- All Purchases made this month instantly go into the draw to win a USD $ 100.00 credit to your HoP account.
Forums > Social Discussion > US Gun laws are "License to murder"
Login/Join to ParticipatePosted:
Non-Https Image Link
[ed]I am going to update this OP as ppl who have not followed the discussion (in the past 2 years it is running now) cannot be bothered to go through all 50+ pages only to inform themselves about all the arguments brought forward. I hope it's allright with everybody.
Please patiently note that this is going to be a massive post that sum up all significant arguments that have been brought forward by both sides so far.
Thus: If you're bothered to read all the post, just scroll down to the bottom of it to get to the links and arguments - NEWEST information at the end of each section
Reading this post will keep you up-to-date with the current level of arguments brought forward - and you might not have to read all the 700+ posts.
If you have any new arguments that you find important to get included in this OP, please feel free to PM me at any time. Please note that I will only honor those arguments that you can back up with verifiable sources (quote your sources). I will *not* honor personal opinions as in 'I feel more comfy with a gun at my side' or in 'I feel horrified with guns present'. Feel free to post your opinions as you like *at the end of this thread*.
As this is a highly political issue, it will be almost impossible to keep this 'objective' and I will honor arguments of both sides, those who are pro and those who are against guns, regardless whether they directly come from the NRA or the Brady campaign.
The entire thread started like this:
Taken from: New York Times on August 7th
Originally Posted By: NYT
In the last year, 15 states have enacted laws that expand the right of self-defense, allowing crime victims to use deadly force in situations that might formerly have subjected them to prosecution for murder.
Jacqueline Galas, a Florida prostitute, shot and killed a 72-year-old client. She was not charged.
Supporters call them stand your ground laws.
Opponents call them shoot first laws.
The Florida law, which served as a model for the others, gives people the right to use deadly force against intruders entering their homes. They no longer need to prove that they feared for their safety, only that the person they killed had intruded unlawfully and forcefully. The law also extends this principle to vehicles.
In addition, the law does away with an earlier requirement that a person attacked in a public place must retreat if possible. Now, that same person, in the laws words, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force. The law also forbids the arrest, detention or prosecution of the people covered by the law, and it prohibits civil suits against them.
Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the N.R.A., said the Florida law had sent a needed message to law-abiding citizens. If they make a decision to save their lives in the split second they are being attacked, the law is on their side, Mr. LaPierre said. Good people make good decisions. Thats why theyre good people. If youre going to empower someone, empower the crime victim.
The N.R.A. said it would lobby for versions of the law in eight more states in 2007.
In the case of the West Palm Beach cabdriver, Mr. Smiley, then 56, killed Jimmie Morningstar, 43. A sports bar had paid Mr. Smiley $10 to drive Mr. Morningstar home in the early morning of Nov. 6, 2004. Mr. Morningstar was apparently reluctant to leave the cab once it reached its destination, and Mr. Smiley used a stun gun to hasten his exit. Once outside the cab, Mr. Morningstar flashed a knife, Mr. Smiley testified at his first trial, though one was never found. Mr. Smiley, who had gotten out of his cab, reacted by shooting at his passengers feet and then into his body, killing him.
Cliff Morningstar, the dead mans uncle, said he was baffled by the killing. He had a radio, Mr. Morningstar said of Mr. Smiley. He could have gotten in his car and left. He could have shot him in his knee.
Carey Haughwout, the public defender who represents Mr. Smiley, conceded that no knife was found. However, Ms. Haughwout said, there is evidence to support that the victim came at Smiley after Smiley fired two warning shots, and that he did have something in his hand.
Prior to the legislative enactment, a person was required to retreat to the wall before using his or her right of self-defense by exercising deadly force, Judge Martha C. Warner wrote. The new law, Judge Warner said, abolished that duty.
Jason M. Rosenbloom, the man shot by his neighbor in Clearwater, said his case illustrated the flaws in the Florida law. Had it been a year and a half ago, he could have been arrested for attempted murder, Mr. Rosenbloom said of his neighbor, Kenneth Allen.
I was in T-shirt and shorts, Mr. Rosenbloom said, recalling the day he knocked on Mr. Allens door. Mr. Allen, a retired Virginia police officer, had lodged a complaint with the local authorities, taking Mr. Rosenbloom to task for putting out eight bags of garbage, though local ordinances allow only six.
I was no threat, Mr. Rosenbloom said. I had no weapon.
The men exchanged heated words. He closed the door and then opened the door, Mr. Rosenbloom said of Mr. Allen. He had a gun. I turned around to put my hands up. He didnt even say a word, and he fired once into my stomach. I bent over, and he shot me in the chest.
Mr. Allen, whose phone number is out of service and who could not be reached for comment, told The St. Petersburg Times that Mr. Rosenbloom had had his foot in the door and had tried to rush into the house, an assertion Mr. Rosenbloom denied.
I have a right, Mr. Allen said, to keep my house safe.
Taken from sbcoalition
Originally Posted By: sbcoalition
In Colorado, another state where this law has already passed, when Gary Lee Hill stood on the porch with a loaded rifle, he was afraid the people outside his home would attack him. That was what the jury heard in his murder trial. The jury foreman said that left them no choice but to find Hill not guilty of murder under Colorados Make My Day Law. Although Mr. Knott was in his vehicle, there was no credible evidence that Mr. Knott was leaving, the foreman wrote, adding that testimony showed some of the people were still outside in a car yelling at Hill.
Gary Hill, 24, was found not guilty of first-degree murder in the shooting death, in the back, of John David Knott, 19, while he was sitting in a car outside Hills home.
Chief Deputy District Attorney Elizabeth Kirkman stated, However, the way the Make My Day Law is worded, it allows for deadly force if the shooter reasonably believes the other person might use physical force against the home dweller. She said her office supports the Make My Day Law and respects the jurys decision. She also said, At the time he was shot, there was no imminent danger to the home dweller.
Trust me, wrote Bill Major of Colorado Springs, this will open the door for assaults and murders by those who will now accept this as an interpretation of the Make My Day Law.
I try this to become a comprehensive list, so please feel free to PM me.
Thanks for participating in this discussion, times and again posts get heated (as it is a highly sensitive AND political topic) please do not take criticism on your opinion personal. Usually it relaxes pretty soon.
You're entitled to your *opinion* - whatever it is - hence quote your sources please if you want your *arguments* get taken serious...
In the past 2 years we have collected data and facts from various sources. Please verify these arguments yourself and get informed at these websites:
Wiki on gun control
The second amendment of the US constitution, on "the right to bear arms"
Pro-guns
National Rifle Association USA
How to obtain a class III license
A 1995 DOJ's study on Guns used in Crimes
Microstamping opposition
(Please PM me your sources and the arguments they point at, I will include them here)
Anti gun
Brady Campaign
Informations on the NRA's board of directors
Website on comments of the NRA leaders
A UC study showing that microstamping is feasible but has flaws
Gun control network
(Please PM me your sources and the arguments they point at, I will include them here)
Scientific Studies on gun ownership and the resulting facts
Concealed handgun permit holders killed at least seven police officers and 44 private citizens in 31 incidents during the period May 2007 through April 2009 according to a new study
Harvard School of Public Health releases 2007 study that links guns with higher rate of homicide
Harvard School of Public Health releases 2007 study that links guns with higher rate of suicide
1999 Canadian study: "The rate of f...eightfold"
Utah medical library states that: "...uctivity."
Statistics on Teen homicide, suicide and... in 2004."
Articles in the news about guns, gun laws and accidents
USA Today on the expiry of the assault weapons ban
LA Times on bulletproof parks
CBS reports March 2008 that: "the U...in crimes"
A federal judge has stopped enforcement ...deadly weapons.
Violence Policy Center on CCW permit holders committing violent (armed) crimes
US weaponry spills into neighboring Mexico - across America
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1249974498)
Non-Https Image Link
[ed]I am going to update this OP as ppl who have not followed the discussion (in the past 2 years it is running now) cannot be bothered to go through all 50+ pages only to inform themselves about all the arguments brought forward. I hope it's allright with everybody.
Please patiently note that this is going to be a massive post that sum up all significant arguments that have been brought forward by both sides so far.
Thus: If you're bothered to read all the post, just scroll down to the bottom of it to get to the links and arguments - NEWEST information at the end of each section
Reading this post will keep you up-to-date with the current level of arguments brought forward - and you might not have to read all the 700+ posts.
If you have any new arguments that you find important to get included in this OP, please feel free to PM me at any time. Please note that I will only honor those arguments that you can back up with verifiable sources (quote your sources). I will *not* honor personal opinions as in 'I feel more comfy with a gun at my side' or in 'I feel horrified with guns present'. Feel free to post your opinions as you like *at the end of this thread*.
As this is a highly political issue, it will be almost impossible to keep this 'objective' and I will honor arguments of both sides, those who are pro and those who are against guns, regardless whether they directly come from the NRA or the Brady campaign.
The entire thread started like this:
Taken from: New York Times on August 7th
Originally Posted By: NYT
In the last year, 15 states have enacted laws that expand the right of self-defense, allowing crime victims to use deadly force in situations that might formerly have subjected them to prosecution for murder.
Jacqueline Galas, a Florida prostitute, shot and killed a 72-year-old client. She was not charged.
Supporters call them stand your ground laws.
Opponents call them shoot first laws.
The Florida law, which served as a model for the others, gives people the right to use deadly force against intruders entering their homes. They no longer need to prove that they feared for their safety, only that the person they killed had intruded unlawfully and forcefully. The law also extends this principle to vehicles.
In addition, the law does away with an earlier requirement that a person attacked in a public place must retreat if possible. Now, that same person, in the laws words, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force. The law also forbids the arrest, detention or prosecution of the people covered by the law, and it prohibits civil suits against them.
Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the N.R.A., said the Florida law had sent a needed message to law-abiding citizens. If they make a decision to save their lives in the split second they are being attacked, the law is on their side, Mr. LaPierre said. Good people make good decisions. Thats why theyre good people. If youre going to empower someone, empower the crime victim.
The N.R.A. said it would lobby for versions of the law in eight more states in 2007.
In the case of the West Palm Beach cabdriver, Mr. Smiley, then 56, killed Jimmie Morningstar, 43. A sports bar had paid Mr. Smiley $10 to drive Mr. Morningstar home in the early morning of Nov. 6, 2004. Mr. Morningstar was apparently reluctant to leave the cab once it reached its destination, and Mr. Smiley used a stun gun to hasten his exit. Once outside the cab, Mr. Morningstar flashed a knife, Mr. Smiley testified at his first trial, though one was never found. Mr. Smiley, who had gotten out of his cab, reacted by shooting at his passengers feet and then into his body, killing him.
Cliff Morningstar, the dead mans uncle, said he was baffled by the killing. He had a radio, Mr. Morningstar said of Mr. Smiley. He could have gotten in his car and left. He could have shot him in his knee.
Carey Haughwout, the public defender who represents Mr. Smiley, conceded that no knife was found. However, Ms. Haughwout said, there is evidence to support that the victim came at Smiley after Smiley fired two warning shots, and that he did have something in his hand.
Prior to the legislative enactment, a person was required to retreat to the wall before using his or her right of self-defense by exercising deadly force, Judge Martha C. Warner wrote. The new law, Judge Warner said, abolished that duty.
Jason M. Rosenbloom, the man shot by his neighbor in Clearwater, said his case illustrated the flaws in the Florida law. Had it been a year and a half ago, he could have been arrested for attempted murder, Mr. Rosenbloom said of his neighbor, Kenneth Allen.
I was in T-shirt and shorts, Mr. Rosenbloom said, recalling the day he knocked on Mr. Allens door. Mr. Allen, a retired Virginia police officer, had lodged a complaint with the local authorities, taking Mr. Rosenbloom to task for putting out eight bags of garbage, though local ordinances allow only six.
I was no threat, Mr. Rosenbloom said. I had no weapon.
The men exchanged heated words. He closed the door and then opened the door, Mr. Rosenbloom said of Mr. Allen. He had a gun. I turned around to put my hands up. He didnt even say a word, and he fired once into my stomach. I bent over, and he shot me in the chest.
Mr. Allen, whose phone number is out of service and who could not be reached for comment, told The St. Petersburg Times that Mr. Rosenbloom had had his foot in the door and had tried to rush into the house, an assertion Mr. Rosenbloom denied.
I have a right, Mr. Allen said, to keep my house safe.
Taken from sbcoalition
Originally Posted By: sbcoalition
In Colorado, another state where this law has already passed, when Gary Lee Hill stood on the porch with a loaded rifle, he was afraid the people outside his home would attack him. That was what the jury heard in his murder trial. The jury foreman said that left them no choice but to find Hill not guilty of murder under Colorados Make My Day Law. Although Mr. Knott was in his vehicle, there was no credible evidence that Mr. Knott was leaving, the foreman wrote, adding that testimony showed some of the people were still outside in a car yelling at Hill.
Gary Hill, 24, was found not guilty of first-degree murder in the shooting death, in the back, of John David Knott, 19, while he was sitting in a car outside Hills home.
Chief Deputy District Attorney Elizabeth Kirkman stated, However, the way the Make My Day Law is worded, it allows for deadly force if the shooter reasonably believes the other person might use physical force against the home dweller. She said her office supports the Make My Day Law and respects the jurys decision. She also said, At the time he was shot, there was no imminent danger to the home dweller.
Trust me, wrote Bill Major of Colorado Springs, this will open the door for assaults and murders by those who will now accept this as an interpretation of the Make My Day Law.
I try this to become a comprehensive list, so please feel free to PM me.
Thanks for participating in this discussion, times and again posts get heated (as it is a highly sensitive AND political topic) please do not take criticism on your opinion personal. Usually it relaxes pretty soon.
You're entitled to your *opinion* - whatever it is - hence quote your sources please if you want your *arguments* get taken serious...
In the past 2 years we have collected data and facts from various sources. Please verify these arguments yourself and get informed at these websites:
Wiki on gun control
The second amendment of the US constitution, on "the right to bear arms"
Pro-guns
National Rifle Association USA
How to obtain a class III license
A 1995 DOJ's study on Guns used in Crimes
Microstamping opposition
(Please PM me your sources and the arguments they point at, I will include them here)
Anti gun
Brady Campaign
Informations on the NRA's board of directors
Website on comments of the NRA leaders
A UC study showing that microstamping is feasible but has flaws
Gun control network
(Please PM me your sources and the arguments they point at, I will include them here)
Scientific Studies on gun ownership and the resulting facts
Concealed handgun permit holders killed at least seven police officers and 44 private citizens in 31 incidents during the period May 2007 through April 2009 according to a new study
Harvard School of Public Health releases 2007 study that links guns with higher rate of homicide
Harvard School of Public Health releases 2007 study that links guns with higher rate of suicide
1999 Canadian study: "The rate of f...eightfold"
Utah medical library states that: "...uctivity."
Statistics on Teen homicide, suicide and... in 2004."
Articles in the news about guns, gun laws and accidents
USA Today on the expiry of the assault weapons ban
LA Times on bulletproof parks
CBS reports March 2008 that: "the U...in crimes"
A federal judge has stopped enforcement ...deadly weapons.
Violence Policy Center on CCW permit holders committing violent (armed) crimes
US weaponry spills into neighboring Mexico - across America
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1249974498)
the best smiles are the ones you lead to 
Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001
![Doc Lightning]()
HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Total posts: 13920
GOLD Member since May 2001
HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Total posts: 13920
Posted:Yeah, well nobody ever accused the U.S. of being a reasonable place.
-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura
Posted:
Now I'm glad I live in the UK!!
Now I'm glad I live in the UK!!
"Lots of beeping. And shaking and tinfoil." Chelly
"Are you sure it's a genuine test and not a robot heroin addict?" Cantus
---set free by the rather lovely FireTom---
--(right arm owned by Fyre)--
Posted:YAY! An arguement against a specific US law without rash generalizations needlessly attacking everyone or everything unrelated. Articulate, accurate and well written.
Oh, of course it was, it was written by the New York Times.
Yeah, 2nd Ammendment is stupid. But really, it's all England's fault.
Oh, of course it was, it was written by the New York Times.
Yeah, 2nd Ammendment is stupid. But really, it's all England's fault.
Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]
Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005
![Patriarch917]()
I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Total posts: 607
SILVER Member since Oct 2005
I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Total posts: 607
Posted:I must respectfully dissent. This law is not a license to murder. It clarifies and improves what one may do in self defense. While the article does not actually quote the law, from the articles description, I would have to say that the law appears to be a good one.
I would not characterize the New York Times article as presenting an argument against the new laws. Read carefully what is said by Mr. Morningstar and Mr. Rosenbloom. They say nothing about whether the law is good or not. They simply claim a sets of facts that were different from what the jury found.
Asserting a different set of facts is not a criticism of a law. It is a criticism of the factfinding ability of the jury.
In order to criticize the law, you must show that when properly interpreted and correctly applied to facts, the result is bad (however you choose to define that word).
So far as I can see, this law is a good policy choice. A person who reasonably defends themselves should be prosecuted for murder. Such laws will prevent innocent people who defended themselves from being prosecuted for murdering their attackers.
I would not characterize the New York Times article as presenting an argument against the new laws. Read carefully what is said by Mr. Morningstar and Mr. Rosenbloom. They say nothing about whether the law is good or not. They simply claim a sets of facts that were different from what the jury found.
Asserting a different set of facts is not a criticism of a law. It is a criticism of the factfinding ability of the jury.
In order to criticize the law, you must show that when properly interpreted and correctly applied to facts, the result is bad (however you choose to define that word).
So far as I can see, this law is a good policy choice. A person who reasonably defends themselves should be prosecuted for murder. Such laws will prevent innocent people who defended themselves from being prosecuted for murdering their attackers.
Delete
Posted: Written by: Patriarch917
So far as I can see, this law is a good policy choice. A person who reasonably defends themselves should be prosecuted for murder. Such laws will prevent innocent people who defended themselves from being prosecuted for %u201Cmurdering%u201D their attackers.
Obviously people will differ on what 'reasonably defending one's self' means. Especially in light of the fact that it seems to be suggesting that there does not seem to need to be a threat to defend one's self from.
I think the question (for me) comes down to "Do they deserve to die?" Especially if I'm the one holding the gun. I do believe that a trespasser should be punished but I don't believe that death is an appropriate punishment.
Q1: If I trespass on your land and you are positive that I am in no way a threat to you or your possessions, do you think you have the right to kill me?
Q2: If I trespass on your land and you are positive that my only motive is robery and will absolutely not hurt anyone, do you think you have the right to kill me?
Q3: If I trespass on your land and you are positive that my motivation is to harm you but not kill you, do you think you have the right to kill me?
Q4: If I trespass on your land with the intent of killing you, do you think you have the right to kill me?
WAIT! Don't answer them. Just understand that certain people will answer 'yes' and 'no' to certain of the above questions and that will result in their interpretation of the above gun laws.
I think in the UK they would be more likely to say "no" for each of the questions (with more nos being towards the top of course.) In the US, they'd be more likely to say "yes" with more "nos" at the top.
These are very fundamental beliefs. I find many differences in fundamental beliefs in crime prevention and punishment in the UK and the US. Both have pros and cons. Both are more and less effective in differing situations.
I'm honestly amazed with what they allow to happen in the UK; riots, destruction of property in the name of politics, holigansm, intimidation of police, gypsies snatching up land and refusing to leave... stuff you'd get shot for over here.
And then I'm amazed at what they shoot people for over here.
So far as I can see, this law is a good policy choice. A person who reasonably defends themselves should be prosecuted for murder. Such laws will prevent innocent people who defended themselves from being prosecuted for %u201Cmurdering%u201D their attackers.
Obviously people will differ on what 'reasonably defending one's self' means. Especially in light of the fact that it seems to be suggesting that there does not seem to need to be a threat to defend one's self from.
I think the question (for me) comes down to "Do they deserve to die?" Especially if I'm the one holding the gun. I do believe that a trespasser should be punished but I don't believe that death is an appropriate punishment.
Q1: If I trespass on your land and you are positive that I am in no way a threat to you or your possessions, do you think you have the right to kill me?
Q2: If I trespass on your land and you are positive that my only motive is robery and will absolutely not hurt anyone, do you think you have the right to kill me?
Q3: If I trespass on your land and you are positive that my motivation is to harm you but not kill you, do you think you have the right to kill me?
Q4: If I trespass on your land with the intent of killing you, do you think you have the right to kill me?
WAIT! Don't answer them. Just understand that certain people will answer 'yes' and 'no' to certain of the above questions and that will result in their interpretation of the above gun laws.
I think in the UK they would be more likely to say "no" for each of the questions (with more nos being towards the top of course.) In the US, they'd be more likely to say "yes" with more "nos" at the top.
These are very fundamental beliefs. I find many differences in fundamental beliefs in crime prevention and punishment in the UK and the US. Both have pros and cons. Both are more and less effective in differing situations.
I'm honestly amazed with what they allow to happen in the UK; riots, destruction of property in the name of politics, holigansm, intimidation of police, gypsies snatching up land and refusing to leave... stuff you'd get shot for over here.
And then I'm amazed at what they shoot people for over here.
Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]
Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005
![Patriarch917]()
I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Total posts: 607
SILVER Member since Oct 2005
I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Total posts: 607
Posted:You suggest that there does not seem to need to be a threat to defend one's self from. Of course, we have not yet looked at the actual law. Instead, we have it paraphrased for us by the NY Times. Still, lets consider what the Times says. It does not say that there does not need to be a threat. Rather, it says They no longer need to prove that they feared for their safety, only that the person they killed had intruded unlawfully and forcefully.
The difference between the two is that the first standard (feared for their safety) is a subjective standard. To test whether the action was reasonable or not, we must try to figure out what was going on in the persons mind. Specifically, we need to know whether they actually feared for their safety.
This is difficult to do, since we cannot look directly into their minds. Assuming the intruder survives (as in the case of Mr. Rosenbloom), the intruder is likely to claim that the defender didnt appear scared at all. On the other hand, the defender is likely to claim that they are very scared.
As a general rule, we usually try to use objective standards in the law. Instead of asking Was the homeowner fearful of the intruder, we ask Would a reasonable person in the position of the homeowner have been fearful of the intruder.
The second standard does not care whether the homeowner was actually fearful. Instead, it asks whether a hypothetical reasonable person would have been fearful. To answer this question, a jury of peers need not inquire as to what the homeowner was thinking. Instead, they need only look at objective facts, and determine whether the facts would have made a reasonable person fearful.
This sort of standard lends itself to uniformity of decisions. Thus, it does not matter whether the person defending themselves was timid, or brave. Chuck Norris can shoot people who break into his bedroom, whether he genuinely fears them or not.
If Chuck Norris shoots an intruder whom he does not fear, Chuck Norris may be worthy of some moral condemnation. Perhaps God, who can see our thoughts, may find that the shooting was not justifiable under the circumstances. Still, our laws cannot be perfect, and we must be very careful in how we right them. We should, whenever possible, tailor our laws to describe what people should do, not what they should think.
Your questions all essentially ask what does the defender think that the intruder is thinking? While this may be an interesting thing to consider in the context of personal morality, it is hardly lends itself to good lawmaking. Rather, I would prefer our laws to ask what was the intruder doing, and what did the defender do.
Previously, some states required that when an intruder forced entry into a home, the homeowner had to attempt to retreat to another room or leave the house. Only if you were cornered could you defend yourself.
This put a significant burden on those who managed to fend off attackers. They had to show that they had exhausted the means of escape before being allowed to respond to the intruder. If you shot someone with an open window to your back, you could be convicted of murder.
People were tired of hearing Last night, Joe Citizen was woken from his sleep by a strange noise. Grabbing his pistol from under his pillow, he went downstairs to investigate. He went into his kitchen to find two masked men coming through a broken window. He yelled %&#$. As the men turned toward him, he fired three shots, killing one man and wounding the other, who escaped back through the window... fleeing into the darkness.
Joe called the cops, who arrived and promptly arrested Joe. Joe is now facing murder charges. The second burglar turned himself in and pled guilty to burglary of a home, receiving 11 months and 29 days. The burglar got out of jail after 4 months, and has filed a civil suit for the injury cause by Joe, demanding $15,000 in medical expenses, and $100,000 for pain and suffering.
This is the sort of story that gets people annoyed enough to make their legislators change the legal duty. The victim of a crime who successfully defends himself may end up being punished more than the criminals.
The law instructs people on what to do. If you are confronted by someone attacking you or breaking into your house, you still have the option to run if that is what your personal morality demands. However, certain communities have now decided that if you decide to stand your ground and fight it out, you will not be punished for that decision.
I doubt that this law will have the affect of increasing the number of people being shot for breaking into houses. First of all, we do not generally ask, when someone is breaking into our house, what does the legislature think I should do. Rather, we act out of instinct and personal values. People inclined to flee will not likely decide to try and fight merely because the law now allows it, and those inclined to fight probably were not influenced in their decisionmaking by the old laws.
These laws are not going to alter the behavior of our society. Rather, our laws are being brought into conformity with community morals and values.
If anything, such laws will decrease shootings in those states. While the victims of crimes have little control over the circumstances, and little chance to rationalize about their actions, the criminals have the opportunity to plan their heists in accordance with changes in the law. Were I a burglar in Florida, I would move my business.
I would trot out studies about how more gun ownership and tougher self defense laws relate to crime statistics, but such graphs arent that impressive. As we know, increased CO2 in the atmosphere can easily be linked to a decrease in pirates.
The difference between the two is that the first standard (feared for their safety) is a subjective standard. To test whether the action was reasonable or not, we must try to figure out what was going on in the persons mind. Specifically, we need to know whether they actually feared for their safety.
This is difficult to do, since we cannot look directly into their minds. Assuming the intruder survives (as in the case of Mr. Rosenbloom), the intruder is likely to claim that the defender didnt appear scared at all. On the other hand, the defender is likely to claim that they are very scared.
As a general rule, we usually try to use objective standards in the law. Instead of asking Was the homeowner fearful of the intruder, we ask Would a reasonable person in the position of the homeowner have been fearful of the intruder.
The second standard does not care whether the homeowner was actually fearful. Instead, it asks whether a hypothetical reasonable person would have been fearful. To answer this question, a jury of peers need not inquire as to what the homeowner was thinking. Instead, they need only look at objective facts, and determine whether the facts would have made a reasonable person fearful.
This sort of standard lends itself to uniformity of decisions. Thus, it does not matter whether the person defending themselves was timid, or brave. Chuck Norris can shoot people who break into his bedroom, whether he genuinely fears them or not.
If Chuck Norris shoots an intruder whom he does not fear, Chuck Norris may be worthy of some moral condemnation. Perhaps God, who can see our thoughts, may find that the shooting was not justifiable under the circumstances. Still, our laws cannot be perfect, and we must be very careful in how we right them. We should, whenever possible, tailor our laws to describe what people should do, not what they should think.
Your questions all essentially ask what does the defender think that the intruder is thinking? While this may be an interesting thing to consider in the context of personal morality, it is hardly lends itself to good lawmaking. Rather, I would prefer our laws to ask what was the intruder doing, and what did the defender do.
Previously, some states required that when an intruder forced entry into a home, the homeowner had to attempt to retreat to another room or leave the house. Only if you were cornered could you defend yourself.
This put a significant burden on those who managed to fend off attackers. They had to show that they had exhausted the means of escape before being allowed to respond to the intruder. If you shot someone with an open window to your back, you could be convicted of murder.
People were tired of hearing Last night, Joe Citizen was woken from his sleep by a strange noise. Grabbing his pistol from under his pillow, he went downstairs to investigate. He went into his kitchen to find two masked men coming through a broken window. He yelled %&#$. As the men turned toward him, he fired three shots, killing one man and wounding the other, who escaped back through the window... fleeing into the darkness.
Joe called the cops, who arrived and promptly arrested Joe. Joe is now facing murder charges. The second burglar turned himself in and pled guilty to burglary of a home, receiving 11 months and 29 days. The burglar got out of jail after 4 months, and has filed a civil suit for the injury cause by Joe, demanding $15,000 in medical expenses, and $100,000 for pain and suffering.
This is the sort of story that gets people annoyed enough to make their legislators change the legal duty. The victim of a crime who successfully defends himself may end up being punished more than the criminals.
The law instructs people on what to do. If you are confronted by someone attacking you or breaking into your house, you still have the option to run if that is what your personal morality demands. However, certain communities have now decided that if you decide to stand your ground and fight it out, you will not be punished for that decision.
I doubt that this law will have the affect of increasing the number of people being shot for breaking into houses. First of all, we do not generally ask, when someone is breaking into our house, what does the legislature think I should do. Rather, we act out of instinct and personal values. People inclined to flee will not likely decide to try and fight merely because the law now allows it, and those inclined to fight probably were not influenced in their decisionmaking by the old laws.
These laws are not going to alter the behavior of our society. Rather, our laws are being brought into conformity with community morals and values.
If anything, such laws will decrease shootings in those states. While the victims of crimes have little control over the circumstances, and little chance to rationalize about their actions, the criminals have the opportunity to plan their heists in accordance with changes in the law. Were I a burglar in Florida, I would move my business.
I would trot out studies about how more gun ownership and tougher self defense laws relate to crime statistics, but such graphs arent that impressive. As we know, increased CO2 in the atmosphere can easily be linked to a decrease in pirates.
Delete
Posted: Written by: Patriarch
I doubt that this law will have the affect of increasing the number of people being shot for breaking into houses. First of all, we do not generally ask, when someone is breaking into our house, what does the legislature think I should do. Rather, we act out of instinct and personal values. People inclined to flee will not likely decide to try and fight merely because the law now allows it, and those inclined to fight probably were not influenced in their decisionmaking by the old laws.
These laws are not going to alter the behavior of our society. Rather, our laws are being brought into conformity with community morals and values.
This is a rubbish statement.
There is no justification in shooting people in the back, especially not if they are sitting inside their car. There is no justification for shooting obviously unarmed people in the back.
People will have to spare less thoughts over their actions, because they are protected by a law. "Good people make good choices" is cowspoo. First the philosophical question about "good and evil", second the aspect of omnipotence.
Nobody is perfect and it's strange that the behaviour of law enforcement officers might be heavier regulated than of regular citizens. IMHO this is moving towards a Militia.
Why do people tend to say: Fear is the best teacher?
Same with Israel: someone acting out of fear, the action is doomed to be inappropriate.
I doubt that this law will have the affect of increasing the number of people being shot for breaking into houses. First of all, we do not generally ask, when someone is breaking into our house, what does the legislature think I should do. Rather, we act out of instinct and personal values. People inclined to flee will not likely decide to try and fight merely because the law now allows it, and those inclined to fight probably were not influenced in their decisionmaking by the old laws.
These laws are not going to alter the behavior of our society. Rather, our laws are being brought into conformity with community morals and values.
This is a rubbish statement.
There is no justification in shooting people in the back, especially not if they are sitting inside their car. There is no justification for shooting obviously unarmed people in the back.
People will have to spare less thoughts over their actions, because they are protected by a law. "Good people make good choices" is cowspoo. First the philosophical question about "good and evil", second the aspect of omnipotence.
Nobody is perfect and it's strange that the behaviour of law enforcement officers might be heavier regulated than of regular citizens. IMHO this is moving towards a Militia.
Why do people tend to say: Fear is the best teacher?
Same with Israel: someone acting out of fear, the action is doomed to be inappropriate.
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
Mr Majestik
SILVER Member since Mar 2004
![Mr Majestik]()
coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear
Total posts: 4693
SILVER Member since Mar 2004
coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear
Total posts: 4693
Posted: Written by: FireTom
"Good people make good choices"
Written by: Oscar Wilde
When one looks back at history, one is sickened not by the crimes the 'wicked' committed, but by the punishment the 'good' inflicted
i dont pretend to have any knowledge of american Gun laws, all i know is if i elevate my weaponary, the enemy will to. if robbers know that homeowners have been given the green light to kill them, they'll be more likely to try to kill the homeowner first.
firearm laws in the US are crazy, they should be a tool not a weapon.
"Good people make good choices"
Written by: Oscar Wilde
When one looks back at history, one is sickened not by the crimes the 'wicked' committed, but by the punishment the 'good' inflicted
i dont pretend to have any knowledge of american Gun laws, all i know is if i elevate my weaponary, the enemy will to. if robbers know that homeowners have been given the green light to kill them, they'll be more likely to try to kill the homeowner first.
firearm laws in the US are crazy, they should be a tool not a weapon.
"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"
jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley
Posted: Written by: Patriarch917
As a general rule, we usually try to use objective standards in the law. Instead of asking Was the homeowner fearful of the intruder, we ask Would a reasonable person in the position of the homeowner have been fearful of the intruder.
I disagree with the specific point you're making. Often times, "intent" of the defendant is extremely important. Prosecuters will often take great pains to establish the defendant's "state of mind". That's why there is a difference between "First degree murder" and "Second degree murder" and "Manslaughter".
If you are drunk and drive your car into me, a prosecutor will first try and determine what your intent was before pressing charges.
There's a huge difference between someone calling the cops and saying
"There is a drunk college student in my livingroom who is clearly confused and thinks there's supposed to be a keg party here, excuse me now I'm going to go shoot him to death now."
And someone who calls the cops and says:
"OH MY GOD I THINK THERE"S SOMEONE IN MY HOUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON AND I THINK THEY"RE GOING TO KILL ME I"M GONNA GO GET MY GUN!"
In fact, thats why 911 tapes are often used as evidence to see the state of mind of the person.
(I think I'm disagreeing with what you were suggesting. If not, then um... nevermind.
)
As a general rule, we usually try to use objective standards in the law. Instead of asking Was the homeowner fearful of the intruder, we ask Would a reasonable person in the position of the homeowner have been fearful of the intruder.
I disagree with the specific point you're making. Often times, "intent" of the defendant is extremely important. Prosecuters will often take great pains to establish the defendant's "state of mind". That's why there is a difference between "First degree murder" and "Second degree murder" and "Manslaughter".
If you are drunk and drive your car into me, a prosecutor will first try and determine what your intent was before pressing charges.
There's a huge difference between someone calling the cops and saying
"There is a drunk college student in my livingroom who is clearly confused and thinks there's supposed to be a keg party here, excuse me now I'm going to go shoot him to death now."
And someone who calls the cops and says:
"OH MY GOD I THINK THERE"S SOMEONE IN MY HOUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON AND I THINK THEY"RE GOING TO KILL ME I"M GONNA GO GET MY GUN!"
In fact, thats why 911 tapes are often used as evidence to see the state of mind of the person.
(I think I'm disagreeing with what you were suggesting. If not, then um... nevermind.
)Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]
Posted: Written by: Mr Majestik
Written by: FireTom
"Good people make good choices"
Written by: Oscar Wilde
When one looks back at history, one is sickened not by the crimes the 'wicked' committed, but by the punishment the 'good' inflicted
Pls: the first quote was of Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the N.R.A...
"Some of the worst desasters have been caused by best intent"... quote me on this one...
IMO Untrained, armed civilians are the worst cops you can find. Burgling isn't comitted as a hobby, certainly burglars will shoot first(er) - certainly people will shoot faster ("shoot first - ask later") and certainly murderers will escape on these laws...
IMHO The US seem to turn from bad to worse...
Hope this policy won't establish itself on international level... My prayers for you guys out there, won't you appear as a threat to those "good people", when twirling your staff/ swinging your poi... May the circle be with you 
Written by: FireTom
"Good people make good choices"
Written by: Oscar Wilde
When one looks back at history, one is sickened not by the crimes the 'wicked' committed, but by the punishment the 'good' inflicted
Pls: the first quote was of Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the N.R.A...
"Some of the worst desasters have been caused by best intent"... quote me on this one...
IMO Untrained, armed civilians are the worst cops you can find. Burgling isn't comitted as a hobby, certainly burglars will shoot first(er) - certainly people will shoot faster ("shoot first - ask later") and certainly murderers will escape on these laws...
IMHO The US seem to turn from bad to worse...
Hope this policy won't establish itself on international level...
My prayers for you guys out there, won't you appear as a threat to those "good people", when twirling your staff/ swinging your poi... May the circle be with you the best smiles are the ones you lead to
Posted: Written by: FireTom
There is no justification in shooting people in the back...There is no justification for shooting obviously unarmed people in the back.
With all due respect that is your opinion, and some people's opinions differ, particuarly when the person is on their property uninvited and may be intending to cause harm or damage.
Further some people won't have the physical means to make even an unarmed person go away on their own. It may be your opinion that, say, someone in a wheelchair should just make better living arrangements, but it might be their opinion that they should be able to use firearms to defend themselves.
And at this point its simply a question of who's opinions should be making the laws, and why. I imagine a lot of places in america the majority really does belive in gun laws like this, and thats why we have them.
There is no justification in shooting people in the back...There is no justification for shooting obviously unarmed people in the back.
With all due respect that is your opinion, and some people's opinions differ, particuarly when the person is on their property uninvited and may be intending to cause harm or damage.
Further some people won't have the physical means to make even an unarmed person go away on their own. It may be your opinion that, say, someone in a wheelchair should just make better living arrangements, but it might be their opinion that they should be able to use firearms to defend themselves.
And at this point its simply a question of who's opinions should be making the laws, and why. I imagine a lot of places in america the majority really does belive in gun laws like this, and thats why we have them.
Keep your dream alive
Dreamin is still how the strong survive
Shalom VeAhavah
New Hampshire has a point....
Posted:Yupp, correctly worded, Kyrian (and now I (hopefully) misinterpret your words):
THAT IS MY OPINION! It is an unjustifyable act to shoot people in the back, especially if sitting in their car and if not a direct threat to the shooter.
As there seem to be people in the US who have
a) an opposing opinion
b) the power to set up according laws
therefore IMO the US become a VERY VERY scary place to be.
It has been a place for paranoia and it certainly will not improve.
What if I happen to cross some property (WITHOUT ANY CRIMINAL INTENT - JUST FOR WHATEVER THE HECK) and the landowner pops out on his veranda with a firearm, aiming at me? Maybe I have a gun myself - there ya go! High noon, ey!
BangBang! Good ol Wild West! The US is back in the 19th century!
Maybe I happen to play with my fire stickies ON PUBLIC PROPERTY - just unfortunately in front of whacko Willies house... It's nighttime, nobody around, he's bothered and I'm a moving target for him - turn the frontyard into a shooting range, will ya! How could HE know, that I didn't plan to torch his house?
Good job, well done - but maybe cease to declare yourself as the "greatest (democracy) on earth" [/rant]
Please - with all due respect - tell me that it's NOT "shoot first, ask later", that people cannot get killed for NOTHING and the perpetrators remain without punishment. Please tell me, it's NOT ridiculing the laws and law enforcement. IF "Good People Make Good Choices" then why not arming EVERYONE (good)? Why would we need cops then? Take the law into your own hands - BE GOOD, NOW... [/rant]
THAT IS MY OPINION! It is an unjustifyable act to shoot people in the back, especially if sitting in their car and if not a direct threat to the shooter.
As there seem to be people in the US who have
a) an opposing opinion
b) the power to set up according laws
therefore IMO the US become a VERY VERY scary place to be.
It has been a place for paranoia and it certainly will not improve.
What if I happen to cross some property (WITHOUT ANY CRIMINAL INTENT - JUST FOR WHATEVER THE HECK) and the landowner pops out on his veranda with a firearm, aiming at me? Maybe I have a gun myself - there ya go! High noon, ey!
BangBang! Good ol Wild West! The US is back in the 19th century!
Maybe I happen to play with my fire stickies ON PUBLIC PROPERTY - just unfortunately in front of whacko Willies house... It's nighttime, nobody around, he's bothered and I'm a moving target for him - turn the frontyard into a shooting range, will ya! How could HE know, that I didn't plan to torch his house?
Good job, well done - but maybe cease to declare yourself as the "greatest (democracy) on earth" [/rant]
Please - with all due respect - tell me that it's NOT "shoot first, ask later", that people cannot get killed for NOTHING and the perpetrators remain without punishment. Please tell me, it's NOT ridiculing the laws and law enforcement. IF "Good People Make Good Choices" then why not arming EVERYONE (good)? Why would we need cops then? Take the law into your own hands - BE GOOD, NOW... [/rant]
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
Posted: Written by: FireTom
Good job, well done - but maybe cease to declare yourself as the "greatest (democracy) on earth" [/rant]
Shucks, you're right. I'll go take the sign down from my front lawn.
[Wait... WHEN did I say I was the greatest democracy in the on earth?]
Good job, well done - but maybe cease to declare yourself as the "greatest (democracy) on earth" [/rant]
Shucks, you're right. I'll go take the sign down from my front lawn.
[Wait... WHEN did I say I was the greatest democracy in the on earth?]
Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]
Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005
![Patriarch917]()
I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Total posts: 607
SILVER Member since Oct 2005
I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Total posts: 607
Posted:The objections are completely unfounded. Rather than depending on one sided and untrustworthy descriptions from the NY Times and an anti-gun site, we should read the actual Colorado law before speculating on its affect:
Written by:
18-1-704. Use of physical force in defense of a person
(1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for that purpose.
(2) Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate and:
(a) The actor has reasonable ground to believe, and does believe, that he or another person is in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury; or
(b) The other person is using or reasonably appears about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling or business establishment while committing or attempting to commit burglary as defined in sections 18-4-202 to 18-4-204; or
(c) The other person is committing or reasonably appears about to commit kidnapping as defined in section 18-3-301 or 18-3-302, robbery as defined in section 18-4-301 or 18-4-302, sexual assault as set forth in section 18-3-402, or in section 18-3-403 as it existed prior to July 1, 2000, or assault as defined in sections 18-3-202 and 18-3-203.
(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, a person is not justified in using physical force if:
(a) With intent to cause bodily injury or death to another person, he provokes the use of unlawful physical force by that other person; or
(b) He is the initial aggressor; except that his use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his intent to do so, but the latter nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force; or
(c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.
As you can see, reading this law will help clarify the issue far more than reading those articles. For example:
Written by:
It is an unjustifyable act to shoot people in the back, especially if sitting in their car and if not a direct threat to the shooter.
The law agrees with you.
Written by:
What if I happen to cross some property (WITHOUT ANY CRIMINAL INTENT - JUST FOR WHATEVER THE HECK) and the landowner pops out on his veranda with a firearm, aiming at me?
He would be guilty of assault. You could sue the pants off him and he would face criminal charges. You are not allowed even to point a gun at someone who is simply trespassing.
Written by:
Maybe I happen to play with my fire stickies ON PUBLIC PROPERTY - just unfortunately in front of whacko Willies house... It's nighttime, nobody around, he's bothered and I'm a moving target for him - turn the frontyard into a shooting range, will ya! How could HE know, that I didn't plan to torch his house?
Again, if he shot you he would be guilty of murder.
Written by:
Please - with all due respect - tell me that it's NOT "shoot first, ask later", that people cannot get killed for NOTHING and the perpetrators remain without punishment.
Ok. Its not a shoot first, ask later law that allows people to get killed for nothing and the perpetrators go unpunished. Its a very reasonable law that allows people to protect themselves.
Written by:
18-1-704. Use of physical force in defense of a person
(1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for that purpose.
(2) Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate and:
(a) The actor has reasonable ground to believe, and does believe, that he or another person is in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury; or
(b) The other person is using or reasonably appears about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling or business establishment while committing or attempting to commit burglary as defined in sections 18-4-202 to 18-4-204; or
(c) The other person is committing or reasonably appears about to commit kidnapping as defined in section 18-3-301 or 18-3-302, robbery as defined in section 18-4-301 or 18-4-302, sexual assault as set forth in section 18-3-402, or in section 18-3-403 as it existed prior to July 1, 2000, or assault as defined in sections 18-3-202 and 18-3-203.
(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, a person is not justified in using physical force if:
(a) With intent to cause bodily injury or death to another person, he provokes the use of unlawful physical force by that other person; or
(b) He is the initial aggressor; except that his use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his intent to do so, but the latter nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force; or
(c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.
As you can see, reading this law will help clarify the issue far more than reading those articles. For example:
Written by:
It is an unjustifyable act to shoot people in the back, especially if sitting in their car and if not a direct threat to the shooter.
The law agrees with you.
Written by:
What if I happen to cross some property (WITHOUT ANY CRIMINAL INTENT - JUST FOR WHATEVER THE HECK) and the landowner pops out on his veranda with a firearm, aiming at me?
He would be guilty of assault. You could sue the pants off him and he would face criminal charges. You are not allowed even to point a gun at someone who is simply trespassing.
Written by:
Maybe I happen to play with my fire stickies ON PUBLIC PROPERTY - just unfortunately in front of whacko Willies house... It's nighttime, nobody around, he's bothered and I'm a moving target for him - turn the frontyard into a shooting range, will ya! How could HE know, that I didn't plan to torch his house?
Again, if he shot you he would be guilty of murder.
Written by:
Please - with all due respect - tell me that it's NOT "shoot first, ask later", that people cannot get killed for NOTHING and the perpetrators remain without punishment.
Ok. Its not a shoot first, ask later law that allows people to get killed for nothing and the perpetrators go unpunished. Its a very reasonable law that allows people to protect themselves.
Delete
Posted:Well thanks Patriarch for the insight, nonetheless:
a) what about the cases (Taxidriver, Prostitute, Neighbour) the NYT mentioned and the lawsuits thereafter?
b) according to this law
Written by:
(2) Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate and:
(a) The actor has reasonable ground to believe, and does believe, that he or another person is in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury
This opens too many doors. I would NOT want to depend my life on some guys disgression or paranoia.
Cops are not reliant 100% of the time they are doing their job, what about an untrained, nervous civilians?
(Disclaimer) ANY phrase that could be taken as an insult to feelings of ANY USAmerican member of this board, due to her/ his nationality/ residency: It wasn't meant as such - my apologies.
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1155755937)
a) what about the cases (Taxidriver, Prostitute, Neighbour) the NYT mentioned and the lawsuits thereafter?
b) according to this law
Written by:
(2) Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate and:
(a) The actor has reasonable ground to believe, and does believe, that he or another person is in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury
This opens too many doors. I would NOT want to depend my life on some guys disgression or paranoia.
Cops are not reliant 100% of the time they are doing their job, what about an untrained, nervous civilians?
(Disclaimer) ANY phrase that could be taken as an insult to feelings of ANY USAmerican member of this board, due to her/ his nationality/ residency: It wasn't meant as such - my apologies.
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1155755937)
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005
![Patriarch917]()
I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Total posts: 607
SILVER Member since Oct 2005
I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Total posts: 607
Posted: Written by: FireTom
Well thanks Patriarch for the insight, nonetheless:
a) what about the cases (Taxidriver, Prostitute, Neighbour) the NYT mentioned and the lawsuits thereafter?
Lets start with the Taxidriver case. Apparently, the Uncle of Mr. Morningstar thinks that the taxidriver should have tried to call someone on the radio, ran away, or shot his nephew in the knee. This is understandable. I would probably wish the same for my nephew.
Had the Times found the Uncle of the Taxidriver, no doubt that Uncle would have said that his nephew the taxidriver was quite justified in shooting a drunk man coming at him with a knife. After all, a stun gun had failed to discourage him, and the taxidriver did fire two warning shots at the mans feet.
This is the reason why we do not allow peoples uncles to serve on a jury. Instead, this matter was heard by a jury of peers, not relatives. I doubt it is difficult for the Times to find a relative of a drunk knifeman who had been shot willing to speculate on what the shooter should have done in response to the attack. However, the taxidriver is not (and should not) have his behavior judged by the relatives of the man who attacked him.
The point of the story, of course, was to emphasize that the law no longer required the taxi driver to prove that he had attempted to flee the conflict. The law now allows him to choose either to run from the drunk with the knife, or to fight back.
If a person feels it is morally wrong to fight back, preferring instead to flee or to turn the other cheek, the law allows you to do this. There is no requirement that you use force to defend yourself. Similarly, if you see a drunk with a knife about to attack a third party, you can choose to run away and call the police rather than intervene.
This is a hard choice to make, especially because it must almost always be a split second decision made under the most stressful of circumstances. The people of Florida, Colorado, and many other states have chosen not to charge people with murder who kill attackers in self defense, even if it turns out they had other options (as long as they reasonably believe that lesser force would have been inadequate, and they are in imminent danger of being killed or getting seriously hurt).
Assuming the Florida law resembles the Colorado law, it seems that the jury found that the taxidriver reasonably believed that he was in danger of being killed or seriously injured (probably because the guy was coming at him brandishing a knife), and that a lesser degree of force wouldnt have worked (the stun gun and the warning shots hadnt.) Since, according to the U.S. constitution, no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, what the jury decided must be accepted as true for the purposes of the law.
It is easy to disagree with a jury as to a fact. The uncle of Mr. Morningstar certainly does. However, disagreeing over a fact is not a criticism of the law. Rather, it suggests that a bad jury was chosen. We try to be very careful with juries, by giving the judge, the prosecution, and the defense the ability to throw out any juror they want during the jury selection process. Furthermore, we require that the jury vote be unanimous (a single dissenter will create a hung jury.) No doubt, even with all this, bad results will occasionally be reached. This, however, is not a criticism of the law itself. A perfectly good law in the hands of a bad judge and jury can have terrible results.
The case of the prostitute was described simply as Jacqueline Galas, a Florida prostitute, shot and killed a 72-year-old client. This is hardly enough information to allow us to comment as to whether this should be considered first or second degree murder, manslaughter, or self-defense.
The case of the Neighbor (Mr. Rosenbloom) is my favorite one. Mr. Rosenbloom was shot, but survived. He told the Times his version of the story, portraying himself as an innocent victim. His story is different from that told by Mr. Allen, who the Times was unable to reach.
Again, we do not have a criticism of the law. Rather, we have two persons claiming contradictory sets of facts. I have no doubt that each of them presented their own version of the story in court, and the jury had to decide which testimony was more credible and best supported by the evidence. The jury apparently decided not to believe Mr. Rosenblooms version, and Mr. Rosenbloom doesnt like it. If he wants to whine to a reporter about it, thats fine with me. However, this in no way shows the law to be badly written.
You left the shot in the back while sitting in the car incident off the list, which is wise. It came from an anti-gun special interest group. If we are going to rely on them to accurately describe the affect of the law on society, we would also have to rely on the NRA to balance it. Ive no doubt that the NRA site has some great examples of how these laws have allowed little old ladies to defend themselves against horrible attacks.
I bet the NRA also have horror stories about how little old ladies walking around in their homes were attacked by rapists and managed to kill them, only to be convicted of murder because there was an open window that they could have tried to escape from before reaching for their rolling pins (remember, these are not gun laws but would apply even to your bare hands... which means that the title of the thread is completely inaccurate
). No doubt, such stories played a significant part in convincing people to change these laws.
Written by: FireTom
b) according to this law
Written by:
(2) Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate and:
(a) The actor has reasonable ground to believe, and does believe, that he or another person is in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury
This opens too many doors. I would NOT want to depend my life on some guys disgression or paranoia.
(Im assuming that disgression was merely a typo for depression or some other mental disease).
Your life would not depend on some guys depression or paranoia. The law does not allow the use of force if you merely believe something. Rather, you must reasonably believe. This is not just some extra fluff, but is a legal term of art the purpose of which is to prevent exactly the sort of scenario you fear.
A person who shoots because they are paranoid did not have a reasonable belief. They had an unreasonable one.
The classic example used is that of a person who was riding an elevator with a bunch of people of a different race. The person became excessively fearful because of the race difference, and just started attacking. They claimed that racial tension, being in a bad part of town, the way the people were dressed, etc. made it reasonable to fear imminent physical injury. It is undisputed that the person truly and actually believed that they were about to be attacked, and thought that they were acting in self defense. However, this belief was not reasonable.
This goes back to the subjective/objective standard that I mentioned in a previous post. We dont ask whether the person believed it, and whether the action seemed reasonable to them. Rather, we ask whether a reasonable person in their situation would have had such a belief. In other words, we ask whether their belief is reasonable in an objective, rather than subjective sense.
(As I remember, I explained this badly in a previous post, which led NYC to question whether he was disagreeing with me or not. I had meant to clarify, but forgot about it until now. I agree with what you said about intent being important, NYC. On rereading my own post, I can see that I muddled the issues of Mens Rea and reasonability. I will withdraw that post as being badly written and confusing.)
Thus, a person who attacks you unreasonably cannot claim self defense under this statue.
I think that really looking at this law will reveal that it is not nearly as bad as some would make it out to be. Perhaps it is more lax than the morals of some people. I would be the first to admit that Americans seem more ready to allow people to stand and fight for themselves rather than requiring them to flee or turn the other cheek. This law seems to be doing its best to reflect community values. It expands the authority of a jury to decide whether a person deserves to be punished for an action. While previous versions of the law required juries to find people guilty of murder if they fought before retreating to the fullest extent, a jury is now allowed to use its discretion as to whether the actions were reasonable or not.
I must point out that this does not actually have to change anything. If you live in a community who thinks that it is only reasonable to fight if you have already retreated to the wall, you will still be found guilty of murder.
In general, I would rather have my actions judged by peers that live in my community and are allowed to hear all of the facts, rather than hoping that the legislature had the foresight to envision my particular situation when they wrote the law ahead of time.
Well thanks Patriarch for the insight, nonetheless:
a) what about the cases (Taxidriver, Prostitute, Neighbour) the NYT mentioned and the lawsuits thereafter?
Lets start with the Taxidriver case. Apparently, the Uncle of Mr. Morningstar thinks that the taxidriver should have tried to call someone on the radio, ran away, or shot his nephew in the knee. This is understandable. I would probably wish the same for my nephew.
Had the Times found the Uncle of the Taxidriver, no doubt that Uncle would have said that his nephew the taxidriver was quite justified in shooting a drunk man coming at him with a knife. After all, a stun gun had failed to discourage him, and the taxidriver did fire two warning shots at the mans feet.
This is the reason why we do not allow peoples uncles to serve on a jury. Instead, this matter was heard by a jury of peers, not relatives. I doubt it is difficult for the Times to find a relative of a drunk knifeman who had been shot willing to speculate on what the shooter should have done in response to the attack. However, the taxidriver is not (and should not) have his behavior judged by the relatives of the man who attacked him.
The point of the story, of course, was to emphasize that the law no longer required the taxi driver to prove that he had attempted to flee the conflict. The law now allows him to choose either to run from the drunk with the knife, or to fight back.
If a person feels it is morally wrong to fight back, preferring instead to flee or to turn the other cheek, the law allows you to do this. There is no requirement that you use force to defend yourself. Similarly, if you see a drunk with a knife about to attack a third party, you can choose to run away and call the police rather than intervene.
This is a hard choice to make, especially because it must almost always be a split second decision made under the most stressful of circumstances. The people of Florida, Colorado, and many other states have chosen not to charge people with murder who kill attackers in self defense, even if it turns out they had other options (as long as they reasonably believe that lesser force would have been inadequate, and they are in imminent danger of being killed or getting seriously hurt).
Assuming the Florida law resembles the Colorado law, it seems that the jury found that the taxidriver reasonably believed that he was in danger of being killed or seriously injured (probably because the guy was coming at him brandishing a knife), and that a lesser degree of force wouldnt have worked (the stun gun and the warning shots hadnt.) Since, according to the U.S. constitution, no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, what the jury decided must be accepted as true for the purposes of the law.
It is easy to disagree with a jury as to a fact. The uncle of Mr. Morningstar certainly does. However, disagreeing over a fact is not a criticism of the law. Rather, it suggests that a bad jury was chosen. We try to be very careful with juries, by giving the judge, the prosecution, and the defense the ability to throw out any juror they want during the jury selection process. Furthermore, we require that the jury vote be unanimous (a single dissenter will create a hung jury.) No doubt, even with all this, bad results will occasionally be reached. This, however, is not a criticism of the law itself. A perfectly good law in the hands of a bad judge and jury can have terrible results.
The case of the prostitute was described simply as Jacqueline Galas, a Florida prostitute, shot and killed a 72-year-old client. This is hardly enough information to allow us to comment as to whether this should be considered first or second degree murder, manslaughter, or self-defense.
The case of the Neighbor (Mr. Rosenbloom) is my favorite one. Mr. Rosenbloom was shot, but survived. He told the Times his version of the story, portraying himself as an innocent victim. His story is different from that told by Mr. Allen, who the Times was unable to reach.
Again, we do not have a criticism of the law. Rather, we have two persons claiming contradictory sets of facts. I have no doubt that each of them presented their own version of the story in court, and the jury had to decide which testimony was more credible and best supported by the evidence. The jury apparently decided not to believe Mr. Rosenblooms version, and Mr. Rosenbloom doesnt like it. If he wants to whine to a reporter about it, thats fine with me. However, this in no way shows the law to be badly written.
You left the shot in the back while sitting in the car incident off the list, which is wise. It came from an anti-gun special interest group. If we are going to rely on them to accurately describe the affect of the law on society, we would also have to rely on the NRA to balance it. Ive no doubt that the NRA site has some great examples of how these laws have allowed little old ladies to defend themselves against horrible attacks.
I bet the NRA also have horror stories about how little old ladies walking around in their homes were attacked by rapists and managed to kill them, only to be convicted of murder because there was an open window that they could have tried to escape from before reaching for their rolling pins (remember, these are not gun laws but would apply even to your bare hands... which means that the title of the thread is completely inaccurate
). No doubt, such stories played a significant part in convincing people to change these laws.Written by: FireTom
b) according to this law
Written by:
(2) Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate and:
(a) The actor has reasonable ground to believe, and does believe, that he or another person is in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury
This opens too many doors. I would NOT want to depend my life on some guys disgression or paranoia.
(Im assuming that disgression was merely a typo for depression or some other mental disease).
Your life would not depend on some guys depression or paranoia. The law does not allow the use of force if you merely believe something. Rather, you must reasonably believe. This is not just some extra fluff, but is a legal term of art the purpose of which is to prevent exactly the sort of scenario you fear.
A person who shoots because they are paranoid did not have a reasonable belief. They had an unreasonable one.
The classic example used is that of a person who was riding an elevator with a bunch of people of a different race. The person became excessively fearful because of the race difference, and just started attacking. They claimed that racial tension, being in a bad part of town, the way the people were dressed, etc. made it reasonable to fear imminent physical injury. It is undisputed that the person truly and actually believed that they were about to be attacked, and thought that they were acting in self defense. However, this belief was not reasonable.
This goes back to the subjective/objective standard that I mentioned in a previous post. We dont ask whether the person believed it, and whether the action seemed reasonable to them. Rather, we ask whether a reasonable person in their situation would have had such a belief. In other words, we ask whether their belief is reasonable in an objective, rather than subjective sense.
(As I remember, I explained this badly in a previous post, which led NYC to question whether he was disagreeing with me or not. I had meant to clarify, but forgot about it until now. I agree with what you said about intent being important, NYC. On rereading my own post, I can see that I muddled the issues of Mens Rea and reasonability. I will withdraw that post as being badly written and confusing.)
Thus, a person who attacks you unreasonably cannot claim self defense under this statue.
I think that really looking at this law will reveal that it is not nearly as bad as some would make it out to be. Perhaps it is more lax than the morals of some people. I would be the first to admit that Americans seem more ready to allow people to stand and fight for themselves rather than requiring them to flee or turn the other cheek. This law seems to be doing its best to reflect community values. It expands the authority of a jury to decide whether a person deserves to be punished for an action. While previous versions of the law required juries to find people guilty of murder if they fought before retreating to the fullest extent, a jury is now allowed to use its discretion as to whether the actions were reasonable or not.
I must point out that this does not actually have to change anything. If you live in a community who thinks that it is only reasonable to fight if you have already retreated to the wall, you will still be found guilty of murder.
In general, I would rather have my actions judged by peers that live in my community and are allowed to hear all of the facts, rather than hoping that the legislature had the foresight to envision my particular situation when they wrote the law ahead of time.
Delete
Mr Majestik
SILVER Member since Mar 2004
![Mr Majestik]()
coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear
Total posts: 4693
SILVER Member since Mar 2004
coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear
Total posts: 4693
Posted:very well written Patriarch.
personally i still have a problem with the law. i dont see how encoraging use of deadly force by untrained civilians with legal backing will result in a safer, more peaceful society.
makes me glad i live in Australia.
personally i still have a problem with the law. i dont see how encoraging use of deadly force by untrained civilians with legal backing will result in a safer, more peaceful society.
makes me glad i live in Australia.
"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"
jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley
Posted:
I agree, very well written....
Hence I cannot agree with its content. May I turn your attention to
Written by: NYT
Carey Haughwout, the public defender who represents Mr. Smiley, conceded that no knife was found. However, Ms. Haughwout said, there is evidence to support that the victim came at Smiley after Smiley fired two warning shots, and that he did have something in his hand.
Two warning shots in front of the feet... thing is that we do not have a timeframe... could also have been three shots fired, one after the other. He had something in his hands... could have been his doorkey... couldcouldcould...
Mental deseases are of myriad kinds and most of the cases remain undetected, or are at a level where the person is not a immediate threat to society. Somebody can be anxious, without being paranoid. Yet the very same person is much more likely to pull her/his gun in a situation and use it, as some other.
I am generally opposing the gun laws in the US, because they now are in this vicious circle where there is no escape hatch. If you fundamentally want to change anything, you would have to disarm the entire population - and I reckon many "criminals" are unwilling to give up their gun, same applies to "law abiding citizens".
IMO this law is pushing into the wrong direction and I am certain that "old grannys" would NOT HAVE TO escape through the open window before charged with murder... this is at least as polemic as saying "shoot first, ask later"
For say someone wanted to murder me... certainly (under this law) it will be much easier to create a scenario under which this is not murder, but self defense, especially by planting a kife in my hands - but no! Hang on! It doesn't even have to be a knife... When at nighttime, it would be sufficient if I hold and twirl my fire stick (just something that can somehow interpreted as a weapon)...
And do I understand this law correctly when I assume that if the attacker uses a broomstick for his attack, the defender can shoot him dead without being charged?
I agree, very well written....Hence I cannot agree with its content. May I turn your attention to
Written by: NYT
Carey Haughwout, the public defender who represents Mr. Smiley, conceded that no knife was found. However, Ms. Haughwout said, there is evidence to support that the victim came at Smiley after Smiley fired two warning shots, and that he did have something in his hand.
Two warning shots in front of the feet... thing is that we do not have a timeframe... could also have been three shots fired, one after the other. He had something in his hands... could have been his doorkey... couldcouldcould...
Mental deseases are of myriad kinds and most of the cases remain undetected, or are at a level where the person is not a immediate threat to society. Somebody can be anxious, without being paranoid. Yet the very same person is much more likely to pull her/his gun in a situation and use it, as some other.
I am generally opposing the gun laws in the US, because they now are in this vicious circle where there is no escape hatch. If you fundamentally want to change anything, you would have to disarm the entire population - and I reckon many "criminals" are unwilling to give up their gun, same applies to "law abiding citizens".
IMO this law is pushing into the wrong direction and I am certain that "old grannys" would NOT HAVE TO escape through the open window before charged with murder... this is at least as polemic as saying "shoot first, ask later"
For say someone wanted to murder me... certainly (under this law) it will be much easier to create a scenario under which this is not murder, but self defense, especially by planting a kife in my hands - but no! Hang on! It doesn't even have to be a knife... When at nighttime, it would be sufficient if I hold and twirl my fire stick (just something that can somehow interpreted as a weapon)...
And do I understand this law correctly when I assume that if the attacker uses a broomstick for his attack, the defender can shoot him dead without being charged?
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005
![Patriarch917]()
I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Total posts: 607
SILVER Member since Oct 2005
I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Total posts: 607
Posted: Written by: FireTom
I agree, very well written....
Hence I cannot agree. May I turn your attention to
Written by: NYT
Carey Haughwout, the public defender who represents Mr. Smiley, conceded that no knife was found. However, Ms. Haughwout said, there is evidence to support that the victim came at Smiley after Smiley fired two warning shots, and that he did have something in his hand.
Two warning shots in front of the feet... thing is that we do not have a timeframe... could also have been three shots fired, one after the other. He had something in his hands... could have been his doorkey... couldcouldcould...
Like I explained earlier, this is not a criticism of the law. Rather, you are speculating as to what the true facts were.
Remember, when there is doubt about the true facts, we must declare the accused not guilty. The state bears the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Taxidriver was guilty of murder. Thus, if the facts are unclear and there are many things that couldcouldcould have happened, we must find in favor of the defendant.
In other words, he is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty. Any ambiguities must be resolved in his favor.
Written by: FireTom
Mental deseases are of myriad kinds and most of the cases remain undetected, or are at a level where the person is not a immediate threat to society. Somebody can be anxious, without being paranoid. Yet the very same person is much more likely to pull her/his gun in a situation and use it, as some other.
If it is true that a person has an undetected disease that makes them much more likely to be unreasonably violent, then their behavior would be found to be unreasonable under this law and they would probably be found guilty of manslaughter.
Written by: FireTom
I am generally opposing the gun laws in the US, because they now are in this vicious circle where there is no escape hatch. If you fundamentally want to change anything, you would have to disarm the entire population - and I reckon many "criminals" are unwilling to give up their gun, same applies to "law abiding citizens".
Look at the crime statistics for the U.S. and the U.K.. The gun control laws in the U.K. started an incredible spike in violent crime, especially gun crime. The U.S. crime rate is at an all time low.
Just for fun, look at the crime in Switzerland. There, every homeowner is required by law to keep a gun and ammo in the house.
Again, I must point out once more that describing this as a gun law is as silly as describing it as a baseball bat law. It says nothing about guns.
Written by: FireTom
IMO this law is pushing into the wrong direction and I am certain that "old grannys" would NOT HAVE TO escape through the open window before charged with murder... this is at least as polemic as saying "shoot first, ask later"
Although I am sure the NRA website has plenty of horror stories about how people were viciously attacked in their homes, defended themselves, then were arrested for murder, I wont bother looking for them. The validity of this law is not to be decided by anecdotal evidence on either side.
Instead, lets consider the legal principles behind it. Previously, in Florida, a granny who shot an intruder would be required to come to court and prove that she honestly and reasonably feared that she was threatened with death or severe bodily injury. In other words, she would bear the burden of proof to come prove her innocence.
The law has now been changed. Now, if the intruder had forcibly and illegally entered the home, the granny is presumed to have been justified in hitting him with her frying pan. She does not bear the burden to prove her innocence.
In general, we try to construct laws that leave the burden of proof on the state. We try, as much as possible, to allow people to be presumed innocent unless they can be proven guilty. I like this principle, because I know that our system is not perfect. I would rather let a guilty granny go on evidence that is unclear, rather than put an innocent one in jail on the same evidence.
Written by: FireTom
For say someone wanted to murder me... certainly (under this law) it will be much easier to create a scenario under which this is not murder, but self defense, especially by planting a kife in my hands - but no! Hang on! It doesn't even have to be a knife... When at nighttime, it would be sufficient if I hold and twirl my fire stick (just something that can somehow interpreted as a weapon)...
Now your just being silly. The law does not require just something that can somehow be interpreted as a weapon. The law requires that a person have reasonable grounds to believe that there is imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury.
If I wanted to murder you and make it look like self defense, I would kill you, break my own window, drag you halfway through it, and bribe someone to say he witnessed me shooting you while you broke into my house screaming that you were going to kill me.
Planting false evidence and lying about is a problem, but it is not a problem with the law. No rewriting of the law can prevent people from faking things. Instead, this problem can only be solved by good detective work and a jury that can sense when someone is lying.
Written by: FireTom
And do I understand this law correctly when I assume that if the attacker uses a broomstick for his attack, the defender can shoot him dead without being charged?
Is being attacked with a broomstick reasonable grounds for believing that there is imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury?
Chuck Norris doesnt even need a broomstick to create those grounds.
I agree, very well written....Hence I cannot agree. May I turn your attention to
Written by: NYT
Carey Haughwout, the public defender who represents Mr. Smiley, conceded that no knife was found. However, Ms. Haughwout said, there is evidence to support that the victim came at Smiley after Smiley fired two warning shots, and that he did have something in his hand.
Two warning shots in front of the feet... thing is that we do not have a timeframe... could also have been three shots fired, one after the other. He had something in his hands... could have been his doorkey... couldcouldcould...
Like I explained earlier, this is not a criticism of the law. Rather, you are speculating as to what the true facts were.
Remember, when there is doubt about the true facts, we must declare the accused not guilty. The state bears the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Taxidriver was guilty of murder. Thus, if the facts are unclear and there are many things that couldcouldcould have happened, we must find in favor of the defendant.
In other words, he is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty. Any ambiguities must be resolved in his favor.
Written by: FireTom
Mental deseases are of myriad kinds and most of the cases remain undetected, or are at a level where the person is not a immediate threat to society. Somebody can be anxious, without being paranoid. Yet the very same person is much more likely to pull her/his gun in a situation and use it, as some other.
If it is true that a person has an undetected disease that makes them much more likely to be unreasonably violent, then their behavior would be found to be unreasonable under this law and they would probably be found guilty of manslaughter.
Written by: FireTom
I am generally opposing the gun laws in the US, because they now are in this vicious circle where there is no escape hatch. If you fundamentally want to change anything, you would have to disarm the entire population - and I reckon many "criminals" are unwilling to give up their gun, same applies to "law abiding citizens".
Look at the crime statistics for the U.S. and the U.K.. The gun control laws in the U.K. started an incredible spike in violent crime, especially gun crime. The U.S. crime rate is at an all time low.
Just for fun, look at the crime in Switzerland. There, every homeowner is required by law to keep a gun and ammo in the house.
Again, I must point out once more that describing this as a gun law is as silly as describing it as a baseball bat law. It says nothing about guns.
Written by: FireTom
IMO this law is pushing into the wrong direction and I am certain that "old grannys" would NOT HAVE TO escape through the open window before charged with murder... this is at least as polemic as saying "shoot first, ask later"
Although I am sure the NRA website has plenty of horror stories about how people were viciously attacked in their homes, defended themselves, then were arrested for murder, I wont bother looking for them. The validity of this law is not to be decided by anecdotal evidence on either side.
Instead, lets consider the legal principles behind it. Previously, in Florida, a granny who shot an intruder would be required to come to court and prove that she honestly and reasonably feared that she was threatened with death or severe bodily injury. In other words, she would bear the burden of proof to come prove her innocence.
The law has now been changed. Now, if the intruder had forcibly and illegally entered the home, the granny is presumed to have been justified in hitting him with her frying pan. She does not bear the burden to prove her innocence.
In general, we try to construct laws that leave the burden of proof on the state. We try, as much as possible, to allow people to be presumed innocent unless they can be proven guilty. I like this principle, because I know that our system is not perfect. I would rather let a guilty granny go on evidence that is unclear, rather than put an innocent one in jail on the same evidence.
Written by: FireTom
For say someone wanted to murder me... certainly (under this law) it will be much easier to create a scenario under which this is not murder, but self defense, especially by planting a kife in my hands - but no! Hang on! It doesn't even have to be a knife... When at nighttime, it would be sufficient if I hold and twirl my fire stick (just something that can somehow interpreted as a weapon)...
Now your just being silly. The law does not require just something that can somehow be interpreted as a weapon. The law requires that a person have reasonable grounds to believe that there is imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury.
If I wanted to murder you and make it look like self defense, I would kill you, break my own window, drag you halfway through it, and bribe someone to say he witnessed me shooting you while you broke into my house screaming that you were going to kill me.
Planting false evidence and lying about is a problem, but it is not a problem with the law. No rewriting of the law can prevent people from faking things. Instead, this problem can only be solved by good detective work and a jury that can sense when someone is lying.
Written by: FireTom
And do I understand this law correctly when I assume that if the attacker uses a broomstick for his attack, the defender can shoot him dead without being charged?
Is being attacked with a broomstick reasonable grounds for believing that there is imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury?
Chuck Norris doesnt even need a broomstick to create those grounds.
Delete
Posted:Hmmm, I seem to get your point Patriarch. You explain it well. Certainly the law is trying to reflect the moral standards of it's community...
But the vicious circle of escalation in violence is started from the "right to bear firearms". It is reflected in the fear of every owner for his own life, when his home is subject of break in and entry.
For say in my country I could just remain in my bedroom, lock the door from inside and call the police. This would also work in the US, I suppose. Yet I would not have to fear immediate threat to my health and certainly not the robbers to be armed with a gun - and certainly I would not try to be a hero, "defending" my home... because I would not have the means to.
A minimal percentage of people here do actually own a gun. We can afford to honk our horns frantically, without fear to get shot over it. We can allow our negative emotions to be expressed (even into the face of that wicked &%$) - in the WORST case we would face a knife (given that a knife can sometimes be worse than a gun)...
Your arguments favour a "balance of power". IMO this approach is flawed, based upon the frontier times in the US and do result in paranoia. The friendlyness of a society should not be based upon fear, but compassion. When based upon paranoia, friendlyness is fake and shallow.
Besides I would contest the assertion that EVERY HOME IN SWITZERLAND IS REQUIRED TO HAVE A GUN AND AMMUNITION. If you do have any kind of proof, maybe you would be so kind to provide at least a link.
My broomstick-example was pointing at the relativity of measures: If I am getting yelled at, I can only use an APPROPRIATE response (yell louder). If someone comes at me with a broomstick, I CAN'T simply shoot him down - even though I have reasonable grounds to believe...
What I am pointing at is: people WILL rather "stand their ground" and defend it with weaponry, than trying to avoid a confrontation in the first place, being diplomatic or to look for the backdoor whilst. This is the wrong teaching... at least IMHO.
If my possessions are more valuable than your life, then there is something VERY wrong in society. Certainly if people are getting attacked for whatever reason, they should be able to defend themselves. But the use of deadly force has to be the last possible alternative.
A tiny nerd would have "reasonable grounds to believe that there is imminent danger of being killed, or of receiving great bodily injury" if some "body" approaches him. In this case he can shoot him dead - no question... ?!?
Certainly it's out of question that some of the big western industrial nations of the west do face great challenges in society. But IMO the availability of firearms and the allowance to use them is not the right way.
It's so sad that some societies simply are unwilling to deal with their own problems and to cure the desease at the cause, instead of performing surgery on the symptoms.
But the vicious circle of escalation in violence is started from the "right to bear firearms". It is reflected in the fear of every owner for his own life, when his home is subject of break in and entry.
For say in my country I could just remain in my bedroom, lock the door from inside and call the police. This would also work in the US, I suppose. Yet I would not have to fear immediate threat to my health and certainly not the robbers to be armed with a gun - and certainly I would not try to be a hero, "defending" my home... because I would not have the means to.
A minimal percentage of people here do actually own a gun. We can afford to honk our horns frantically, without fear to get shot over it. We can allow our negative emotions to be expressed (even into the face of that wicked &%$) - in the WORST case we would face a knife (given that a knife can sometimes be worse than a gun)...
Your arguments favour a "balance of power". IMO this approach is flawed, based upon the frontier times in the US and do result in paranoia. The friendlyness of a society should not be based upon fear, but compassion. When based upon paranoia, friendlyness is fake and shallow.
Besides I would contest the assertion that EVERY HOME IN SWITZERLAND IS REQUIRED TO HAVE A GUN AND AMMUNITION. If you do have any kind of proof, maybe you would be so kind to provide at least a link.
My broomstick-example was pointing at the relativity of measures: If I am getting yelled at, I can only use an APPROPRIATE response (yell louder). If someone comes at me with a broomstick, I CAN'T simply shoot him down - even though I have reasonable grounds to believe...
What I am pointing at is: people WILL rather "stand their ground" and defend it with weaponry, than trying to avoid a confrontation in the first place, being diplomatic or to look for the backdoor whilst. This is the wrong teaching... at least IMHO.
If my possessions are more valuable than your life, then there is something VERY wrong in society. Certainly if people are getting attacked for whatever reason, they should be able to defend themselves. But the use of deadly force has to be the last possible alternative.
A tiny nerd would have "reasonable grounds to believe that there is imminent danger of being killed, or of receiving great bodily injury" if some "body" approaches him. In this case he can shoot him dead - no question... ?!?
Certainly it's out of question that some of the big western industrial nations of the west do face great challenges in society. But IMO the availability of firearms and the allowance to use them is not the right way.
It's so sad that some societies simply are unwilling to deal with their own problems and to cure the desease at the cause, instead of performing surgery on the symptoms.
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005
![Patriarch917]()
I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Total posts: 607
SILVER Member since Oct 2005
I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Total posts: 607
Posted:I am at a loss as to how to respond. You speak as if taking away the right and ability of citizens to self defense has somehow made countries like England and Australia safer, reduced their crime, or reduced the number of criminals with guns. Nothing could be further from the truth.
http://www.reason.com/0211/fe.jm.gun.shtml
br>
England, for example, used to be a very nice place to live, with an astonishingly low crime rate.
Some snippets from the article:
Written by:
Nearly five centuries of growing civility ended in 1954. Violent crime has been climbing ever since. Last December, Londons Evening Standard reported that armed crime, with banned handguns the weapon of choice, was "rocketing." In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent.
Gun crime is just part of an increasingly lawless environment. From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in Englands inner cities increased 91 percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. Englands rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than Americas, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western worlds crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people.
. . .
A sampling of cases [relating to laws restricting the right of self defense]:
In 1973 a young man running on a road at night was stopped by the police and found to be carrying a length of steel, a cycle chain, and a metal clock weight. He explained that a gang of youths had been after him. At his hearing it was found he had been threatened and had previously notified the police. The justices agreed he had a valid reason to carry the weapons. Indeed, 16 days later he was attacked and beaten so badly he was hospitalized. But the prosecutor appealed the ruling, and the appellate judges insisted that carrying a weapon must be related to an imminent and immediate threat. They sent the case back to the lower court with directions to convict.
In 1987 two men assaulted Eric Butler, a 56-year-old British Petroleum executive, in a London subway car, trying to strangle him and smashing his head against the door. No one came to his aid. He later testified, "My air supply was being cut off, my eyes became blurred, and I feared for my life." In desperation he unsheathed an ornamental sword blade in his walking stick and slashed at one of his attackers, stabbing the man in the stomach. The assailants were charged with wounding. Butler was tried and convicted of carrying an offensive weapon.
In 1994 an English homeowner, armed with a toy gun, managed to detain two burglars who had broken into his house while he called the police. When the officers arrived, they arrested the homeowner for using an imitation gun to threaten or intimidate. In a similar incident the following year, when an elderly woman fired a toy cap pistol to drive off a group of youths who were threatening her, she was arrested for putting someone in fear. Now the police are pressing Parliament to make imitation guns illegal.
In 1999 Tony Martin, a 55-year-old Norfolk farmer living alone in a shabby farmhouse, awakened to the sound of breaking glass as two burglars, both with long criminal records, burst into his home. He had been robbed six times before, and his village, like 70 percent of rural English communities, had no police presence. He sneaked downstairs with a shotgun and shot at the intruders. Martin received life in prison for killing one burglar, 10 years for wounding the second, and a year for having an unregistered shotgun. The wounded burglar, having served 18 months of a three-year sentence, is now free and has been granted 5,000 of legal assistance to sue Martin.
This is the sort of crap that Americans just arent willing to take from their government.
You describe your home being invaded while you are powerless to do anything as if it were some wonderful alternative that we should all want. No wonder English and Australia have experienced such drastic increases in home invasions by armed criminals. You have produced a population with no choice but to cower, who deceive themselves into thinking that because they do not have a gun, the criminals dont either.
As far as Switzerland goes, it is not correct to say that every home has a gun. Rather, every home that has a male of draft age has a gun:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
br>
All males are part of the militia. They are then required to keep military grade guns and ammo in their homes until at least age 42, and may then keep them after that.
http://www.reason.com/0211/fe.jm.gun.shtml
br>
England, for example, used to be a very nice place to live, with an astonishingly low crime rate.
Some snippets from the article:
Written by:
Nearly five centuries of growing civility ended in 1954. Violent crime has been climbing ever since. Last December, Londons Evening Standard reported that armed crime, with banned handguns the weapon of choice, was "rocketing." In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent.
Gun crime is just part of an increasingly lawless environment. From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in Englands inner cities increased 91 percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. Englands rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than Americas, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western worlds crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people.
. . .
A sampling of cases [relating to laws restricting the right of self defense]:
In 1973 a young man running on a road at night was stopped by the police and found to be carrying a length of steel, a cycle chain, and a metal clock weight. He explained that a gang of youths had been after him. At his hearing it was found he had been threatened and had previously notified the police. The justices agreed he had a valid reason to carry the weapons. Indeed, 16 days later he was attacked and beaten so badly he was hospitalized. But the prosecutor appealed the ruling, and the appellate judges insisted that carrying a weapon must be related to an imminent and immediate threat. They sent the case back to the lower court with directions to convict.
In 1987 two men assaulted Eric Butler, a 56-year-old British Petroleum executive, in a London subway car, trying to strangle him and smashing his head against the door. No one came to his aid. He later testified, "My air supply was being cut off, my eyes became blurred, and I feared for my life." In desperation he unsheathed an ornamental sword blade in his walking stick and slashed at one of his attackers, stabbing the man in the stomach. The assailants were charged with wounding. Butler was tried and convicted of carrying an offensive weapon.
In 1994 an English homeowner, armed with a toy gun, managed to detain two burglars who had broken into his house while he called the police. When the officers arrived, they arrested the homeowner for using an imitation gun to threaten or intimidate. In a similar incident the following year, when an elderly woman fired a toy cap pistol to drive off a group of youths who were threatening her, she was arrested for putting someone in fear. Now the police are pressing Parliament to make imitation guns illegal.
In 1999 Tony Martin, a 55-year-old Norfolk farmer living alone in a shabby farmhouse, awakened to the sound of breaking glass as two burglars, both with long criminal records, burst into his home. He had been robbed six times before, and his village, like 70 percent of rural English communities, had no police presence. He sneaked downstairs with a shotgun and shot at the intruders. Martin received life in prison for killing one burglar, 10 years for wounding the second, and a year for having an unregistered shotgun. The wounded burglar, having served 18 months of a three-year sentence, is now free and has been granted 5,000 of legal assistance to sue Martin.
This is the sort of crap that Americans just arent willing to take from their government.
You describe your home being invaded while you are powerless to do anything as if it were some wonderful alternative that we should all want. No wonder English and Australia have experienced such drastic increases in home invasions by armed criminals. You have produced a population with no choice but to cower, who deceive themselves into thinking that because they do not have a gun, the criminals dont either.
As far as Switzerland goes, it is not correct to say that every home has a gun. Rather, every home that has a male of draft age has a gun:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
br>
All males are part of the militia. They are then required to keep military grade guns and ammo in their homes until at least age 42, and may then keep them after that.
Delete
Posted:First of all I would like to say this isn't a US Federal law. It is a state by state law which then turns into a case by case law.
If you don't like it, then move.
Next, they are not as much of an excuse to shoot as you would think. Texas has had them for years. You have to exert equal and prove intent to kill if you kill someone. It really doesn't happen alot.
However, if someone put a knife to my sons throat, it gives me the right to kill him without fear of the criminals family suing me civilly. I agree with that.
It goes along with several laws that state that when someone enters your home or place of business unlawfully and they become injured, they can not sue you. Assign as it sounds, burglers would sue where they were stealing because they tripped and broke their ankle. Dumber yet, they would win.
People who have been fighting back from being victimized have been sued for breaking the attackers nose.
This law states that it can no longer happen. Not just kill but across the board.
There is a big difference between license to kill and ability to protect.
And, btw, people have gone to prison for killing someone they were attempting to protect themselves from. I can't remember which state but a man did shoot someone who was attempting to mug him..without any weapon. It was concidered excessive force and the attacked was sent to prison on 2nd degree manslaughter charges.
It is not a blind system. Just a flawed one.
If you don't like it, then move.
Next, they are not as much of an excuse to shoot as you would think. Texas has had them for years. You have to exert equal and prove intent to kill if you kill someone. It really doesn't happen alot.
However, if someone put a knife to my sons throat, it gives me the right to kill him without fear of the criminals family suing me civilly. I agree with that.
It goes along with several laws that state that when someone enters your home or place of business unlawfully and they become injured, they can not sue you. Assign as it sounds, burglers would sue where they were stealing because they tripped and broke their ankle. Dumber yet, they would win.
People who have been fighting back from being victimized have been sued for breaking the attackers nose.
This law states that it can no longer happen. Not just kill but across the board.
There is a big difference between license to kill and ability to protect.
And, btw, people have gone to prison for killing someone they were attempting to protect themselves from. I can't remember which state but a man did shoot someone who was attempting to mug him..without any weapon. It was concidered excessive force and the attacked was sent to prison on 2nd degree manslaughter charges.
It is not a blind system. Just a flawed one.
Pele
Higher, higher burning fire...making music like a choir
"Oooh look! A pub!" -exclaimed after recovering from a stupid fall
"And for the decadence of art, nothing beats a roaring fire." -TMK
Mr Majestik
SILVER Member since Mar 2004
![Mr Majestik]()
coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear
Total posts: 4693
SILVER Member since Mar 2004
coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear
Total posts: 4693
Posted: Written by: Patriarch917
I am at a loss as to how to respond. You speak as if taking away the right and ability of citizens to self defense has somehow made countries like England and Australia safer, reduced their crime, or reduced the number of criminals with guns. Nothing could be further from the truth.
That article isnt about Australia. Care to cite your evidence about us? (I really am curious about your claim)
I am at a loss as to how to respond. You speak as if taking away the right and ability of citizens to self defense has somehow made countries like England and Australia safer, reduced their crime, or reduced the number of criminals with guns. Nothing could be further from the truth.
That article isnt about Australia. Care to cite your evidence about us? (I really am curious about your claim)
"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"
jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley
Posted:Thanks for the link provided on Swizerland. You may well note, that those you are talking about have ALL undergone a (military) training and the guns are regularly inspected to prevent abuse!
None of this is in effect in the US... if I am correct.
Furthermore the possession of amoury has a different background in Switzerland: NOT because of the "right to defend yourself" but due to the "duty to protect your country"... Please do not ridicule this slight difference.
That the crime rate in the UK and mainland Europe is on the rise has a good reason. Hence instead of curing the cause, governments are trying to perform surgery on the effects. IMO this is not going to work.
"If you don't like it - move." Well this now appears as a sloppy one-eyed statement to me. Why not telling it to the NRA, please? Instead of moving, they were taking political effort and changed the situation according to their like. Maybe in 4 years the people of Florida will find out that it wasn't such a good idea and change it back...
IMHO one problem seems to be, that I don't regard some "US morals and standards" as positive and productive for the rest of the planet. I'd see much more progress if I wouldn't have to defend myself in the first place vs. I can legally shoot somebody.
Certainly jurisdiction is erraneous. Thanks for pointing this out, Patriarch. There is need to review aspects of self-defense and manslaughter. Even though I would get myself some guarddogs latest after the third robbery, it's certainly not reasonable to have NO police present anywhere close and at the same time refuse citizens the right to legally defend themselves... Hence those cases show little to no backgrounds... Therefore you only prooved your point upon the NYT-article, not much more...
US citizens will have to ask themselves, which concept they favour for the future. Not only on small and national level. "As below, so beyond"... I'd say... Therefore: Would this right not also apply to people who have "reasonable grounds to believe they will get killed, or receive great bodily injury", when facing US foreign policies? Thus resulting in THEIR RIGHT to defend themselves? Maybe even attack the US on their soil with their own choice of weapons... (airplanes for say?)
But this is getting offtopicish...
The formula is not too difficult I reckon:
Weapons are available, insufficient social security, lack of education and work, poverty next door to glamour and ridiculous wealth, use of violence and arms promoted through movies and TV, "MTV-lifestyle" gets favoured, corrupt police and politicians... list continues... finally according laws...
Where do we go from here? Economical circumstances will certainly not improve within mid term and therefore crime will, don't you think? Besides: Have you ever met a burglar? Did you ever suffer the problem not to be able to feed your child and family? Nono, I am not trying to justify anything here, no way - but we seem to lack a concept of how to PREVENT CRIME.
I might sound like a preacherman, but such laws improve the temptation to use deadly force and result in excessive response, a further escalation of violence. They drag the international "cold war" down to the communities.
Therefore: A society who bases their friendlyness on fear to get shot is certainly not my fancy... but I am certainly NOT bold enough to presume that "your choice of homeland" reflects on your own predisposition...
None of this is in effect in the US... if I am correct.
Furthermore the possession of amoury has a different background in Switzerland: NOT because of the "right to defend yourself" but due to the "duty to protect your country"... Please do not ridicule this slight difference.
That the crime rate in the UK and mainland Europe is on the rise has a good reason. Hence instead of curing the cause, governments are trying to perform surgery on the effects. IMO this is not going to work.
"If you don't like it - move." Well this now appears as a sloppy one-eyed statement to me. Why not telling it to the NRA, please?
Instead of moving, they were taking political effort and changed the situation according to their like. Maybe in 4 years the people of Florida will find out that it wasn't such a good idea and change it back...IMHO one problem seems to be, that I don't regard some "US morals and standards" as positive and productive for the rest of the planet. I'd see much more progress if I wouldn't have to defend myself in the first place vs. I can legally shoot somebody.
Certainly jurisdiction is erraneous. Thanks for pointing this out, Patriarch. There is need to review aspects of self-defense and manslaughter. Even though I would get myself some guarddogs latest after the third robbery, it's certainly not reasonable to have NO police present anywhere close and at the same time refuse citizens the right to legally defend themselves... Hence those cases show little to no backgrounds... Therefore you only prooved your point upon the NYT-article, not much more...
US citizens will have to ask themselves, which concept they favour for the future. Not only on small and national level. "As below, so beyond"... I'd say... Therefore: Would this right not also apply to people who have "reasonable grounds to believe they will get killed, or receive great bodily injury", when facing US foreign policies? Thus resulting in THEIR RIGHT to defend themselves? Maybe even attack the US on their soil with their own choice of weapons... (airplanes for say?)
But this is getting offtopicish...The formula is not too difficult I reckon:
Weapons are available, insufficient social security, lack of education and work, poverty next door to glamour and ridiculous wealth, use of violence and arms promoted through movies and TV, "MTV-lifestyle" gets favoured, corrupt police and politicians... list continues... finally according laws...
Where do we go from here? Economical circumstances will certainly not improve within mid term and therefore crime will, don't you think? Besides: Have you ever met a burglar? Did you ever suffer the problem not to be able to feed your child and family? Nono, I am not trying to justify anything here, no way - but we seem to lack a concept of how to PREVENT CRIME.
I might sound like a preacherman, but such laws improve the temptation to use deadly force and result in excessive response, a further escalation of violence. They drag the international "cold war" down to the communities.
Therefore: A society who bases their friendlyness on fear to get shot is certainly not my fancy... but I am certainly NOT bold enough to presume that "your choice of homeland" reflects on your own predisposition...
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
Posted: Written by: firetom
IMHO one problem seems to be, that I don't regard some "US morals and standards" as positive and productive for the rest of the planet. I'd see much more progress if I wouldn't have to defend myself in the first place vs. I can legally shoot somebody.
have you ever lived in america?
what are these "US morals and standards" that you despise in the evil americans that the rest of the world is exempt from?
why do you keep refering to US citizens when "From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in Englands inner cities increased 91 percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York."
IMHO one problem seems to be, that I don't regard some "US morals and standards" as positive and productive for the rest of the planet. I'd see much more progress if I wouldn't have to defend myself in the first place vs. I can legally shoot somebody.
have you ever lived in america?
what are these "US morals and standards" that you despise in the evil americans that the rest of the world is exempt from?
why do you keep refering to US citizens when "From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in Englands inner cities increased 91 percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York."
Delete
Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005
![Patriarch917]()
I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Total posts: 607
SILVER Member since Oct 2005
I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Total posts: 607
Posted: Written by: Mr Majestik
Written by: Patriarch917
I am at a loss as to how to respond. You speak as if taking away the right and ability of citizens to self defense has somehow made countries like England and Australia safer, reduced their crime, or reduced the number of criminals with guns. Nothing could be further from the truth.
That article isnt about Australia. Care to cite your evidence about us? (I really am curious about your claim)
Here's a link about Australia:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15304
Written by: Patriarch917
I am at a loss as to how to respond. You speak as if taking away the right and ability of citizens to self defense has somehow made countries like England and Australia safer, reduced their crime, or reduced the number of criminals with guns. Nothing could be further from the truth.
That article isnt about Australia. Care to cite your evidence about us? (I really am curious about your claim)
Here's a link about Australia:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15304
Delete
Posted:Sagetree, yes I did live in 2 places: New York and Los Angeles, I was travelling to Boston, Chicago, Phoenix, Tucson, Las Vegas, Arizona, Utah, California, drove up the Big Sur, visited marvellous national parks and flew over the Grand Canyon. But it was back in the last century, however.
So I do have some first hand informations and I was breathing this air... Obviously this wouldn turn me into an expert of the US in any respect.
And certainly I do not call the americans "evil"...
But do YOU want to tell me (along with Patriarch?) that the crime rate in the US is stagnating, or declining DUE to the gun laws? Or do you want to tell me that the UK needs gun laws like the US? Or the rest of the world should implement gun laws like the US to meet surging crime rates?
This thread is about the (actual) gun laws, not about US morals and values in general. However, I certainly believe that there is no "collective", as in "the" Americans... If you find me using this expression I am simply trying to communicate on an external, international viewpoint. In this it's just hard to name every single "Jones'" from the Gulf of Texas to Baja California...
Also I am not a "pommie" (Prisoner of Mother England)... I'm a Kraut... Therefore I do not have ANY sense of humor, am busy working, wear leatherpants every day, drink beer for breakfast along with fried sausages, I am neat and organised, have blond hair and blue eyes, drive a Volkswagen and do naked sunbathing in the middle of the city...
[edit] phew Patriarch, what a link! Ultra-right wing, as it appears to me on first sight... What you expect from there? please do not put additional traffic on this site... but quote, if you really have to...
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1156174880)
So I do have some first hand informations and I was breathing this air... Obviously this wouldn turn me into an expert of the US in any respect.
And certainly I do not call the americans "evil"...
But do YOU want to tell me (along with Patriarch?) that the crime rate in the US is stagnating, or declining DUE to the gun laws? Or do you want to tell me that the UK needs gun laws like the US? Or the rest of the world should implement gun laws like the US to meet surging crime rates?
This thread is about the (actual) gun laws, not about US morals and values in general. However, I certainly believe that there is no "collective", as in "the" Americans... If you find me using this expression I am simply trying to communicate on an external, international viewpoint. In this it's just hard to name every single "Jones'" from the Gulf of Texas to Baja California...
Also I am not a "pommie" (Prisoner of Mother England)... I'm a Kraut... Therefore I do not have ANY sense of humor, am busy working, wear leatherpants every day, drink beer for breakfast along with fried sausages, I am neat and organised, have blond hair and blue eyes, drive a Volkswagen and do naked sunbathing in the middle of the city...
[edit] phew Patriarch, what a link! Ultra-right wing, as it appears to me on first sight... What you expect from there? please do not put additional traffic on this site... but quote, if you really have to...
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1156174880)
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
coleman
SILVER Member since Aug 2002
![coleman]()
big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay
Total posts: 7330
SILVER Member since Aug 2002
big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay
Total posts: 7330
Posted:yes, those report (referring to those linked to on the first page) shows that gun crime has increased since the ban, but that figure by itself is not a very good indicator.
the real question is "did the gun ban reduce the rate of increase in gun-related crimes?".
there are other significant factors that should be taken into account too like how the way crime statistics are recorded may have changed or the many initiatives that encourage better reporting of crimes.
the british crime survey is a much better measure of the level of crime in the uk, imho.
having said that, i opposed the gun ban and still do.
i don't believe that liberty has anything to do with our right to kill others, in self-defence or otherwise, but one only has to look at the evidence to see that the gun ban has actually increased the number of illegal weapons held in the uk.
for those that are sceptical of this, here is a pretty telling article from last year:
http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/firearms/control/ukutopia.html
br>
cole. x
the real question is "did the gun ban reduce the rate of increase in gun-related crimes?".
there are other significant factors that should be taken into account too like how the way crime statistics are recorded may have changed or the many initiatives that encourage better reporting of crimes.
the british crime survey is a much better measure of the level of crime in the uk, imho.
having said that, i opposed the gun ban and still do.
i don't believe that liberty has anything to do with our right to kill others, in self-defence or otherwise, but one only has to look at the evidence to see that the gun ban has actually increased the number of illegal weapons held in the uk.
for those that are sceptical of this, here is a pretty telling article from last year:
http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/firearms/control/ukutopia.html
br>
cole. x
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
Posted: Written by: Patriarch917
I am at a loss as to how to respond. You speak as if taking away the right and ability of citizens to self defense has somehow made countries like England and Australia safer, reduced their crime, or reduced the number of criminals with guns. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Now let's not disreguard the absolutely astronomical "gun related death" statistics which the US wins more easily than a Soviet Boycotted Olympic Event.
In 2003, 30136 Americans died and 163 British!
Written by:
America and Gun Violence
American children are more at risk from firearms than the children of any other industrialized nation. In one year, firearms killed no children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States. (Centers for Disease Control)
Guns are the second leading cause of death for Americans aged 15-24.
And, strangely, New York has one of the lowest gun related death rates (next to only Hawaii and Mass) in the country and the strictest gun laws in the country by far.
I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'.
I am at a loss as to how to respond. You speak as if taking away the right and ability of citizens to self defense has somehow made countries like England and Australia safer, reduced their crime, or reduced the number of criminals with guns. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Now let's not disreguard the absolutely astronomical "gun related death" statistics which the US wins more easily than a Soviet Boycotted Olympic Event.
In 2003, 30136 Americans died and 163 British!
Written by:
America and Gun Violence
American children are more at risk from firearms than the children of any other industrialized nation. In one year, firearms killed no children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States. (Centers for Disease Control)
Guns are the second leading cause of death for Americans aged 15-24.
And, strangely, New York has one of the lowest gun related death rates (next to only Hawaii and Mass) in the country and the strictest gun laws in the country by far.
I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'.
Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [gun law* quot license murder quot] we found the following similar topics.1. Learn > POI > Partner Poi > Partner Poi Suicides (aka Murder Suicide) *help/resource
2. Forums > US Gun laws are "License to murder" [1 reply]
3. Forums > weird laws [8 replies]
4. Forums > the NEW smoking laws [103 replies]
5. Forums > Know the score as regards the law?? [10 replies]
Show more..
© 1998 - 2017 Home of Poi Ltd,
New Zealand unless otherwise stated.
All rights reserved
*All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com.