|
0 members (),
6
guests, and
0
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums59
Topics17,128
Posts314,541
Members6,305
| |
Most Online294
Dec 6th, 2017
|
|
|
There are no members with birthdays on this day. |
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010
Pooh-Bah
|
OP
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010 |
Those of you who have posted here for some time know I support gun ownership and possession. My view is similar. I think there is a general right to own guns, even though I personally prefer to avoid them as much as possible. I get no pleasure from having the gov. Intrude unnecessarily into people's lives. OTOH I feel the Florida version of SYG is not good law. FWIW, I noticed that North Dakota was among the states that require a person with a gun to avoid using it if possible. I have relatives in ND, and can tell you that they are very strong supporters of the right to bear arms and avoid government intrusion. And they seem to get along fine without SYG. So I guess I am not clear on why that law is required.
"It's not a lie if you believe it." -- George Costanza
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves. --Bertrand Russel
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 201
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 201 |
Zimmerman also had lots of opportunity to consider his action... The dispatcher told him not to pursue, the program he was working for trained him not to do what he did. I absolutely agree that Zimmerman should have dropped his surveillance/stalking and went his own way, but the fact is it was not illegal but beating on someone is. The guy in the parking lot was not in the midst of emotion, but he was concerned for the safety of a friend. He went to help a friend... which he was entitled to do. Absolutely he can go help his friends, but there is no indication in the article that his friend needed any help The article states they were separated. He was surrounded by a mob and attacked, and he defended himself with non lethal force. Actually he used lethal force, it just wasn't lethal, and apparently the LEOs, the prosecutor nor the jury believed it was justified. Regards, "C.J."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 201
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 201 |
I appreciate the detailed and reasoned approach you've taken to the question, CJ,even if I find several of your conclusions/assertions fundamentally erroneous. I tend to agree with PiA's conclusion that 'stand your ground' laws are legally and logically flawed and based upon untenable premises. I’ll combine it to legally logical and say that SYG laws are generally constructed with two things in mind. 1) To protect the Justified and 2) Not provide an excuse for someone who unjustifiably uses deadly force. When PiA stated “There is no logical way to decide if any Stand Your Ground claim is justified or not, so juries just go with their impressions and prejudices regarding the parties they see in court”, I believe he may not have considered that this applies to almost all criminal laws. One of the assertions, that the Airman was not permitted to possess the firearm where he was when he fired is not borne out by the available information. He was in the parking lot when he was attacked, not in the bar. That’s one conclusion which can be reached from the article. It states the attacker was walking around the parking lot pacing with his fists clenched and then “leapfrogged” from the crowd. Not knowing where Giles was from the article I can’t say where he “leapfrogged” to. I guess I did stray from the article knowing that the statute states “any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises. I would believe the parking lot is on the premises. In fairness though if there is part of the premises not used primarily for the serving of alcohol (Such as a restaurant) that would not be included. There is no indication that he was, in any way, the 'aggressor' - as Zimmerman clearly was. I did not suggest he was the aggressor (Zimmerman jury said he wasn’t), but merely not being the aggressor does not necessarily provide cover under Florida’s SYG law. Further, you asserted that Blacks disproportionately use the stand your ground law in Florida, and disproportionately effectively. I am not aware of any factual basis to make that assertion, so some evidence would be appreciated. . I assume the analysis of the Tampa Bay Times data by the Daily Caller is not valid because the DC is considered “conservative”. If this is the case I know of no studies, nor do I have the resources to perform a study. I’ll leave it to you to accept or reject, and if you locate a study I would appreciate the info. Finally, I think the assertion that Florida's law is not a gun law is disingenuous. If you were aware of how it came to pass (as NRA sponsored legislation) it cannot be made in good faith. Crafty wording does not change its application, which is - to my knowledge exclusively applied to firearms, although you are correct that it applies to 'deadly force' generally, that definition - overwhelmingly - means 'firearms' not clubs, knives, sticks or stones. Actually I do know and disingenuous or not it is still fact. My point (And I admit it was subtle) was that regardless of the manner of Deadly Force used, Giles’s outcome would have likely been the same. Regards, "C.J."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010
Pooh-Bah
|
|
OP
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010 |
when you say 46 states, that sounds to me suspiciously like a talking point imported from someone else Ardy notice I stated "some variant" of SYG laws which are a basic extension of Castle laws, as are carjacker laws etc. Regards, "C.J." And cj pls note I already addressed the term variant and the fact that extending the castle doctrine outside the castle essentially makes it entirely different and not an extension but entirely new legal concept and is therefore a distortion when described as a variant  It is like saying let's pretend that where ever I am I can act like I am in my castle
Last edited by Ardy; 12/21/13 02:50 AM.
"It's not a lie if you believe it." -- George Costanza
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves. --Bertrand Russel
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010
Pooh-Bah
|
|
OP
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010 |
In reflecting back on all of this discussion
It seems to me that the center of dispute is whether to emphasize rights or responsibilities.
IMO the syg laws are rights based. I have the right not to retreat if I am doing nothing wrong
The opposing view is approximately that guns have such inherent risk of lethality that the person with a gun has the obligation to use every reasonable alternative to avoid this ultimate resort to potentially lethal violence
I have tried to say it fairly as I understand the issue
"It's not a lie if you believe it." -- George Costanza
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves. --Bertrand Russel
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191 |
I would not identify anything the Daily Caller produced as 'conservative.' It is a radical propaganda outlet, no more. Nor would I describe anything they produced as 'analysis.' Generously:Spin; accurately: prevarication, lies... yes. Analysis? Not likely. Moreover, I have no idea what reference is being made since links to neither the DC 'analysis,' nor Tampa Bay Times 'data' were provided.
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.
Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 201
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 201 |
And cj pls note I already addressed the term variant and the fact that extending the castle doctrine outside the castle essentially makes it entirely different and not an extension but entirely new legal concept and is therefore a distortion when described as a variant I don't see anywhere in this thread where you mentioned variant, but you did inquire about the 46 states and "variant of..." was/is my response. It is like saying let's pretend that where ever I am I can act like I am in my castle No it's more like saying regardless of where I am (Not just my home) I have the right of defense of myself or others even if the situation warrants deadly force without fear of prosecution or lawsuits. They basically remove any duty to retreat. They are related and are in the same chapter in the Florida code. From Wikipedia "Forty-six states in the United States have adopted the castle doctrine, that a person has no duty to retreat whatsoever when their home is attacked.[1][2] Twenty-two states go a step further,[3] removing the duty of retreat from other locations outside the home. Such "stand your ground", "Line in the Sand" or "No Duty to Retreat" laws" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law It's not a new concept! Regards, "C.J."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 201
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 201 |
I would not identify anything the Daily Caller produced as 'conservative.' It is a radical propaganda outlet, no more. Nor would I describe anything they produced as 'analysis.' Generously:Spin; accurately: prevarication, lies... yes. Analysis? Not likely. Moreover, I have no idea what reference is being made since links to neither the DC 'analysis,' nor Tampa Bay Times 'data' were provided. I know nothing of them, actually I thought them just a newspaper. My bad! Both links show up for me. here they are Tampa Bay SYG Daily Caller Regards, "C.J."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 201
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 201 |
[/quote] In reflecting back on all of this discussion It seems to me that the center of dispute is whether to emphasize rights or responsibilities. [/quote] I would believe we need to emphasize both equally. IMO the syg laws are rights based. I have the right not to retreat if I am doing nothing wrong Without getting too deep, that’s correct. The opposing view is approximately that guns have such inherent risk of lethality that the person with a gun has the obligation to use every reasonable alternative to avoid this ultimate resort to potentially lethal violence I would hope so. I have tried to say it fairly as I understand the issue I thought you did well. Regards, “C.J.”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010
Pooh-Bah
|
|
OP
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010 |
And cj pls note I already addressed the term variant and the fact that extending the castle doctrine outside the castle essentially makes it entirely different and not an extension but entirely new legal concept and is therefore a distortion when described as a variant I don't see anywhere in this thread where you mentioned variant, So here is a cut and paste It seems to me that you are using distorted facts here. Unless you hang your hat on the weasel word "variant" oNCE YOU INCLUDE THAT WORD, i GUESS YOU CAN INCLUDE A LOT of really diverse laws with significant variation. Sort of like Sort of like saying the Democratic people's republic of xyz is a variant of democracy because it includes the word democracy in its national name.
"It's not a lie if you believe it." -- George Costanza
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves. --Bertrand Russel
|
|
|
|
|
