Eh, I do not really agree with the stand your ground law. Mainly because the bearing of evidence is meek with such a law. As is being displayed with the current case in Florida. A well to do person could walk around and gun down people he doesn't like and claim that he was defending himself. Who are people going to believe? The rich guy or the kid that he didn't like from a poor neighborhood. I like the idea that I have a right to defend myself in my own home or around my vehicle. I don't go looking for trouble but if comes to me trouble is going to have a bad day. I think that tasers and mace is plenty of defense for when people are out and abroad, no need to have deadly force. I mean its one thing if you are in the middle of nowhere (like Jon) but the more violent places are in big city's where there are plenty of places for witnesses to be around and for people to get help. Cell phones are prominent in our society as well. I guess it would just pay people to be more cautious when it comes to dark alleys and places where they could be at risk. Even the best of us can forget that. Look what happened to Thomas Wayne.
I do agree with it, assuming that sufficient evidence is brought forward that shows that the use of force was actually for self-defense instead of premeditated. If I have the right to own a gun, then I ought to be able to defend myself - within reasonable circumstances - with said gun.
Amen Tex. I enjoy it greatly. I look forward to the time people realize that guns are legal and not to fear them unless you're doing shit you should not. I openly carry every day of my life and everywhere I go.
Depending on the state you could if it were hunting season and you had your hunting license >_>; If it's legal to own theres a legal way/place to open carry it.
If guns weren't allowed to buy/own, nobody would need such a law because you don't need to defend yourself with a gun if the attacker doesn't have one. Just my opinion...
Exactly. It is better for people to have the ability to defend themselves against the "bad guys" instead of being defenseless against the same person with the same weapon (in an instance where guns aren't legal).
What about the recent issue with Trayvon Martin? He was murdered by someone else in the name of self-defense, but no one can prove it. However, due to the existence of that law, we can't verify whether he was within his right to do so. A clever person can abuse this law with proper setup, and get away scot free.
In a case such as his, you would require definitive proof that there was a need for the actions that took place. In this specific issue, the 911 calls provide more than enough evidence that Zimmerman followed Trayvon and was after him. Even if Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, you could argue that 1) he acted in self defense and 2) Zimmerman was warned by 911 operators to back off, but refused.
That's the thing though; such a law removes the need for that proof. You are free to argue self-defense even if such a law never existed, but you also have to prove it.
First of all Mace is a deterrent, not a weapon. It is painful and distracting, but not incapacitating. Many people, especially criminals, are able to tolerate mace. Mace also only has a range of about two feet, and requires a long spray in the face. A guy with a club could easily beat down a guy with mace, let alone a guy with a knife or gun. Tasers are very effective, they will put a guy down, but they only can shoot about 20 feet, and are "one shot", they stick into a guy and don't come out easily, which is why they're effective. But this means that they cannot be used on more than one assailant. Other than that, you make a bunch of very good points.
A firearm is a relatively simple machine. A properly maintained firearm can last several hundred years or more. There are more legally registered guns in some states of the US than people. This doesn't factor in illegal guns. There are many times that many in third world countries which could be smuggled into the US. A good quality firearm can be made from scratch by someone with the right know how and easily available tools. Banning firearms would make the illegal firearms trade boom. It would ensure its proliferation. Just look at the war on drugs and the prohibition. Banning something ensures its success, but it hands the profit and regulation to criminal enterprises. Banning firearms would take them out of the hands of law abiding citizens, but leave them in the hands of criminals.
I don't like this law much. I'd prefer a case by case judgement, like when the "neighbor hood watch" shot a black teenager because he looked "suspicious" after walking out of the store. But at the same time there are times when it would be justified for the victim to shoot. Basically what I'm saying is setting it in stone was a bad idea. Out of interest, the country where 2 thirds of the male population (Switzland) are armed with military grade weaponry (and trained how to use it) has very few armed crimes.
I find the existance of such an law in a modern civilisation disturbing. There should be absolutely no excuse, not a single one, to kill someone. Even if someone's threathening your life. You can knock him out or punch him in the face then, but not kill him. Imo anyone who kills anybody under what ever circumstances should recieve Lifetime prison without any chance to get out, ever. sincerly,
I'm sorry to say wolf but that kind of thought is whats lead to our poor prison system today. "lock em up for life!" does nothing but give them a free ride through life.
Humans should not kill each other. Period. There is no excuse ever to kill someone. Not a single excuse. A society allowing such behaviour and a State issuing death sentence is commiting murder. Not more, not less.
I thought you liked killing people Wolfenstein.... I am disappoint. Stand your ground is a foolish idea. Feeling threatened is subjective, and though in human behavior a certain level of everything is subjective, giving someone the door of saying they felt threatened and therefore murder was legal is not a good idea. Sometimes when Wolfenstein talks about how awesome he is with redpower, I feel very threatened. Luckily, I don't think we live in Florida. ...same with the NDAA, and giving government the ability to subjectively detain American citizens with the tagline of fighting terrorism. In theory, it sounds great, until it is misused. So, let the trial commence, let the law be abolished or altered to weed out its subjective gateway to free murder, and see what a jury says. I'd say the only failings of juries are when they misinterpret a reasonable doubt to mean any doubt whatsoever, or in civil cases when the preponderance of evidence is confused with beyond a reasonable doubt. The failings of law are when they are set so loosely to interpretation that a jury cannot reasonably convict a criminal or set free an innocent man. We'll see what happens. The jury will be presented with evidence and given its purpose, to be judges of the facts and to decide what actually happened on that day.
This is over the top and a little far fetched. There are times when it is beyond acceptable to kill someone, especially when it's kill or be killed. If someone is trying to kill you and you intend try to to simply knock them out instead, you put your own life at risk. Especially if you are not as strong as the other person. There are sick people out there. Entire religions that want nothing more than to start an all out Armageddon. Personally I don't think there is anything wrong with the law. It's not like you have people constantly gunning people down in the street here in Florida and then saying "Oh stand your ground! I'm innocent!" Most people hadn't even heard of this law until the Trayvon Martin fiasco. There is significant emphasis on the law as to what constitutes defending yourself. The Trayvon Martin case is nothing more than a race issue. The media knew that people would eat this up, and portrayed the story in a way that would ensure that. Then mob-mentality took over. Trayvon had marijuana in his system the night that he died. He was a delinquent little punk who was already committing what should have been misdemeanors and felonies, if not for the lack of enforcement from his school. He was a thug. End of story. There is tons of evidence to back this up. His parents and all the media personalities you see are milking his death for every cent it will produce and putting Zimmerman through hell for something that was perfectly legal. The closest witnesses all agree with Zimmermans side of the story. There is significant evidence pointing to the fact that Zimmerman was significantly injured in the fight. The bottom line is we may never know what happened for sure or who was to blame. But if I had to chose between a drug abusing, assaulting, stealing little punk and someone who volunteers to look out for his neighbors safety and MIGHT be a little overly trigger happy, I'd pick the later. That's assuming the worst of Zimmerman. The most laughable part is that people are acting as though anything his parents have to say is relevant to the case. Zzz. If you remove a persons right to defend themselves, you may as well give all criminals a gun and bulletproof armor because you're empowering them, not us.
