Revive sensible gun laws in US

[SecularMotion]

Commentary: Emmett Till’s death inspired Rosa Parks a few months later to refuse to give up her seat to a white man on a segregated bus.

Supporters of the protests that followed the suspicious death of Trayvon Martin are raising a good question: What next?

Many have compared the shooting of the 17-year-old to the brutal 1955 murder of Emmett Till, the black Chicago teen who was murdered in Mississippi for allegedly whistling at a white woman.

----snip----

If the Trayvon Martin protesters are looking for a similar channel for their anger and energies, they have a perfectly appropriate target in “Stand Your Ground” laws.

http://www.timesdaily.com/stories/Revive-sensible-gun-laws-in-US,189746

[gejohnston]

1. SYG has nothing to do with gun laws

in fact, there was a SYG case involving a knife. SYG is a use of force concerning self defense law. It does not have a thing to do with Emmett Till.
The article is simply an example of some dimwit scribbling about subjects that they neither know or understand anything about.

[SecularMotion]

3. SYG = Shoot Your Gun

"SYG is a use of force concerning self defense law."

and guns are the number #1 choice for self defense.

[gejohnston]

7. SYG has nothing to do with Zimmerman

because it does not apply. It is either murder, or a clear case of self defense.
If Zimmerman was in fact getting his head pounded in the sidewalk by Martin, the shooting would have been justifiable under Duty to Retreat also. So, not only is your point invalid, it is not even a point.

[SecularMotion]

13. You can't start the fight and then claim self-defense.

[GreenStormCloud]

14. Actually, you can. Here is how it works.

You start the fight.

You attempt to quit the fight.

The other person won't let you quit and continues to beat you.

You are now the defender. Yes, you can use deadly force if the other guy's force is deadly.

[SecularMotion]

16. Is there a legal case to support that?

[GreenStormCloud]

26. Yes, lots of it.

It is standard self-defense law and is taught in deadly force classes. You are not allowed to pursue an attacker who is trying to retreat. If he is trying to retreat and you pursue then YOU are now the attacker. You have to let him retreat if he tries to.

[SecularMotion]

27. I asked for a specific case

Do you know of one?

[GreenStormCloud]

37. I'm not a lawyer.

My knowledge comes from state certified classes that I have taken and self-defense books.

I will try to google and see what I can come up with.

[gejohnston]

17. is there evidence that Zimmerman started a fight?

Speculation, yeah. But following and starting a fight are two different things.

[SecularMotion]

18. He confronted Trayvon without any legal authority to do so.

[gejohnston]

21. what evidence do you have of that?

define "legal authority".
Were you there?

[AH1Apache]

23. Don't mistake me for defending Zimmerman

but what is this legal authority to do so you speak of?
A citizen doesn't need a legal authority to confront someone else.

[SecularMotion]

30. There's a thin line between "confront" and "looking for a fight"

[gejohnston]

33. you are assuming facts not in evidence

like the media did.

[Spoonman]

41. WRONG!

Please feel free to cite the law regarding "legal authority" to confront a person in public.

I'll save you the time, THERE IS NO SUCH LAW!

I have the legal right to approach, follow, or question anyone in public.
I may be simply acting like an asshole, or being a dick about things, but you break no law by simply asking a person "what are you doing in my neighborhood".
I could walk up to someone and ask "why are you such an idiot", or "why do you dress like a cheap whore" or even "are you soliciting prostitution in my neighborhood"?

There are THOUSANDS of examples of ordinary citizens "legally confronting" other individuals in an effort to rid their neighborhoods of drug dealers and prostitutes.

YOU do not know what happened that night, so don't cast uneducated judgment and bullshit "legal expertise" opinion to justify your soup du jour stance.

Climb down off the bandwagon of ignorance and lighten it's load!

[rl6214]

57. Confronting could be yelling at him from 20 yards aay

Is that what you call starting a fight?

[rl6214]

56. If indeed zimmerman was returning to his car when confronted by Martin and

was then having his head pounded into the ground by Martin, I don't see it as starting the fight.

[Common Sense Party]

59. Even if he wasn't returning to his car, I don't see how that, in and of itself,

constitutes "starting a fight." He's part of a neighborhood watch, he thinks a kid might be up to no good, he called the cops, and he was trying to see where the kid had gone so he can direct the cops to where he is. Up to this point, he has committed no crime.

Now, what happened AFTER that point, up until the gunshot, is a matter of great dispute and those few moments are going to determine if Zimmerman is guilty of murder or not.

[ileus]

28. I recommed Aikido

[SecularMotion]

29. It's too bad the gun nuts don't agree

[gejohnston]

32. and for those of us who are not in our

early 20s and athletic? Survival of the fittest? Oh yeah, you don't get his humor.

[ileus]

44. we have adult class....

And what a sorry bunch we are...bad backs, knees and everything else. The good thing about aikido is there are no kicks, punches or jumps. The bad thing is like everything else you do need woke balance and reflexes...and speed doesn't hurt.

Knowing I couldn't stack up against a younger,faster, stronger person I will continue to carry my personal safety device and hope I'm never put into a situation where I have use it.

[rrneck]

35. My natural fighting skills can beat your aikaido. nt

[ileus]

40. That's why I carry my PSD...just in case.

You never know what you're going to run up against.

However for a purely self defense martial art, Hikido is pretty good. Couple that with weapons training (Jo & sword) and a fine firearm I feel comfortable against most threats.

But we must maintain our rights to protect ourselves or it's all for nothing.

[rrneck]

43. I agree.

Just stirring up shit with old gungeon tropes. Remember "natural fighting skills"?. Its right up there with the guy with an AK from Moscow Idaho.

[ileus]

45. maybe remove my front wheel from my bike....

[AH1Apache]

2. Won't happen.

Gun control advocates couldn't do anything after Columbine, VT, Gabriel Giffords, as a matter of fact, various states have enacted appox 20 pro gun laws since the first of the year.

I see no problem with FL's SYG law that a little tweaking won't fix.


Bottom line, there is very little appetite for more gun control in this country.

[SecularMotion]

4. NRA talking points

[GreenStormCloud]

6. Calling something a "talking point" is not a rebuttal.

When you do that you are simply running away from the discussion. Like covering your ears and yelling, "I can't hear you."

[AH1Apache]

8. NRA talking points?

Really? That's all you got?
Why don't you try refuting what I posted instead of immediately dismissing it as NRA talking points?
So what did I post that was inaccurate?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

31. refuting???

Come now, anything characterized as an "NRA talking point" is antithetical to anything Democratic. If you have to ask what was inaccurate, it is obvious that you are sufficiently lacking in humanity as to be ineligible for membership in the Democratic Party.

Or at least what some here want the Democratic Party to be.

[Starboard Tack]

19. "I see no problem with FL's SYG law that a little tweaking won't fix. "

What tweaks would you suggest?

[AH1Apache]

24. I'll leave that to the FL. legislatures

I know that sounds like a cop out but my background is flying helicopters not the law, but respectfully, and no snark intended, I would like to hear your take on it.

[Starboard Tack]

34. My take on it

My main problem is with this

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and 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 or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

The highlighted part is disturbing, because it is both vague and reliant on the survivor's version of events, barring third party testimony and other exculpatory evidence. That's why Zimmerman should stand trial and a jury should decide his fate. He is using SYG as his defense. I believe the SYG law gave him the confidence to carry a gun and pursue anyone he considered suspicious and if pursued and provoked that individual into a physical confrontation, he could always pull out his gun and shoot him.

When it comes to defense of the home (castle), I have far less of a problem, though I would always recommend a safe retreat if possible, rather than a duty to retreat. I was raised in a culture (UK) where the home is sacred, "an Englishman's home is his castle" and all that. However, what was also instilled in me was a sense of justice and fairness, which translates into never using more force, in defending oneself (and/or castle) than is absolutely necessary.
So lethal force is only justifiable as an absolute last resort.

[Atypical Liberal]

36. If you are going to make every self-defense case a court case...

If you are not going to rely on citizens' judgement of whether or not they reasonably believed they were in danger, then you are basically going to make every self-defense case involving deadly force go to court so that a judge and/or jury can decide whether or not the deadly force was justified.

Stand Your Ground laws were intended to prevent people who lawfully use deadly force from running the legal gauntlet of criminal and civil cases against them that will cost tens of thousands of dollars to defend against.

If you are going to force every self-defense case to run that gauntlet, then I think the taxpayers should pick up the legal fees if the person is found not guilty.

[spin]

58. You propose a fair solution when you say ...

If you are going to force every self-defense case to run that gauntlet, then I think the taxpayers should pick up the legal fees if the person is found not guilty.

[gejohnston]

42. I'm not a lawyer and I have not stayed in a Holiday Inn Express

but I think that is based on the "reasonable man" standard.

[AH1Apache]

49. Good post

You make some very valid points and have given me food for thought.
Thanks for the reasoned reply, like I said, my speciality is flying helo's, not law.

[sarisataka]

53. We do seem to learn more

when we are civil and share viewpoints.

Although polar opposite to Starboard Tack on carrying I agree with the point made. It seems the wording removes the -reasonable- requirement that the threat is imminent and instead reduces it to a subjective belief of what may happen. That can lead to a person 'jumping the gun' (sorry- couldn't resist)

If we are to support our rights, we need laws that hold us to our responsibilities.

[AH1Apache]

54. I agree

but unfortunately, their are certain posters here, and you and I know who they are, that just refuse to be civil or have an intelligent debate. ST usually has reasoned and intelligent points which I respect even though I usually disagree.

[GreenStormCloud]

5. Most states do have sensible gun laws.

And they are getting better all the time as stuid restrictions are lifted. What is sensible about guns laws that do nothing to restrict the criminals but only hinder the law-abiding?

[SecularMotion]

9. The National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012 aims to weaken any sensible state laws

and force any state to allow carriers from out of state that would not qualify to carry under that state's laws.

[AH1Apache]

11. I believe

you would still have to follow that states firearms laws.

[TheWraith]

12. Most states have basically the same laws.

Your contention is like saying that allowing Ohio people to use their driver's licenses in New York is ridiculously dangerous. Actually, it's a little more of a stretch than that, since even by the most generous assumptions people legally carrying concealed weapons are responsible for fewer wrongful deaths in one year than automobiles are in 12 hours.

[shadowrider]

46. VPC talking point

[Starboard Tack]

22. How do the criminals acquire their guns?

I doubt that anyone advocates punishing the law-abiding in favor of criminals.
What do you suggest? You might find this interesting https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=242922

[gejohnston]

25. within ten years?

the average age of recovered crime guns is about ten years. Are you saying the average criminal gets a permit to purchase (required in Maryland) and goes though NICS checks. Oh yeah, the study concentrated specifically DC and Maryland.

How do crime guns land up in USVI? Jamaica?

[TheWraith]

10. Good luck. Three quarters of Americans support the right to armed self defense.

And yes, that's a poll taken after this case began. More to the point, it also includes a similar majority of Democrats, making your position a very tiny minority even of the Democratic Party.

[SecularMotion]

38. They also support restrictions on purchasing guns and carrying guns in public

Americans Back Gun Restrictions, Says New Poll

http://www.care2.com/causes/americans-back-gun-restrictions-says-new-poll.html

[gejohnston]

39. the restrictions named have been law for quite sometime

91% of those surveyed agreed on the need for background checks before a firearm can be sold.

NICS came about sometime in the 1990s. Already federal law.

Only 6% said they thought gun ownership should require no or very few restrictions.

local and state level restrictions since the founding. Federal restrictions since about 1927.

Nearly three-quarters of respondents said they supported limiting the sale of automatic weapons,

That has been federal law since 1934. In fact, from that time until 1977 we had stricter machine gun regulations than Canada (although they were and are stricter on pistols.)

and 62% oppose bringing firearms into churches, workplaces or stores.

Those are private property issues and a church/state issue.

[bongbong]

48. That's FUNNY!

> Those are private property issues and a church/state issue.

Only until there is an attempt to limit gun-religionists, and then the NRA will call it a political issue.

[gejohnston]

51. no, the signs exist

churches and business make the rules. I have yet to see anyone protesting any of the places. That is more than I can say MMM and Starbucks.

[sarisataka]

55. Which do you mean?

If I have a religion that has guns as a major dogmatic component it could be protected under the 1A

If you are referring to church's abilities to set policies on their property:

On September 9, 2005, Hennepin County District Court Judge, LaJune Thomas Lange, issued a temporary injunction that allowed churches to post signs of their own wording and to completely ban firearms from all church property, including parking lots. This temporary injunction was the initial result of a lawsuit filed by two churches who argued that the firearm carry law interferes with their religious practices. On November 14, 2006, Hennepin County District Court Judge William Howard extended this temporary injunction by making it permanent. On February 5, 2008, the Minnesota State Court of Appeals ruled that churches have the right to ban guns from their property and can decide how to notify people of weapons prohibitions. See: Edina Community Lutheran Church, Respondent, Unity Church of St. Paul, Respondent, vs. State of Minnesota, Appellant. (A07-131)(2/5/2008).

http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/issues/issues.aspx?issue=firearmcarry

[bongbong]

47. Flawed poll

The flaws in that poll were pointed out my me & several other posters. Several times. Taking the time to refute a poll that supports gun-religionists is like spitting into the wind, because they'll just ignore the facts ("our reality tastes better!".

[AH1Apache]

50. This thread was pretty civil until you came along.

Same old same old from bongbong.

[bongbong]

60. Yep

It's almost as bad as the word-for-word regurgitation of NRA Talking Points that some people like to litter DU with.

[Clames]

52. Too easy.

Taking the time to refute a poll that supports gun-grabbers is like spitting into the wind, because they'll just ignore the facts ("our reality tastes better!".

[ileus]

20. They've been looking for a reason to reverse progress...

I suppose any excuse for them is good enough....all they need are enough people to buy into the lies against SYG.