Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumTexas Democratic Party adopts 2012 platform with strong gun-hostile verbage
Calling for restriction of "extended magazines," condones use of "terror watch lists" without due process, and stresses a "duty to retreat" when outside the home in regards to our state's Castle Doctrine.
Battery is about to die on me. No link to platform text as of yet. Bear with me. We've got some serious work to do in Texas.
petronius
(26,602 posts)definitely disturbed to see Democrats fail to treat watch lists with anything but suspicion and skepticism...
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)...one bad suspicion deserves another.
derby378
(30,252 posts)The convention adjourned about 90 minutes ago, and I think everyone at the convention is now either at the bar, driving home, or already asleep in bed.
petronius
(26,602 posts)And in case I wasn't clear, my caveat wasn't a complaint or meant to question the accuracy of your assessment...
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Do they really think that stuff will win over voters there?
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)What a stupid move, that will simply end up being another thing used against us.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)What does "extended magazine" mean? How many rounds? And DTR makes a lot of sense outside the home. Texas is a big place, lot's of space to retreat to.
derby378
(30,252 posts)George Zimmerman is being criticized for stepping out of his car to confront Trayvon Martin; if he had stayed put and just stayed on the phone with dispatch, he probably wouldn't be behind bars right now, and Trayvon might still be alive. But if I'm confronted in an alley by someone with a knife or a pistol and I happen to be packing myself, my window for considering my options under DTR is quickly slamming shut. I don't want the parameters of DTR to render me DNR.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)If half of the antis were on the jury, they would vote to convict regardless of how obvious of a self defense case it is. Defending yourself is not a crime, that is why it is called "justifiable homicide". Since justifiable homicide is not a crime, it should be up to the State or Crown to prove that you committed murder or manslaughter. You should never have to prove your innocence, which is what DTR expects.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)It is the only act which does need to be shown to be justified. If evidence points to anything other than it being justified, then it should prosecuted and a jury allowed to decide. The onus is still on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. SYG laws open the floodgates for abuse, as already seen by the surge of legal murders in Florida.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)is an oxymoron. Maybe the numbers indicate there are more innocent people in prison because they had a suck assed lawyer under DTR? Just because some editorial came to some conclusion does not mean it is the correct one.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)My POV has nothing to do with editorials. I agree there are many in prison because of bad lawyers and many who aren't in prison because of good lawyers, neither of which has anything to do with DTR or SYG. The way I read the SYG laws, if you believe your life was in jeopardy, all you need to do is claim that and you walk. That is bullshit. That is what legalizes murder, by redefining it as justifiable homicide, based solely on the statement of the killer.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Some of that "increase" could be just the case under DTR. In the US, we have the "reasonable man" standard. I think most of them operate that way.
Nope. There is still an investigation. If the cops or DA call bullshit, then they can prove it in court. You don't "just walk." That is a common myth. There was a woman in Tampa a few months ago that said she killed a store owner in self defense. Problem was, she was nowhere near the place at the time of the crime. It seemed that she was covering for some thug, who actually did it, and thought her stunt would end the investigation. That stunt has been tried, and they get called on it.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)and there is evidence to contradict their claims. But imagine how easy it would be to actually kill someone you really disliked under these SYG laws. All you need is a place with no witnesses and maybe a throw down weapon for your victim. Piece of cake. Maybe bang your head against a wall a few times to get some authentic bruises and scratches.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)from the 1970s. If you are good, you could pull it off under DTR, just make sure to make it look like you were cornered. I give the cops and forensic types more credit than that. LA calls their CSI types SID (Scientific Investigations Division) for a reason. If you go to all that trouble, why call the cops to say you did it? If you are that good at covering up a crime, it will be just another cold case.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Columbo was pretty good. I love Prime Suspect.
SGMRTDARMY
(599 posts)2 of my favorite were Highway Patrol starring Broderick Crawford, and Police Story. Classic cop shows.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Adam-12 was another.
SGMRTDARMY
(599 posts)My favorite episode was when they were assigned a really messed up radio car, and towards the end of the show, they had pulled someone over for a burned out light but decided not to give a citation, then the driver pointed out to Malloy and Reed that the lights on their radio car didn't work.
Dragnet wasn't too bad either, but all in all, Police Story was, IMHO, the best cop show of all time.
Just a wee bit off topic here.
Clames
(2,038 posts)...is that if it was as easy as you say it is then people would be getting away with murder en mass. They aren't so then what is the problem? Do you really have such little knowledge of basic physiology and police forensics to believe it's as simple as you make it out to be? Do you honestly believe a wound that occurs from hitting your head on a wall looks the same as being struck with a brick, a bat, or a fist? I don't know, maybe you do lack education in the fundamentals here to throw down a crowbar then hit your head on the sidewalk to make up such a scene but I would like to think otherwise. Think first. Post second.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Do you really think we live in a world of individuals just itching to kill people en masse? But they are getting away with a whole lot. Have you ever looked up the stats on unsolved murders, but in this case, murder gets reclassified, so it doesn't go on the books as murder. Unfortunately, that doesn't change the fact that the Zimmermans of this world are getting away with it. From reading your posts, I'm sure I have a lot more knowledge than you do about most things, including criminal forensics.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Jewell
This is the polite term for electronic lynching
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_media
Clames
(2,038 posts)..can do so and claim protection under SYG laws because "it is so easy". That is crap. Complete. Total. What would the stats on unsolved murders have anything to do with this? Nothing. Show me one "unsolved murder" where the suspect claimed a SYG defense. Zimmerman hasn't gotten away with anything yet, another false assumption. How weak is your argument when you have nothing but that dead horse to beat? No, you do not possess the knowledge to challenge me here. You already demonstrated poor understanding of human physiology (bashing head into wall...:rofl . You have not even a fraction of the technical understanding of firearms or laws pertaining to them that I possess. Could you even tell the difference between a lower receiver for a AR-15 style rifle that could accept a select fire trigger group and one that couldn't? The difference in bolt carriers? Start Googling. You have some work to do.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)While it may be tactically a good idea, it should never be a legal requirement. Giving predators and sociopaths the street does not create a just or civilized society.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. summed it up best when he supported SYG in Brown v. United States (256 U.S. 335, 343 (16 May 1921)), "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife"
Edit to ask Duty to whom?
SGMRTDARMY
(599 posts)If I can retreat without putting myself in danger, I will, but there should be no "Duty" to have to retreat. IMHO, DTR laws are really stupid.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Why escalate a situation if there is a safe way to avoid it. You have no duty to climb wall, but to defuse if possible. What's wrong with that?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)what if you can not? Why should it be up to some DA? If you run, you turn your back to your attacker, that would put you in greater danger.
Defending yourself is not escalating anything.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Retreating does not necessarily entail running or turning one's back on an aggressor, which would possibly put you in greater danger. It could entail locking your car door, dialing 911 and driving away rather than reaching for your gun and chasing the "bad" guy to shoot him.
Defending yourself should be in line with the kind of threat you are under. If a guy is approaching you with a baseball bat and he's 100 feet away, do you stand your ground and shoot him or walk or run to safety? If the guy is 10 feet away pointing a gun at you and you have no magic door to step through, then by all means shoot him if you can.
DTR is not designed to give the streets to the criminals. It is designed to instill common sense into the minds of the cowboys and would be Dirty Harrys of this world. The Zimmermans.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Last edited Sun Jun 10, 2012, 07:31 PM - Edit history (1)
Defending yourself should be in line with the kind of threat you are under. If a guy is approaching you with a baseball bat and he's 100 feet away, do you stand your ground and shoot him or walk or run to safety?
SGMRTDARMY
(599 posts)and thats exactly what I would do but there is no reason to make it mandatory, 99.99% of CHL holders are of the mind that you are but theres always the .01% who is going to be an asshole and think that he shouldn't have to retreat and engage in a shootout. That being said, theres no reason to enact unnecessary laws.
I hope I made some sense here.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)There is no reason to enact unnecessary laws. There is a need to repeal some of the more recent laws. DTR is not a new law. Texas SYG or Castle Doctrine as it is called is well illustrated at the following link
http://www.dallasnews.com/incoming/20120609-houston-trial-focusing-on-stand-your-ground-law.ece
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)I the bad guy is retreating then he isn't a threat, you are not in danger, and may not use deadly force. You may put your strawman back in the barn.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I have seen posts, from Texas, defending pulling a gun on would be thieves who were walking away with stuff. The point is that SYG in Florida and Texas' Castle Doctrine put the onus on the dead guy to say "that's not how it happened" if there are no other witnesses. These laws are far too subjective.
I'm OK with SYG if you are at home, but not in the street.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)"would be thieves who were walking away with stuff."
If they were"walking away with stuff" then they were thieves. If they were approaching with the idea of "walking away with stuff" then they could be called "would be thieves".
Oneshooter
SGMRTDARMY
(599 posts)however if you are required to retreat by law, that is, IMHO, a real problem as it can make you vulnerable to someone wishing you harm or an over zealous prosecutor.
I have no desire to ever cause anyone's death again if there is any way I can safely avoid it.
armueller2001
(609 posts)for you to turn your back and run before you can defend yourself? What sense does that make?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Retreating is pulling back to a defensive position, when possible, rather than pursuing some thief or would be thief and shooting them in the back. It's about being a responsible citizen rather than a loose cannon. It's about saving lives, not taking lives. If someone is attacking you and you have the possibility to avoid escalation, you should take it. If that option is unavailable, then you do what you have to. It isn't complicated, just common sense.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)v. es·ca·lat·ed, es·ca·lat·ing, es·ca·lates
v.tr.
To increase, enlarge, or intensify: escalated the hostilities in the Persian Gulf.
v.intr.
To increase in intensity or extent: "a deepening long-term impasse that is certain to escalate" (Stewart L. Udall).
SYG does not increase nor does it enlarge conflict. It really looks like redefining another term for newspeak, kind of like "assault weapon" and misusing the word vigilante.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)It has been stated here several times that some have no problem with shooting thieves in the back as they run away. SYG gives carte blanche to those who want to kill others. Provided there are no witnesses, anyone can shoot anyone else and the DA can't prosecute when it's the shooter's word against the dead guy. You must see how ridiculous these laws are. They are laws sold to a hysterical public sucked in by fearmongering politicians who are in the pocket of the NRA, Koch brothers, ALEC et al..
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)spin
(17,493 posts)laws requiring a duty to retreat when there are no witnesses.
The reality is that a person who committed a cold blooded murder could claim that he did try to retreat and if there wasn't enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was lying, he would walk.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)I you shoot someone and they turn out to be a violent felon with multiple convictions for violence and a bunch of arrests, and drugs in their system then your story is likely to be believed.
If you shoot someone and they have a completely clean record, no drugs, and are well known to be a peaceful person, then your story will not be believed.
spin
(17,493 posts)Of course you also have to have a clean background.
SGMRTDARMY
(599 posts)that I would never shoot someone in the back who is running away, at that point, they are no longer a danger to me and I won't chase them down, thats not my job, that the job of LE.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)There are others who have not chimed in yet who have stated the opposite. Most of them, thankfully, are no longer with us. My point is, Texas law allows for it. This has been pointed out more than once in this group.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)of the saying "everything is bigger and better in Texas." That is not quite true. True, everything is bigger in Texas, but everything is better in Wyoming.
Simo 1939_1940
(768 posts)Meiko
(1,076 posts)I guess they figure we haven't lost enough elections to the thugs. Keep pushing the anti-gun nonsense and you are going to lose.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Kaleva
(36,303 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)I find it hard to believe that We would do this in Texas of ALL PLACES.
Kaleva
(36,303 posts)A Hispanic was elected to chair the Texas Democratic Party
Opposition to the death penalty
Support for marriage equality
Support for the use of medicinal marijuana.
I couldn't find anything about guns, extended magazines, duty to retreat, RBKA, castle laws and so forth.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)really short-sighted of them, me thinks.
if you can't be proud of something why bother?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)it is for the 2014 platform. He said it includes all of that including curtailing civilian access to automatic weapons. I'm guessing they think it is 1933.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)derby378
(30,252 posts)Post away!
I voted against adoption of the 2012 platform on the convention floor. I may have been the only delegate on the floor to do so, but I have no regrets. It breaks my heart that this platform, which otherwise shows much promise for human rights and dignity, may be used against our Texas Democratic candidates.
There will be another meeting of the Gun Owners Caucus at the 2014 TDP Convention in Dallas, and I am trying my best to mobilize Democratic gun owners in Texas to be ready for Dallas. We need to heal our party's platform. We need to assert our rights. We need to speak up.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)the party could recognize our 2A rights.
thanks for posting.
ileus
(15,396 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)I am guessing it is due to ignorance of a philosophical nature. Where are this generation's Deep Thinkers? Where is the responsibility of actions? this is the question that needs to be asked in order that people understand WHY they do something. In order to answer Why one most give an accouting of their motivation behind their actions. ACCOUNTABILITY.
people have lost motivation, gumption. imo. ymmv.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)safeinOhio
(32,683 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)with a Ruger Bearcat? I like the Bearcat's Remington design much better than the Colt design.
SGMRTDARMY
(599 posts)Ruger Vaquero .45 long colt. I carry it in a cowboy style holster when I'm out riding my horse in the desert or the local mountains. Also carry my Winchester .30 .30 in a saddle scabbard.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)used to have a Blackhawk .357 before I joined the AF, and have not replaced it yet. I used to carry a Single Six hiking. Now I have a Walther P-22. I carry it when I'm back home, but can't here. Florida doesn't care for open carry. It lacks mountains and desert too.
SGMRTDARMY
(599 posts)Single action 6 shooter, walnut grips, just an all around well built firearm.
http://www.ruger.com/products/vaquero/index.html
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Read about them. IIRC, Colt made them to sell as target pistols.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_Single_Action_Army#The_Bisley_model_.281894-1915.29
Now I'm homesick for Wyoming. You had to do it.
I'm starting to understand how Hockymom feels, just not about NYC.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)About Electric Monk
Favorite group: Gun Control & RKBA, 13 posts in the last 90 days (2% of total posts)
Last post: Sun Jun 10, 2012, 08:12 PM
About safeinOhio
Favorite group: Gun Control & RKBA, 315 posts in the last 90 days (53% of total posts)
Last post: Sun Jun 10, 2012, 08:44 PM
looks like there are many single action (cough cough) posters around this evening.
looks like all of us are interested in edifying ourselves on this most divisive subject.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Breaking: 2012 Democratic Party Platform Advance Release: WOW!
An Economic Bill of Rights
* Universal Social Security: Taxable Basic Income Grants for all, structured into the progressive income tax, that guarantee an adequate income sufficient to maintain a modest standard of living. Start at $500/week ($26,000/year) for a family of four, with $62.50/week ($3,250/year) adjustments for more or fewer household members in 2000 and index to the cost of living.
* Jobs for All: A guaranteed right to job. Full employment through community-based public works and community service jobs programs, federally financed and community controlled.
* Living Wages: A family-supporting minimum wage. Start at $12.50 per hour in 2000 and index to the cost of living.
* 30-Hour Work Week: A 6-hour day with no cut in pay for the bottom 80% of the pay scale.
more at link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8852610
derby378
(30,252 posts)oneshooter
(8,614 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)It's official, folks: Democrats will support the abrogation of due process. Then they act surprised when the GOPers due the same.
I'm sure George W. Bush laughed his ass off when he found out about it.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)derby378
(30,252 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)To continue the fight against crime, and to make our streets and homes safer, Texas Democrats support just and smart policies, including:
...
∙ strengthen the national Brady background check system to incorporate all necessary records including criminal, domestic violence, mental health records, and terror watch lists;
∙ institute a universal background check system to ensure that all firearm sales are subject to a Brady background check;
...
∙ sensible gun control laws to curtail the availability of automatic weapons and extended magazines...
(p. 31)
We support:
∙ legislation to preserve the right to self-defense while restoring the duty to retreat when outside of the home to discourage and prevent vigilantism...
Once again, the restrictionistas would prefer 100% of nothing to 95% of something
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)the Repubs in charge
The Fine Art of Grassroots Politics seems lost on Today's Generation.
Would be so much more neutral with only omitting a few words:
To continue the fight against crime, and to keep our streets and homes safe, Texas Democrats support just and smart policies, including:
∙ strengthen the national background check system to incorporate all necessary records including criminal, domestic violence, mental health records, institute a universal background check system to ensure that all firearm sales are subject to a background check;
∙ sensible gun control laws.
We support:
∙ legislation to preserve the right to self-defense.
I think worded as above they could get some swing over Voters....now is the time to broaden our definitions not narrow and pigeonhole ourselves. imo. ymmv.