The fine line between self-defense and murder...

[orangecrush]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/29/us/stand-your-ground/?hpt=ju_t3

[mk_378]

He felt his options were to run over a dog (not even his dog) or shoot a man. "Stand your ground" makes that decision easy.

 

This has to end. Now. Even in Wack States like Florida and Arizona.

Edited May 1, 2012 by mk_378

[cljohnr]

It's not difficult to hand pick four cases over an 8 year period. How many cases could we find where a citizen was hurt or killed in areas where they couldn't legally carry a gun? How about this year alone, in one city?

 

http://homicides.redeyechicago.com/

 

4 counter examples from the past month, found quickly. These are covered by stand you ground, but not castle doctrine:

http://www.wfmj.com/story/17665167/ga-granny-thwarts-2-would-be-robbers-in-shootout

http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top_stories/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx

http://www.examiner.com/article/concealed-carry-permit-holder-stops-violent-attackers

http://www.goupstate.com/article/20120325/ARTICLES/120329781/1112?template=printart

[sirrowan]

This guy obviously should not have shot the kid. He WAS trigger happy.

 

What I don't like about all of this is that I foresee this as being used to take our constitutional right to bear arms. It's just a matter of time.

 

Some people shouldn't be allowed to carry guns......

 

And my heart goes out to his family.

[mk_378]

4 counter examples from the past month, found quickly. These are covered by stand you ground, but not castle doctrine:

http://www.wfmj.com/story/17665167/ga-granny-thwarts-2-would-be-robbers-in-shootout

http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top_stories/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx

http://www.examiner.com/article/concealed-carry-permit-holder-stops-violent-attackers

http://www.goupstate.com/article/20120325/ARTICLES/120329781/1112?template=printart

In 3 of those 4 cases, the attacker was clearly armed with hostile intent. One had already fired his gun at the victim, and the store stabber had just attacked someone else, making both of them "armed and dangerous" and basically fair game for anyone. In the fourth case, three apparent robbers ganged up on one and assaulted him.

 

In all of those, I'm confident that the hundreds of years old "self defense" doctrine would be adequate for the shooter to avoid prosecution. "Stand Your Ground" goes way too far. A man killed in the street by a stranger deserves some slight benefit of the doubt. It can't be based just on the feelings of the guy who killed him.

 

The media does not report on the thousands of airline flights that land safely every day. All the attention is rightly directed on the one that crashes. It is that case that demands special attention and possibly corrective action.

Edited May 2, 2012 by mk_378

[Tigz]

I agree wholeheartedly with mk_378. These laws need to be abolished, and quickly.

I don't know of a single state that doesn't allow for self defense. But I think that self defense needs to be proven, and that needs to be proven in a court of law. Or at very least some sort of tribunal or grand jury needs to weigh in all the facts before deciding on whether it justifiable or excusable.

 

You know, a cop can't kill someone without it going through extensive investigation, both internally and by the SAO (and sometimes by grand jury)....so how come civilians get free ride by saying "oh, dear, my knees were knocking and I was afraid for my life".

[Echo_X]

Every time I click on an OC thread, I see that blowup mandoll before anything else.

[cljohnr]

In 3 of those 4 cases, the attacker was clearly armed with hostile intent. One had already fired his gun at the victim, and the store stabber had just attacked someone else, making both of them "armed and dangerous" and basically fair game for anyone. In the fourth case, three apparent robbers ganged up on one and assaulted him.

 

In all of those, I'm confident that the hundreds of years old "self defense" doctrine would be adequate for the shooter to avoid prosecution. "Stand Your Ground" goes way too far. A man killed in the street by a stranger deserves some slight benefit of the doubt. It can't be based just on the feelings of the guy who killed him.

That's not necessarily true. Stand your ground law largely replaced duty to retreat statutes. Many areas required you to run away if you possibly could. You're also ignoring another important part of stand you grounds laws, which is immunity from civil liability.

 

The media does not report on the thousands of airline flights that land safely every day. All the attention is rightly directed on the one that crashes. It is that case that demands special attention and possibly corrective action.

That analogy would only work if people tried to ban airline flights based on the small minority of crashes.

[mk_378]

That analogy would only work if people tried to ban airline flights based on the small minority of crashes.

You're making a big assumption. I'm not in favor of banning guns. This isn't about guns.

 

This is about innocent people being killed by whatever means and the killers walking without even a real investigation (because such investigation is now prohibited by law). It is like a law that gives the airline immunity from civil suits when a plane runs out of fuel and crashes-- even if they didn't check the fuel before taking off, they just had a feeling that there was enough.

 

See that's not about banning airplanes either, it's about using them responsibly and having consequences when you don't.

 

Any law can be passed. In the height of flag-burning mania, one town tried to reduce the penalty for assault to a nominal $25 fine, if the victim happened to be burning a flag at the time. That law was not ethical and didn't last, neither should this one.

Edited May 2, 2012 by mk_378

[Tigz]

It should have to be proven in a court of law that it was honest-to-god self defense before civil liability can be waived.

 

We don't live in the freaking Old West. (and even the old west wasn't the old west as we perceive it)

 

And yes, people SHOULD retreat if there is a chance to do so safely. (I'm not talking about castle doctrine, I am talking about out on a public street where the other person also has the RIGHT to be)

 

Some people have just watched too many John Wayne movies.

[cljohnr]

This is about innocent people being killed by whatever means and the killers walking without even a real investigation (because such investigation is now prohibited by law).

That's simply not true. The laws have nothing to do with investigations.

[RAguy]

What I don't like about all of this is that I foresee this as being used to take our constitutional right to bear arms. It's just a matter of time.

 

Absolutely right....

 

This is about innocent people being killed by whatever means and the killers walking without even a real investigation (because such investigation is now prohibited by law).

That's simply not true. The laws have nothing to do with investigations.

 

QFT!