Stand Your Ground (licence to kill)?

[johnny karate]

Because the other psychotic folk should be doing their part to there is only so many guns one guy can own.

Seriously, stop hyperbolizing the living hell out of the argument. If this was an argument about fighting back during a mugging, by your statements, i would assume your logical conclusion would be that people should either just take the beating, or wander around like batman punching out all would be criminals.

Where in my statement do you infer that one shouldn't be able to protect oneself from violent assault? You certainly reached a "conclusion", but I don't see how logic was involved.

It's pretty simple, actually. If we are saying it's acceptable to leave your property and gun down people you believe to be criminals, where do we draw the line? Apparently, down the street is far way enough to be considered "hyperbolizing". How about two houses away? Or three?

 

[RandFan]

If you were to visit a friend of mine, who lives in a tiny town in Virginia, and tell him that you thought a homeowner should just let a burglar have what he wants, he would cock his head at you, like Nipper.

Okay, so by "stumbling block" you are just talking about perceptions, right?

FTR: I grew up in a small town in Utah. I had an Air-rifle when I was 12 and a .22 when I was 14. Everyone I knew had guns. My father had two rifles and a pistol. There were so many guns that it was never a problem that my family didn't own a shotgun. On outings I always had access to a 4-10 and occasionally I got to pulverize rabbits with a 20 gauge. Much of my youth was spent weeding my fathers 3/4 acre "garden" and slaughtering chickens and rabbits. I fished for native and planted trout from southern Utah to Idaho. I've driven tractors, seen cows slaughtered, pigs butchered and killed chukar, quail and pigeon (yep I've eaten pigeon but never squirrel). I never got a pheasant. When I went duck hunting I fell and got water in my waders before sun rise. And let me tell you, once the sun was up there were no ducks. I never tried the idiotic sport again. I've been deer hunting with large groups of drunk jack-Mormons on Sunday and helped a neighbor whose barn was on fire (kids smoking in the hay).

I can tell you one thing from my experiences, people are not as monolithic in their positions as you might think. We should be careful to make assumptions about people based on their beliefs.

 

[fuelair]

Thanks for the post. I really do get the point. I accept that protecting property can lead to confrontation and deadly force. I could envision myself being in those circumstances. My concern is the mentality of dividing the world between good guys and bad guys and the bad guys deserve to die. Now, I honestly don't think that most people feel that way. Most people honestly just want to be secure in their homes and not have to fear for losing property. I get that. It's this law and the implementation of it that troubles me.

I would seriously like a BMG 50cal and a mini gun. Hey, don't tell me I don't have fantasies.

Everyone wants a Barrett .50 cal with targeting computer/telescopic sight. That's a given!!!! It is on my list ( I love the ability to stop a moving vehicle a mile away from you ).

 

[RandFan]

Seriously, stop with the insane hyperbole.

Logic has consequences. Seriously.

You don't want to ever hurt anyone? Don't buy any weapons, and don't ever confront anyone doing bad things to you. But don't expect the rest of the world to take the Slow Loris style of self defense , just because you don't value your safety as much as the rest of us.

Fallacy, I live in a society and have every right to share my opinion. If you don't like it put me on ignore. I respect your right to share your opinion. It would be nice if you could afford me the same.

 

[RandFan]

Everyone wants a Barrett .50 cal with targeting computer/telescopic sight. That's a given!!!! It is on my list ( I love the ability to stop a moving vehicle a mile away from you ).

Oh I hear you my brother. I've got about 50 pictures of the .50 cal and my heart always quickens when I peruse the photos. But nothing gets my adrenalin pumping like watching a youtube video of a mini gun. That's pure unadulterated porn (is that an oxymoron?).

 

[luchog]

Of course he had the right. The law gives him that right. Move to Texas and all you need is to be lucky enough to come across someone committing a crime and you too can fulfill your death wish fantasies. On the other hand, you only need to be able to plausibly accuse someone of committing a crime.

It's hardly unique to Texas. Many states have laws that provide for citizen's arrest of perpetrators observed in the act of committing a crime, and laws that allow for self-defense with lethal force. It's a very simple scenario: citizen observes crime being committed, citizen attempt to arrest the criminal(s) in the act, criminals threaten the citizen with physical harm, citizen defends him/herself with legally-allowed force. I don't really see the problem there.

 

[luchog]

IMO: Someone entering your house doesn't give you a license to kill them.

If they're there illicitly, it absolutely does, as there is no consistently reliable way to determine their intentions, and whether or not they are armed and potentially violent without putting your self at an unnecessarily high risk of harm.

In my neighborhood, there has been an ongoing rash of home-invasion burglaries. I was the victim of one of these as well, about a year ago. Fortunately, I managed to surprise the burglar, who didn't expect anyone to be at home (I was working graveyard shift, and the burglar typically hit during the day when people would be at work), and he fled. Others have not been so fortunate as to have the burglar flee that easily (usually the elderly and others who would not be able to easily defend themselves). I sleep with a loaded shotgun under the bed now.

 

[RandFan]

It's hardly unique to Texas. Many states have laws that provide for citizen's arrest of perpetrators observed in the act of committing a crime, and laws that allow for self-defense with lethal force. It's a very simple scenario: citizen observes crime being committed, citizen attempt to arrest the criminal(s) in the act, criminals threaten the citizen with physical harm, citizen defends him/herself with legally-allowed force. I don't really see the problem there.

So simple that we don't even need SYG laws, right?

 

[luchog]

The job of the police is to come over after someone has been robbed, raped, invaded, assaulted, killed, etc., and do interviews, check for evidence, and write up reports. Police almost never prevent a crime from being committed or stop a crime as it is being committed.

In fact, the Supreme Court has ruled on numerous occasions that it is not the job of the police to stop crime, only to investigate crimes and arrest perpetrators. Let me reiterate that: The police have no responsibility to defend individual citizens against criminals. (I've personally called the police about threats, and been told flat out that they were not going to show up, that I'd have to deal with it myself.)

The "job" of preventing crime and defending individual citizens against threats of force has always been, and continues to be, the responsibility of the individual citizen.

 

[RandFan]

If they're there illicitly, it absolutely does, as there is no consistently reliable way to determine their intentions, and whether or not they are armed and potentially violent without putting your self at an unnecessarily high risk of harm.

I don't agree but that's fine. I think it would be very unusual for correction officers or prosecutors to not give deference to the homeowner. If you want to call that a license then fine. I'm not going to debate the point.

In my neighborhood, there has been an ongoing rash of home-invasion burglaries. I was the victim of one of these as well, about a year ago. Fortunately, I managed to surprise the burglar, who didn't expect anyone to be at home (I was working graveyard shift, and the burglar typically hit during the day when people would be at work), and he fled. Others have not been so fortunate as to have the burglar flee that easily (usually the elderly and others who would not be able to easily defend themselves). I sleep with a loaded shotgun under the bed now.

I most certainly understand. I was in a very serious auto accident once and didn't want to get into a car. I would never belittle anyone's fears. I wonder what the relative risks are?

 

[Verde]

Anyone breaking into my house would be shot.
Except, that I never lock my doors. (Never did in England, and I've not seen a reason to do so here).
Second point: I don't own a firearm. But no villains would know that. (Don't tell them).
Thirdly; I have two large pitbulls. Anyone coming into my house would be thoroughly licked.

V.

 

[RandFan]

In fact, the Supreme Court has ruled on numerous occasions that it is not the job of the police to stop crime, only to investigate crimes and arrest perpetrators. Let me reiterate that: The police have no responsibility to defend individual citizens against criminals. (I've personally called the police about threats, and been told flat out that they were not going to show up, that I'd have to deal with it myself.)

The "job" of preventing crime and defending individual citizens against threats of force has always been, and continues to be, the responsibility of the individual citizen.

This is where I get into trouble with everyone else. I think it is your job to act prudently. Act in a way as to decrease your relative risk. Neighborhood watches. Clean and maintained properties. Plenty of lighting. Locks and perhaps alarm systems. And, if you want to be armed, then that is your right and I certainly champion that if you choose it. But it is irrational to suppose that we are in such danger that we must all be armed to the teath and ready to shoot to kill.

I think people should do the math and actually find out what their relative risks for various things are. I think they would be surprised. Wearing your seat belt and not smoking are important but some people put more stock into a 12 gauge. Sure, you can do all of it but some people only worry about crime.

Hey, it's America.

 

[crimresearch]

I don't agree but that's fine. I think it would be very unusual for correction officers or prosecutors to not give deference to the homeowner. If you want to call that a license then fine. I'm not going to debate the point.

I most certainly understand. I was in a very serious auto accident once and didn't want to get into a car. I would never belittle anyone's fears. I wonder what the relative risks are?

Riiiight... making the 'comparison' that someone who has been a victim of a crime is of course going to be operating on the basis of being in fear, and then announcing that you would never belittle them... as you have done over and over.

 

[luchog]

It also seems that he does not consider the use of deadly force justifiable soley to protect personal property or to prevent a simple tresspass.

The problem is that there is almost never any such thing from a practical standpoint. Unless you are making woo-ish claims to be able to read minds, you have no idea why that invader is in your house. He may be happy to run away as soon as he finds out there's someone home (as I was fortunately enough to have happen), or he may just as happily turn violent without provocation. The only safe assumption to make about anyone breaking into your home is that they intend to cause you harm.

As for someone breaking into a neighbor's home, do you know for sure that your neighbors aren't there? If you have absolute certain, then yes, it would be strictly a property crime. I can understand not wanting to do anything to stop the burglary; as that would likely entail risk of personal harm. However, how often can you be absolutely certain that there is no one in the house who may be at risk? As for calling the police, good luck. They have no obligation to help until after the crime has been committed; and can take their own sweet time showing up even then.

I would personally rather opt for defense of my neighbor, even at risk to myself, than sit by and watch.

 

[crimresearch]

In fact, the Supreme Court has ruled on numerous occasions that it is not the job of the police to stop crime, only to investigate crimes and arrest perpetrators. Let me reiterate that: The police have no responsibility to defend individual citizens against criminals. (I've personally called the police about threats, and been told flat out that they were not going to show up, that I'd have to deal with it myself.)

The "job" of preventing crime and defending individual citizens against threats of force has always been, and continues to be, the responsibility of the individual citizen.

'The average wait time for your call to be answered by the next available 911 operator is... {5 minutes}'

 

[RandFan]

It also seems that he does not consider the use of deadly force justifiable soley to protect personal property or to prevent a simple tresspass.

The problem is that there is almost never any such thing from a practical standpoint.

If you reasonably believe that a crime that is being committed is property only then you avoid the perpetrators. Quite practical and hardly complicated.

 

[luchog]

I thought you were talking about our high rate of violent crime compared to other countries.

This is a red herring. This statistic is constantly trumpeted as if it actually means something out of context. The fact is, the rate of violent crime in the US is artificially inflated by drug-related gang violence, per the FBI's Uniform Crime Report, easily available on their site; and typically involves inter-gang violence. It's rare that non-gang-members are targeted. Correct for that, the the crime rate more closely matches that of other developed countries. The high incarceration rate is a completely unrelated issue, and a pure red herring in this debate (again, the numbers there are skewed, most strongly by non-violent drug-related offenses).

 

[luchog]

So simple that we don't even need SYG laws, right?

One would hope, but governments and special interest groups have a way of complicating even the bleeding obvious for their own benefits. My state does not have a SYG law or Castle Doctrine. What it does have is an incredibly simple and broad self-defense statute, which consists pretty much of just stating the bleeding obvious. It does not consider more detailed legislation necessary. It also has a "Shall Issue" concealed carry law, and the violent crime rate is in the lower third of the nation.

 

[RandFan]

This is a red herring. This statistic is constantly trumpeted as if it actually means something out of context. The fact is, the rate of violent crime in the US is artificially inflated by drug-related gang violence, per the FBI's Uniform Crime Report, easily available on their site; and typically involves inter-gang violence. It's rare that non-gang-members are targeted. Correct for that, the the crime rate more closely matches that of other developed countries. The high incarceration rate is a completely unrelated issue, and a pure red herring in this debate (again, the numbers there are skewed, most strongly by non-violent drug-related offenses).

I think there is merit to the point but I'll withdraw it for purposes of this discussion.

 

[sadhatter]

There is one gaping flaw in the " No property is worth a life argument. " that folks who apparently hold the slow loris in high regard tend to use.

So, no property is worth a human life, so at this point we can both agree a human life has a definable value. And that judgements made take this value into account. Fair enough, no combination of things can equal one human life, and the goal here is to keep the scales balanced.

The problem comes in when you realize this means, if any two (or more) people want to kill you, by your own values, you should simply let them if you have the opportunity to save yourself by killing them. And the math works out very simply , one life lost is less than two lives lost, so morally, your decision would have to be to simply lie back and die regardless of the intent of the killers.

See the glaring silliness of this idea? If we are going to say that a human life should have a value placed on it, and actions should take place according to this value, it leads to some rather silly ****.

Thankfully the rest of us work on a different system, "Don't **** with me and i don't **** with you.", and it is by far the superior system. Those who wish to harm others have started a conflict with that person, and it is not the person who starts the conflict who gets to decide when it ends, that goes to the person who did not start the conflict. Don't want to be put in a situation in which this would be a problem? Don't steal things, don't assault people, plain and simple.

If we are going to try and quantify everything in relation to a human life, then we really will have to redo every single law (not to mention many general morals.) to do so. Think of it, self defense laws would have to take into account if you were taking more lives than would be saved if you just let people kill you. But that is the utopia people like this seem to want.

I mean hell, in the grand scheme of things, global politics would have to be completely rejigged as well. Imagine a world in which instead of a country deciding if morally war was worth engaging in , they simply did the math, if it would cost more lives to stop a new evil dictator, just let him take what he wants. After all, nothing is worth even one human life, and those people fighting against him could just give up what he wants , i mean what is their issue?

For **** sake, how would trying to stop genocide in a world ran by this premise work?

" Okay, Rawandan natives, we are going to help you, but you see there is X million of you or so, now we will keep fighting for you unless the total deaths in the war exceed that amount , because once we start going into the red , human life wise, it just doesn't make sense to help you."