Stand Your Ground Law is a killer law or what?
bob
2012/06/12 22:05:24
|
|
|||||
|
11 votes
|
|
20% | ||
|
2 votes
|
|
4% | ||
|
2 votes
|
|
4% | ||
|
1 vote
|
|
2% | ||
|
1 vote
|
|
2% | ||
|
2 votes
|
|
4% | |||
|
3 votes
|
|
6% | ||
|
32 votes
|
|
59% | ||
Top Opinion
-
classic 2012/06/12 23:29:45None of the above
+7The stand your ground law is a good law when applied properly and it is being applied properly here in florida.. When people get the idea it is not Ok to shoot an unarmed person just because they shove or slap you ... There are currently 4 Cases where defendents in shootings have been denied the use of the Stand your ground law... When someone stuffs a gun in their belt and goes looking for trouble, then it no longer becomes "Stand your Ground" Especially if they have to leave their property to approach the person the argument is with...Or you go retreive a gun and return to the argument...
I recently bought a KA-BAR and guess what? It's swedge is as dull as a butter knife, unlike all others before a few years ago which came with them properly designed and sharpened. That was the entire point of the KA-BAR, it is a STABBING instrument, not a freaking hack and slash knife. So it's useless all thanks to INFRINGEMENTS imposed unconstitutionally on our Second Amendment RIGHT to bear 'arms'. So I have no self-defense knife to use when I can't use my firearms BECAUSE AGAIN OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL INFRINGEMENTS OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT.
Citizens are granted the same protection by the Constitution.
Yesterday 280 million guns in the US harmed no one and
prevented Thousands of crimes.
"Citizens are granted the same protection by the Constitution. "
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Not the same protection at all.
Despite media and uninformed claims to the contrary, not every use of firearms is authorized by "Stand Your Ground" laws. There has to be a credible threat to safety, and you can't hunt down an attacker who is attempting to flee.
Whether or not you can shoot an attacker who is engaged in a tactical retreat is an interesting question. If a criminal invades my home, I grab my rifle, chase him into a hallway and he retreats into a closet, can I open fire and finish him off? I think the answer varies by state and also whether or not I have non-violent options at that point.
Without SYG? Don't count on it. There is way too much case law to the contrary. In some areas, the justice system deteriorated to the point where you (or your homeowner's policy) would end up paying for the criminal's medical care (if he survived), "pain and suffering", and probably rehabilitation so he could get ready to rob again. Think I'm exaggerating? Think again. My wife worked as an insurance agent and has direct knowledge of many insurance claims. Judges seem to think if they stuff enough cash into a criminal's pocket, they will abandon a life of crime. Meanwhile, the bad guy would probably get a plea bargain and early probation. Part of the need for SYG is the failure to provide effective punishment for habitual offenders. An armed homeowner is about the only thing the bad guys are afraid of.
I understand the principle behind the laws, but it's silly to think that most legislators are good enough to craft a well-written law in the first place or that enforcers are smart enough to apply it properly.
Or prove in court that you were not able to run?
The law never mentions guns at all, it mentions using force to defend yourself.
To me, it helps and hinders. Its a power, meant good for others and bad for others who will abuse it.
Of course, that 'abuse' may not well be, because some may use the power simply because they are scared.
Who can blame them for being scared? Homicide is increasing, as is rape and robbery. If I was put in a dangerous position, I would be the one debating whether or not to shoot, shaking.