The standard is not "I feel threatened" but Reasonably Believe. If one Reasonably Believes he is in danger of death or great bodily harm, he may use deadly force. Police are protected by the Reasonably Believes standard several hundred times per year. Police are protected by this standard every time they harm someone with a B.B. gun, fake gun, or imagined gun or weapon. The reason the standard is Reasonably Believes, is because without it, police would never be able to prove that they were in danger of death or great bodily harm when someone points a fake gun at them.
You anti rights crowd want to portray the Stand Your Ground law as a "shoot first" or "Kill at Will" law and that's not the case. The Stand Your Ground law provides few protections for a person protecting himself. First, it removes any duty to retreat. With a legal requirement to retreat, the question remains, how far does one retreat? Do you retreat until you are exhausted and can no longer defend yourself or on the verge of a heart attack? Do you retreat until you reasonably believe that you can no longer retreat? How fast do you retreat? Is retreating simply walking away from a threat or running? With stand your ground, these questions are removed from the victim and jury.
The next protection is keeping the victim out of jail during an investigation. The antis' position is that no person has ever been convicted of justified homicide. This is true, because justified homicide is not a violation of the law. The question is, how many people have been locked up waiting for trial that have been found not guilty of homicide or where the DA has decided not to prosecute.
The third protection is that of civil immunity. If a person is found to have acted in self defense, within the law, why then, should they be subject to a civil trial? There are no constitutional grantees of council in civil court. While one party may have the financial backing of an interested group, the other party may not and be left without the means to defend himself in court.
Since Stand Your Ground laws have been passed, violent crime has declined. whether or not the laws have any affect on crime is anyone's guess. While the Stand Your Ground laws are open for abuse, one can't discount the effectiveness of investigative work. It's not as simple as "I felt threatened" and a person that takes another person's life is let go, it's the totality of the entire situation and the evidence available to investigators.
mikeb, there is no doubt in my mind that the law has been abused to commit a criminal act and self defense has been falsely claimed. There was a recent news story about there being 380 or so justified homicide cases in FL since 2005 and 60 something of them resulted in prosecution and conviction. As far as a murderer disguising a murder as self defense, there's no way to know that same murderer would not have disguised his murder as an accident or concealed it in some other way. Why punish the law abiding because of the law breakers? Why tell a criminal it's ok to go rob people and not worry if his life will be in danger. Committing a violent crime should be the most dangerous act a person performs and the criminal should reasonably believe that he'll get shot or killed in the process.
MikeB: "Bill, do you mean that's NEVER the case? Do you mean it is never ever misused? Do you think not one so-called DGU was ever murder disquised?"
Do you mean that self-defense laws without a "stand your ground" clause is never ever misused? Are these "so-called DGUs" only because of SYG? If not, what is your solution for those cases?
"I call the cartoon an obvious misunderstanding of the law, among many other things."
Well, Greg Camp, of course you would. Otherwise it makes the truth, that the law is used, as an excuse by cowards, to justify killing people who are NOT a threat to them.
Bill Baldwin;
"The standard is not "I feel threatened" but Reasonably Believe. If one Reasonably Believes he is in danger of death or great bodily harm, he may use deadly force. Police are protected by the Reasonably Believes standard several hundred times per year. Police are protected by this standard every time they harm someone with a B.B. gun, fake gun, or imagined gun or weapon."
Making assertions without any citations to supporting data is the standards for gunzloonz.
Do you happen to have some proof of that wildass statement? Get back to me with it and we'll see if it holds water. Till then, it's bullshit.
"You anti rights crowd want to portray the Stand Your Ground law as a "shoot first" or "Kill at Will" law and that's not the case."
We ar not anti-rights, chum; we're anti-fuckheadzwittehgunz killing people, either out of their fear or to bolster their own self-image. When you and the rest of your gunzloonzpalz stop telling baldfaced lies and misrepresenting people who want some reasonable controls placed on the possession and use of firearms as "anti-right", well, the conversation will not be fruitful. If, of course, your only purpose is to regurgitate the talking points, spoonfed to you by the NRA and the KKKrazzeepants Type 2A's out there on the firing range that they dream of hte U.S. becoming? in that case you're succeeding beyond your wildest dreams. Unfortunately, idiotz like George Zimmerman don't buff up the image of "An armed and polite society".
Actually, billy, having read the rest of your screed, I'm gonna have to place you in the same category as Greg Camp,TS,Red Aztec,mikew and Weer'd Beard. You're all G1C (Gunzloonz 1st Class) for whom the only tool for dealing with a dispute that makes you uncomfortable is a gun--cuz, y'now, if you're uncomfortable, then somebody's threatening you.
The real test case for "Stand your ground" will be when a fat white man, chasin' oneathem hoodiedgansta types, suffers a fatal coronary infarct and his widow successfully sues the blackoperp for the "wrongful death" of her SLAGOWWABTM*.
* Sometimes Law Abiding Gun Owner Who Weighed A Bit Too Much
I call the cartoon an obvious misunderstanding of the law, among many other things.
ReplyDeleteThe standard is not "I feel threatened" but Reasonably Believe. If one Reasonably Believes he is in danger of death or great bodily harm, he may use deadly force. Police are protected by the Reasonably Believes standard several hundred times per year. Police are protected by this standard every time they harm someone with a B.B. gun, fake gun, or imagined gun or weapon. The reason the standard is Reasonably Believes, is because without it, police would never be able to prove that they were in danger of death or great bodily harm when someone points a fake gun at them.
ReplyDeleteYou anti rights crowd want to portray the Stand Your Ground law as a "shoot first" or "Kill at Will" law and that's not the case. The Stand Your Ground law provides few protections for a person protecting himself. First, it removes any duty to retreat. With a legal requirement to retreat, the question remains, how far does one retreat? Do you retreat until you are exhausted and can no longer defend yourself or on the verge of a heart attack? Do you retreat until you reasonably believe that you can no longer retreat? How fast do you retreat? Is retreating simply walking away from a threat or running? With stand your ground, these questions are removed from the victim and jury.
The next protection is keeping the victim out of jail during an investigation. The antis' position is that no person has ever been convicted of justified homicide. This is true, because justified homicide is not a violation of the law. The question is, how many people have been locked up waiting for trial that have been found not guilty of homicide or where the DA has decided not to prosecute.
The third protection is that of civil immunity. If a person is found to have acted in self defense, within the law, why then, should they be subject to a civil trial? There are no constitutional grantees of council in civil court. While one party may have the financial backing of an interested group, the other party may not and be left without the means to defend himself in court.
Since Stand Your Ground laws have been passed, violent crime has declined. whether or not the laws have any affect on crime is anyone's guess. While the Stand Your Ground laws are open for abuse, one can't discount the effectiveness of investigative work. It's not as simple as "I felt threatened" and a person that takes another person's life is let go, it's the totality of the entire situation and the evidence available to investigators.
"You anti rights crowd want to portray the Stand Your Ground law as a "shoot first" or "Kill at Will" law and that's not the case."
ReplyDeleteBill, do you mean that's NEVER the case? Do you mean it is never ever misused? Do you think not one so-called DGU was ever murder disquised?
mikeb, there is no doubt in my mind that the law has been abused to commit a criminal act and self defense has been falsely claimed. There was a recent news story about there being 380 or so justified homicide cases in FL since 2005 and 60 something of them resulted in prosecution and conviction. As far as a murderer disguising a murder as self defense, there's no way to know that same murderer would not have disguised his murder as an accident or concealed it in some other way. Why punish the law abiding because of the law breakers? Why tell a criminal it's ok to go rob people and not worry if his life will be in danger. Committing a violent crime should be the most dangerous act a person performs and the criminal should reasonably believe that he'll get shot or killed in the process.
DeleteMikeB: "Bill, do you mean that's NEVER the case? Do you mean it is never ever misused? Do you think not one so-called DGU was ever murder disquised?"
DeleteDo you mean that self-defense laws without a "stand your ground" clause is never ever misused? Are these "so-called DGUs" only because of SYG? If not, what is your solution for those cases?
"I call the cartoon an obvious misunderstanding of the law, among many other things."
ReplyDeleteWell, Greg Camp, of course you would. Otherwise it makes the truth, that the law is used, as an excuse by cowards, to justify killing people who are NOT a threat to them.
Bill Baldwin;
"The standard is not "I feel threatened" but Reasonably Believe. If one Reasonably Believes he is in danger of death or great bodily harm, he may use deadly force. Police are protected by the Reasonably Believes standard several hundred times per year. Police are protected by this standard every time they harm someone with a B.B. gun, fake gun, or imagined gun or weapon."
Making assertions without any citations to supporting data is the standards for gunzloonz.
Do you happen to have some proof of that wildass statement? Get back to me with it and we'll see if it holds water. Till then, it's bullshit.
"You anti rights crowd want to portray the Stand Your Ground law as a "shoot first" or "Kill at Will" law and that's not the case."
We ar not anti-rights, chum; we're anti-fuckheadzwittehgunz killing people, either out of their fear or to bolster their own self-image. When you and the rest of your gunzloonzpalz stop telling baldfaced lies and misrepresenting people who want some reasonable controls placed on the possession and use of firearms as "anti-right", well, the conversation will not be fruitful. If, of course, your only purpose is to regurgitate the talking points, spoonfed to you by the NRA and the KKKrazzeepants Type 2A's out there on the firing range that they dream of hte U.S. becoming? in that case you're succeeding beyond your wildest dreams. Unfortunately, idiotz like George Zimmerman don't buff up the image of "An armed and polite society".
Actually, billy, having read the rest of your screed, I'm gonna have to place you in the same category as Greg Camp,TS,Red Aztec,mikew and Weer'd Beard. You're all G1C (Gunzloonz 1st Class) for whom the only tool for dealing with a dispute that makes you uncomfortable is a gun--cuz, y'now, if you're uncomfortable, then somebody's threatening you.
The real test case for "Stand your ground" will be when a fat white man, chasin' oneathem hoodiedgansta types, suffers a fatal coronary infarct and his widow successfully sues the blackoperp for the "wrongful death" of her SLAGOWWABTM*.
ReplyDelete* Sometimes Law Abiding Gun Owner Who Weighed A Bit Too Much