isn't a reason not to have them. "If we outlaw running redlights, only outlaws will run redlights."

Which brings me to another point. What lured me here to what at first seemed to be a thoughtful forum on the subject was this notion of reason. That's the lingo here. But I saw that a fair number new threads were based on really odd notions of logic and rationality, and essentially followed the same old pattern of making up and shooting down some extreme "anti-gun" premise such as "Why 'they' all think we're bloodthirsty lunatics'" and shooting (so to speak) it down. The notion always seems to be that the "other side" is irrational, uninformed, and absolutist. Some elements surely are.

But I posit that the more extreme, less rational, and more absolute positions we routinely see in the national debate are pro-gun. So who needs to move toward the middle?

One of the several who pounced firmly on my balls here -- someone styling themselves after a righteous patriot pamphleteer, if I recall -- was outraged that I mentioned the word "vigilantism," in response to another post. It's a "pet peeve" when people equate "self-defense" with vigilantism. Fair enough, but I didn't do that. I responded to someone waxing fondly about the benefits of criminals being shot on the street, a view I recognized as legitimate opinion, but not one I agreed with.

What I read out of that was this insistence that vigilantism is not part of the pro-gun platform. But it is. We know this. Not among the reasonable, no. But even in this thread and this forum, it's a factor, and it's not that uncommon or way out on the fringes. So how is it honest to pretend it doesn't exist?

How is it honest to pretend that gun control advocates are all anti-Second Amendment extremists plagued by irrational assertions, when the pro-gun movement gets behind a law that says no one has a duty to avoid killing someone threatening them, even if they can do so safely?

Where's the give-and-take? Where' the acknowledgement that gun control laws are even needed? Because the typical official pro-gun position is that ANY legislation is crazed extremism. How is that not an extreme position in itself?

If you're truly interested in reasonable debate (and some aren't, which is also fine) you have to acknowledge your own absolutists or extremists or crazies while you're calling out the other side's. The pro-gun movement's absolutists are more visible, more vocal, and FAR more successful. Not only isn't the Second Amendment in danger, we can't agree that an employer can ban firearms from his own premises.

For example, the lobbies. What "reasonable" gun restrictions do the gun lobbies endorse? If a rational debate is the goal, and crazed "antis" are the problem, what does the platform of what "rational" gun control consist of? Because the most visible pro-gun voices are people like Nugent's hateful liberal baiting and claim to the right to blast bunnies with machine guns.

It's easy to dismiss the other side as irrational, lunatic absolutists, but if you won't talk to the moderates, or want to stick to bumper sticker fallacies that just boil down to "Any gun law is a bad gun law," you're just talking to yourself.

Again, thanks to the several polite and thoughtful posters here.

[friendly_iconoclast]

144. A few points in reply

1) Both supporters and detractors have used illogic and overheated rhetoric. discussing this. Yes, we have galaxy-class assholes like Ted Nugent supporting these laws. And frankly, there have been some real nutbars (not you, BTW) opposing them as well.

Rhetoric from both camps aside, these stand-your-ground laws have not legalized vigilantism in states where they apply.
They haven't in Florida or California, to give two of the largest states where they apply.

2) There's no need for give-and-take because, frankly, we're winning. Gun control proponents had a good 25 years after the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968 to show how gun control was going to work- and they failed.

They totally overreached themselves with the so-called Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 (which attempted to fix a problem that didn't exist, and banned such marginal items as flash hiders and bayonet mounts). It didn't work, and more importantly
was seen not to work. The result: The steady rollback of gun control laws and increased gun ownsership all while
the rates of violent crime and murder declined.

That fact alone made those who had said that "more guns equals more crime" look utterly clueless. Which leads to my last point:

3) Gun control proponents are by and large inept at practical politics. Other than some of the more militant Marxists of my acquaintance, as a group gun controllers are the most ham-handed interest groups as far as getting laws passed

[GreenStormCloud]

132. Rebuttal

It's a self-defense law. Guns are not always at issue.
Granted, but usually the self-defense weapon will be a gun.

Guns may be at issue anyway. Self-defense law applies where you use a gun, whether you're legally carrying it or not. At home, at work, in the car, people have guns, knives, etc. You cannnot reasonably argue that this law applies exclusively to CCW people.

You missed the point completely. To carry a weapon in public, in most states, requires a CCW. A person who is illegally carrying, even if the self-defense is lawful may still be subject to prosecutation for illegally carrying a concealed weapon. Since law-abiding people don't carry illegally (As a general rule.)they will be disarmed before the criminal and won't be resisting with a weapon, unless it is an improvised one.

...questionable statistics compiled by the gun lobby...
You have already been told that TX & FL publish online complete stats on CCW people. It is unreasonable for you to call them NRA cherr-picked stats.

Nothing about getting a concealed carry permit guarantees superior judgment or behavior.
Nor have I claimed that it is a guarantee. That is your word, not mine. I have claimed that the probabilities are strongly in our favor.

Obviously an idiot is going to want to carry a gun just as much as a responsible person. More, probably. Yes?
He may want to, but the screening process is likely to weed him out and deny him the permit.

The process is not 100%. Some people will become licensed who shouldn't be, just as some people will become lawyers who shouldn't be.

[friendly_iconoclast]

122. I seem to have missed where it was said "CCW holders don't commit crimes"

You have a citation for that? You are undoubtedly familiar with those in your line of work: "And I'm a lawyer." (post #46)

[cowman]

124. But your the one

who made the claim that CCW holders committed many murders but you haven't provided any evidence at all of this. None of us have EVER said that no CCW holders have committed crimes, what we've said is that the vast majority of CCW holders are law abiding citizens

[DissedByBush]

140. It's more of a legal safety net

Most people will retreat when given the chance.

Any self defense class I've been in, including for guns, says avoidance is the best tactic.

This law keeps the authorities from being able to second-guess what happened during an encounter.

The DA wasn't there, he didn't see what happened, he doesn't know your state of mind, but he can ruin your life simply by taking the position that you could have run away safely.

If he's a Brady Bunch supporter, you're pretty much screwed even if you honestly thought you had no chance.

Then you're going to jail if you're poor, but you'll be fine if you're rich enough to afford a good attorney.

[DissedByBush]

136. This should have been sponsored by a Democrat

Quit letting the Thugs own the gun rights issue!