"Stand Your Ground" laws, are they a good, or bad idea?

Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
i am fully supportive of the second amendment.

as for no defense, you're talking to a guy on 24 hour greenhouse patrol. i know a little about defense. if my state had SYG laws, one of two things would happen:

1) i'd have gotten ripped anyway. guns are of no use when thieves on your property are stealthy enough.

Falsely quoting people. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

2) i'd have a dead teenage kid in my greenhouse over vegging plants. do you really think the 14 veg plants i have lost are worth a stupid teenager's life?

defense is security. prevention, determent, vigilance. offense is stand your ground. just look at the cases where it has become a controversy.

"i'm safe in my home, but some guys are robbing my neighbor's house while he is not home and the cops are 30 seconds away. i'm going to grab my rifle, leave my house, shoot them dead, and walk." - joe horn

"i'm safe in my truck, but some kid is walking around in the rain and the cops are on their way. i had better actively pursue him several times, confront him, and shoot him dead if anything escalates. i'll say i was standing my ground when i left my place of security." - george zimmerman

the two men joe horn shot dead posed no threat to his life or property. the kid that george zimmerman shot down was not even stealing anything, he was just walking around.

why people feel that proactive deadly force is a good idea baffle me. that they start threads praising proactive deadly force is beyond me.

i would never employ deadly force unless it was the last option. even then, i would try my best to disable rather than kill. after i told my neighbor about the GH break ins, she let on that she had killed a home invader some years ago, and that it haunted her for a decade. she had nightmares for years on end. imagine if that were just a dumb kid who tried to steal some veg plants worth a total of $100 or so.

by the way, i never hear you SYG people say the same thing about what happened in waco. as fucked up as that was on both sides, you guys say it is better to be tried by 12 then carried by 6. shouldn't that apply to waco as well? shouldn't they have just submitted to the search warrant and tried it rather than fight a suicide battle?

fuck all of you homicidal maniacs. every human life is just as worthy of protection and regard as every other human life. you already have every right to defend your life when necessary without SYG. stop encouraging this vigilantism and psychopathy.
Click to expand...
Falsely quoting people. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
In 2007 Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 378 which extends a person’s right to stand their ground beyond the home to vehicles and workplaces, allowing the reasonable use of deadly force when an intruder is:

  • Committing certain violent crimes, such as murder or sexual assault, or is attempting to commit such crimes;
  • Unlawfully trying to enter a protected place

:dunce:



so he's in his home, safe as safe can be, clutching his rifle. he then leaves his house and shoots two people dead seconds before cops arrive.

he wasn't defending himself, he was serving vigilante justice.



he was not on defense, he was on offense. he chased the kid. he left his place of safety. it can not be called self "defense" when he was on the offense.



you can shoot someone who is not threatening your life just because they are breaking into someone else's house or protected place. you should probably read the stuff in your own posts, genius.



fuck your experts. if i can neutralize the threat without a person's life on my hands, i will do just that.



nuts that support SYG also generally stand with the branch davidians who wrote their own death certificate. should they have been tried by 12, or carried by 6, as SYG promoters often like to say?

defense is one thing, going on the offense to kill someone is another, and that's what SYG allows. if your life is truly threatened, you are able to use deadly force without resorting to SYG. SYG is a license to legal murder ad vigilantism.
Click to expand...
1. The word "protected" occurs zero time in the Texas law. The quote you use is from a news account "explaining" the bill. What they are referring to as "protected" places are: your car, your business, your place of employment, i.e. the castle doctrine is expanded to those places. Nowhere does the Texas law allow one to shoot anybody over property, or to proactively kill anybody. Next time, I suggest you read the law before you expound on it. www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/SB00378I.htm

2. Joe Horn was put before a grand jury. That grand jury declined to indict. If you don't like it, take it up with 200+ years of American law.

3. No SYG law that I am aware of allows you to use deadly force against somebody unless that person is reasonably believed to be about to do great bodily harm or murder yourself or another.

4. If you can neutralize an attacker by shooting the knife/club/gun out of their hand, then more power to you. Maybe you can get a movie contract with Jackie Chan?

5. I am still a bit puzzled by the Waco reference, but I will add this: Are you aware that those survivors of the attack by federal forces on the Waco compound who were tried for murdering federal officers were acquitted, none were found guilty? It was a complete loss for the feds. It was the feds themselves who should have been tried for murder.

6. The claim that SYG is a license to "go on the offense, and murder" is utter nonsense and completely unsupported by the text of any SYG law I have read. I dare you to post the text of an SYG law that allows such a thing.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
desert dude said:
Joe Horn was put before a grand jury. That grand jury declined to indict. ...No SYG law that I am aware of allows you to use deadly force against somebody unless that person is reasonably believed to be about to do great bodily harm or murder yourself or another.
Click to expand...
see that? that's evidence contradicting your assertion.

how about we go back to sanford to see other misapplications of "stand your ground". does it cover shooting someone in the back?

answer: yes it does.

On 16 July 2005, two parking lot security guards, one the son of a Sanford Police Department veteran and the other a volunteer for the department, shot a black teen, Travares McGill, in the back, killing him. They claimed self-defense, and the case was dismissed in court.[SUP][14][/SUP][SUP][15]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanford_Police_Department_(Florida)


[/SUP]
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
why you start threads without understanding the topic is beyond me.

read the link you provided in the OP. you can shoot someone dead for entering property or stealing stuff. see joe horn.

i would be embarrassed if i were you. so fucking stupid.
Click to expand...
The word "steal" occurs zero times in the Wiki link.

In Kentucky "The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable..." to prevent theft, but deadly force is reserved for "Committing or attempting to commit a burglary, robbery, or other felony involving the use of force... and arson"
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
desert dude said:
The word "steal" occurs zero times in the Wiki link.

In Kentucky "The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable..." to prevent theft, but deadly force is reserved for "Committing or attempting to commit a burglary, robbery, or other felony involving the use of force... and arson"
Click to expand...
face it dude, precedent and the laws themselves allow people to kill over stuff.

not to mention any legitimate self defense scenario is covered without SYG.

it's bad law, and unnecessary to boot.
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
see that? that's evidence contradicting your assertion.

how about we go back to sanford to see other misapplications of "stand your ground". does it cover shooting someone in the back?

answer: yes it does.

On 16 July 2005, two parking lot security guards, one the son of a Sanford Police Department veteran and the other a volunteer for the department, shot a black teen, Travares McGill, in the back, killing him. They claimed self-defense, and the case was dismissed in court.[SUP][14][/SUP][SUP][15]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanford_Police_Department_(Florida)


[/SUP]
Click to expand...
Take it up with the grand jury. They saw all the evidence and they declined to indict. You can bitch and moan all you want because the GJ did not do what you want them to do, but that is the law.
The actions of a grand jury are irrelevant to SYG laws.

The case you cite is from 2005, before SYG I think, so it is irrelevant to this particular thread. If you are complaining about the sacrosanct blue line of cops protecting their own, I am inclined to agree with you.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Mr Neutron said:
Superman!!!
Click to expand...
are you telling me that it's a better idea to kill someone if i can simply knock them unconscious or put them in a submission hold?

we got a bunch of internet tough guys in the politics section. but take away their guns and they're a bunch of cowering pussies.
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
face it dude, precedent and the laws themselves allow people to kill over stuff.

not to mention any legitimate self defense scenario is covered without SYG.

it's bad law, and unnecessary to boot.
Click to expand...
The Kentucky comes closest to "allowing people to kill over stuff" by allowing deadly force against arsonists. I am unaware of any laws that allow one to kill over "stuff". The SYG laws remove the duty retreat, and they shield against prosecution and civil suits if you act within SYG, and they expand the "castle" to any legal place you happen to be. The castle doctrine laws do not provide these protections.

It's good law, and quite necessary.
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
are you telling me that it's a better idea to kill someone if i can simply knock them unconscious or put them in a submission hold?

we got a bunch of internet tough guys in the politics section. but take away their guns and they're a bunch of cowering pussies.
Click to expand...

No I am not saying that, I won't speak for others. If somebody is attacking you with a knife/club/gun and you are able to knock them unconscious then go for it, and kudos to you. If I am ever in that situation, and I am armed, I think I will stick to the "center of mass" guidance, but hey, that's just me.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
desert dude said:
The Kentucky comes closest to "allowing people to kill over stuff" by allowing deadly force against arsonists. I am unaware of any laws that allow one to kill over "stuff". The SYG laws remove the duty retreat, and they shield against prosecution and civil suits if you act within SYG, and they expand the "castle" to any legal place you happen to be. The castle doctrine laws do not provide these protections.

It's good law, and quite necessary.
Click to expand...
no, it's not necessary. no one is going to go to jail for legitimately defending themselves.

and it's not good law, people walk for killing over stuff and shooting people in the back.

it's cowardly law for cowardly pussies like you and zimmboy.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
desert dude said:
No I am not saying that, I won't speak for others. If somebody is attacking you with a knife/club/gun and you are able to knock them unconscious then go for it, and kudos to you. If I am ever in that situation, and I am armed, I think I will stick to the "center of mass" guidance, but hey, that's just me.
Click to expand...
so someone's coming at you with a club, and you kill them although you can retreat to safety?

cowardly pussy.
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
so someone's coming at you with a club, and you kill them although you can retreat to safety?

cowardly pussy.
Click to expand...
Every situation is different, of course. IF I can safely retreat, I will do so. Personally, I don't want to kill anybody for any reason. There are certainly situations where retreat is not the smart thing to do, though, because it is likely to end in your own death or serious injury.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
desert dude said:
Every situation is different, of course. IF I can safely retreat, I will do so. Personally, I don't want to kill anybody for any reason. There are certainly situations where retreat is not the smart thing to do, though, because it is likely to end in your own death or serious injury.
Click to expand...
karma would be you getting shot in the back and the shooter walking after claiming SYG, as has happened to others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top