...and it is, but for misinterpretation of the text, completely unreasonable to presume that the 2nd Amendment permits people to possess guns. However, regardless of what lawyers and law-makers believe, there is too much momentum in favour of guns to effect any change.
Constitutional lawyers, and the Supreme Court of the United States, consistently interpret the Second Amendment as protecting individual ownership. This not being a Debate thread, I won't get into the reasoning, but suffice it to say that your assumption here that legal precedent is on your side is incorrect.
It's cracked.com, so do you seriously expect me to click on the link?
If you want a click and colloquial rundown of gun culture in the U.S. that's not colored by "crazy redneck gun nuts!" or "pinko commies trying to take our guns!", it's worth a read.
which is a good case for thumbing down the foolish "Stand Your Ground" laws, as well, in addition to all the false claims of SYG when it absolutely does not apply.
Ummmm.... what? So because someone "claims" stand your ground falsely we should get rid of that defense? Should we also do away with insanity pleas since criminals that are perfectly sane will try to use it as a defense?
There is no issue with the law. You can't just claim "stand your ground" and get off... a court has to agree. I think it will be hard to find a jury that will see popcorn throwing as a threat to someone's life.
Wow. Reminds of not long ago that two people were shot and killed in my town... over a parking spot.
The things people won't do...
Yea, there was a shooting here a couple months ago in a grocery store because 1 guy ran into another guy with his cart coming out of an aisle... or something it was REALLY stupid.
Ummmm.... what? So because someone "claims" stand your ground falsely we should get rid of that defense? Should we also do away with insanity pleas since criminals that are perfectly sane will try to use it as a defense?
There is no issue with the law. You can't just claim "stand your ground" and get off... a court has to agree. I think it will be hard to find a jury that will see popcorn throwing as a threat to someone's life.
It's the reality that people THINK they can use SYG as a defense for their improper actions that makes me think the law is not a good one. In thinking they can use that as a defense, they are discharging their weapon at another human being with the intent to injure or kill that person. We're claiming SYG as a defense over petty disputes, like shooting someone for playing their music too loud at a gas station (which happened, IIRC, shortly after the Trayvon Martin shooting) or texting during a movie.
Are there legitimate SYG cases? Maybe a few. Sadly, most people just want it as an excuse to protect themselves for their own stupidity, which then pushes their stupidity onto the victim.
If that doesn't sound wrong to you, I question your humanity.
It's the reality that people THINK they can use SYG as a defense for their improper actions that makes me think the law is not a good one. In thinking they can use that as a defense, they are discharging their weapon at another human being with the intent to injure or kill that person. When we're claiming SYG as a defense over petty disputes, like shooting someone for playing their music too loud at a gas station (which happened, IIRC, shortly after the Trayvon Martin shooting) or texting during a movie.
Are there legitimate SYG cases? Maybe a few. Sadly, most people just want it as an excuse to protect themselves for their own stupidity, which then pushes their stupidity onto the victim.
If that doesn't sound wrong to you, I question your humanity.
And why would people keep trying it if the media reports on that fact that no... getting popcorn thrown at you doesnt not give you the right to protect yourself with lethal force? People have been killing each other over stupid petty **** long before SYG and in areas without SYG. Some people are just hot heads.
And to the Sasquatch:
Hand guns serve a lot of purposes including: hunting, entertainment, tournament/competition, and protection.
And hotheads deserve zero legal recourse, real or imagined, for their inability to control their tempers.
When you live in a society, you tacitly agree to restrictions on your actions, generally for the safety and security of the rest of society. Don't like it? Go, start your own society. Have fun.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Now playing Transformers: Legends. 27-time top tier finisher and admin of the TFL Wikia site.
And hotheads deserve zero legal recourse, real or imagined, for their inability to control their tempers.
When you live in a society, you tacitly agree to restrictions on your actions, generally for the safety and security of the rest of society. Don't like it? Go, start your own society. Have fun.
And they dont get any... They can claim Stand Your Ground all they want but unless the courts agree, their claims dont mean anything. I am very confused because it seems that you believe there are actually people out there that think to themselves "man if anyone pisses me off today I get to shoot them because WOOO SYG!".
With the frivolous shootings that occur in America more often than anywhere else in the First World, yes, I do believe that there are wackos who are emboldened in their gun usage because of the prospect of walking off the charges on an SYG defense. It certainly makes the decision to unwisely use lethal force MUCH, MUCH easier.
EDIT: The point of my last post, which you missed, is they shouldn't be allowed to even use the defense. I think the law is best decided as applicable by juries and judges, not by shooters and their lawyers. If you are truly standing your ground in self-defense, it should be crystal clear from your testimony.
With the frivolous shootings that occur in America more often than anywhere else in the First World, yes, I do believe that there are wackos who are emboldened in their gun usage because of the prospect of walking off the charges on an SYG defense. It certainly makes the decision to unwisely use lethal force MUCH, MUCH easier.
EDIT: The point of my last post, which you missed, is they shouldn't be allowed to even use the defense. I think the law is best decided as applicable by juries and judges, not by shooters and their lawyers. If you are truly standing your ground in self-defense, it should be crystal clear from your testimony.
That's the point though... without a Stand Your Ground law it would be illegal for me to shoot someone that was say... running at me with an axe. If pissed off dude was running at me with an axe intent on chopping my head in half it would be illegal for me to shoot him. Does that make sense to you?
Could we just elect to have Florida declared its own damn Country? I mean its becoming almost sad how many of the most ridiculous news stories come out of Florida. I wouldn't be surprised to see the following news headline form Florida.
Florida mother arrested for slapping a group of young children playing in a playground.
That's the point though... without a Stand Your Ground law it would be illegal for me to shoot someone that was say... running at me with an axe. If pissed off dude was running at me with an axe intent on chopping my head in half it would be illegal for me to shoot him. Does that make sense to you?
It's already illegal to shoot him. However, when you get to court, give your testimony and let the evidence be examined, it should be clear whether or not you were standing your ground and not firing for an invalid reason.
The point is, regardless of whether your SYG defense is legitimate, you still have to prove it anyway, in which case the testimony and evidence will speak for itself. So, why bother having it as a law that people can hide behind and make it a court's discretion issue entirely, where there is never a guarantee unless legitimate.
Personally, I'd just rather live in a world with less guns than in a world where I have to be worried about cowards and psychos shooting at each other - and everyone else - on any sort of regular basis.
If you can walk around with an assault rifle, I want to walk around with two swords. I'll bet that is and will still be illegal. Guns are more lethal than swords and do not require you to be within a few feet of your victim. At least you have a chance at defeating a joker with two swords. A gun holder can accidentally kill you.
Many gun deaths to kids occur inside their homes or the homes of family members, often at the hands of other kids. Ever think about WHY, exactly, these things occur?
We treat driving as much more restricted a privilege in this country than we treat gun ownership. The only purpose of guns is to destroy property and life*; cars have a legitimate usage - personal transport - in which destruction is rare and nearly always accidental or circumstantial. Does it make sense to restrict driving more than gun ownership? I don't believe so.
* Edit: I want to be clear that I mean this in a perfectly literal sense. The only thing a bullet does on impact is destroy what it hits, regardless of whether what it hits was meant to be hit or not, or for what purpose it is being hit.
It's already illegal to shoot him. However, when you get to court, give your testimony and let the evidence be examined, it should be clear whether or not you were standing your ground and not firing for an invalid reason.
The point is, regardless of whether your SYG defense is legitimate, you still have to prove it anyway, in which case the testimony and evidence will speak for itself. So, why bother having it as a law that people can hide behind and make it a court's discretion issue entirely, where there is never a guarantee unless legitimate.
Ignoring the rest of your post because it would turn this into a full blown gun control debate...
I'm not sure you understand what a stand your ground law does...
It's already illegal to shoot him. However, when you get to court, give your testimony and let the evidence be examined, it should be clear whether or not you were standing your ground and not firing for an invalid reason.
Is true.
Without a stand your ground law... you are required to flee. You have to PROVE that your only option was to use lethal force. So useing my example... I could say "dude was running at me with an axe, what was I supposed to do?" and the answer would be: "run away or try to disarm him". If you cannot PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that you could not flee or disarm the guy... you are a murderer. With Stand Your Ground you no longer have to PROVE that you had no other option, the prosecution has to PROVE that you didn't have to use lethal force.
All the Stand Your Ground law does is moves the burden of proof from the shooter to the state.
Edit:
So in this case... the guy shot someone for throwing popcorn at him... The State now has to prove that he had other options and he did not have to use lethal force. That's not going to be hard... it's going to be trivially easy. His life was clearly not in danger. SYG laws in this case are a non-issue, he'd have a better chance pleading insanity.
Clearly the problem is that the victim was also not carrying a firearm to defend himself with.
I know this is sarcasm... But, even then, if you don't see your shooter, your gun may be taken out of the equation anyway. You may as well have left it home.
Without a stand your ground law... you are required to flee. You have to PROVE that your only option was to use lethal force. So useing my example... I could say "dude was running at me with an axe, what was I supposed to do?" and the answer would be: "run away or try to disarm him". If you cannot PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that you could not flee or disarm the guy... you are a murderer. With Stand Your Ground you no longer have to PROVE that you had no other option, the prosecution has to PROVE that you didn't have to use lethal force.
All the Stand Your Ground law does is moves the burden of proof from the shooter to the state.
The burden should always be with the shooter, with the court having discretionary ability.
As I grow, I learn I disagree with many basic tenets of our court system. They seem to only work in a world where no one ever lies when they swear to not lie on the stand, and where silence can be a better defense than testifying.
That's the problem... the way it's setup without a stand your ground law there is no discretion... If the killer, cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt... even if you're pretty sure that the killer did it out of self defense and it was warranted... if he cannot PROVE that he had no other option... if there is just a thought that "well maybe he could have gotten away... or shot the guy in the leg instead..." he's going to jail. The "maybe" in this case goes toward throwing a guy in jail. I can't think of many other situations where a "maybe" results in someone being a criminal.
Quick example with theft that demonstrates the same issue:
Bob and Jim are friends. Bob has an iPod. Somehow Jim ends up with that iPod. Jim says Bob gave it to him as a gift. Bob says Jim stole it. Both stories are plausible. For Jim to be labeled a criminal... where should the burden of proof lie? Is it better to make Bob prove that Jim stole the iPod and possibly let Jim walk free, or is it better to make Jim prove that he didn't steal the iPod and throw him in jail when he might be innocent.
Unless you're a pro shot, good luck intentionally shooting a charging attacker, or a stationary shooter at a distance, precisely in the knee... Considering missing the knee usually means you've not been effective.
This is why I say there needs to be court discretion. It's beyond a reasonable doubt to expect Joe Gunowner to be that precise a shot in such a situation, no less. But to have the burden shift to the State is simply absurd.
Edit: I totally missed the edit to the above post. Stealing =/= use of lethal force. The State is not the same as an individual, and the case you present is citizen v. citizen, not citizen v. State as an assault/murder case would be. Never mind that, if they're friends, they should be settling this amongst themselves and end of story.
It's already illegal to shoot him. However, when you get to court, give your testimony and let the evidence be examined, it should be clear whether or not you were standing your ground and not firing for an invalid reason.
Incorrect.
Shooting people is not illegal.
The shootings legality is determined in court.
A particular shooting might be found to be illegal, unlawful, negligent, or legal, and/or lawful.
The point is, regardless of whether your SYG defense is legitimate, you still have to prove it anyway, in which case the testimony and evidence will speak for itself. So, why bother having it as a law that people can hide behind and make it a court's discretion issue entirely, where there is never a guarantee unless legitimate.
SYG simply says you do not have to run away.
It isn't the affirmative defense.
The defense is self-defense, and you (or the state) will have your day in court to prove it (or prove otherwise).
Personally, I'd just rather live in a world with less guns than in a world where I have to be worried about cowards and psychos shooting at each other - and everyone else - on any sort of regular basis.
Oh, you mean like cops?
If you can walk around with an assault rifle, I want to walk around with two swords. I'll bet that is and will still be illegal. Guns are more lethal than swords and do not require you to be within a few feet of your victim. At least you have a chance at defeating a joker with two swords. A gun holder can accidentally kill you.
In some places a sword is fine.
I encourage you, if you are so convinced of your righteousness on the subject, to un-invent the gun - good luck with that.
Many gun deaths to kids occur inside their homes or the homes of family members, often at the hands of other kids. Ever think about WHY, exactly, these things occur?
And many kids drown in their swimming pools.
We treat driving as much more restricted a privilege in this country than we treat gun ownership. The only purpose of guns is to destroy property and life*; cars have a legitimate usage - personal transport - in which destruction is rare and nearly always accidental or circumstantial. Does it make sense to restrict driving more than gun ownership? I don't believe so.
Driving a car is a privilege, gun ownership is a right.
Not even counting drunk driving - many many more people are killed in auto crashes each year.
Self-defense, and the defense of the people against tyranny is a natural (some say god given) right - if our options were limited to rocks, we'd have a right to keep and possess rocks. If our options were limited to swords...
To be armed is so crucial to the maintenance of liberty, it just so happened to become the 2nd Amendment.
Oh, and to answer your earlier question - while I may not have a degree in Constitutional law, I do have a paralegal degree, and had to pass a constitutional law course to obtain it. I also study the constitution just for fun.
If I could afford law school, or the interest bearing loans, I'd probably have my degree in the subject.
I'm still buried under over 10 grand in student loans for the degree I have.
Unless you're a pro shot, good luck intentionally shooting a charging attacker, or a stationary shooter at a distance, precisely in the knee... Considering missing the knee usually means you've not been effective.
Wait, now I have to shoot them in the knee?
Being that I go to the range often, and I'm a fairly good shot, I'll aim for body mass, with the intent to STOP them from doing whatever it is they are trying to do to me. (if I'm ever faced with the difficult situation of having my life threatened)
This is why I say there needs to be court discretion. It's beyond a reasonable doubt to expect Joe Gunowner to be that precise a shot in such a situation, no less. But to have the burden shift to the State is simply absurd.
Sorry but the burden should always be on the state.
Nearly 50% of all felony crimes go unsolved, and many never make it past the grand jury - yet, as much as I hate that fact, I'm not about to switch the burden to the accused. The state has enough power as it is.
Unless you're a pro shot, good luck intentionally shooting a charging attacker, or a stationary shooter at a distance, precisely in the knee... Considering missing the knee usually means you've not been effective.
This is why I say there needs to be court discretion. It's beyond a reasonable doubt to expect Joe Gunowner to be that precise a shot in such a situation, no less. But to have the burden shift to the State is simply absurd.
But you didnt try to... I mean the guy was charging from 40 feet away. Why didnt you try to hit him in the leg first? And then try shooting higher? Why didnt you try to run away instead, you had a 40 foot lead?
Because it's not a reasonable expectation. Forty feet, when someone is running to close the distance, doesn't give you much time.
Just an FYI, I've been the victim of someone attempting to kill me via choking me to death, to the point where he was choking me and telling me his only purpose in life was to kill me. I had a suspicion, which proved to be right, that his actions were under the influence of Paxil and alcohol; thus, after separating his hands from my throat, I rendered him unconscious. Would I have been justified if I had killed him instead? Was I, somehow, obligated to try to kill him, had I had a gun or other weapon at the time?
I'd definitely say no to both. Had he died as a result of my efforts to escape further harm, I would hope for, but not expect, leniency to some degree. But I wouldn't say I would have been justified to shoot him after he'd locked me in a bathroom for fifteen minutes, then stabbed me with a pen and slapped me multiple times when he finally let me out (the actions he committed before I physically engaged him). Nor would I have been justified at any point before he started choking me.
I certainly do not believe I ever had the right to take his life, for certain.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Now playing Transformers: Legends. 27-time top tier finisher and admin of the TFL Wikia site.
Not every case is the same, not every killing is the same, and not every instance is justified.
I probably even agree with you about THIS GUY, getting popcorn thrown at you in an argument over texting during a movie, yeah, probably not life threateningly justified self-defense.
If only every case was so easy to stick in a neat little box you can sneer at the injustice of it until big brother infringes on our rights some more.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
It's already illegal to shoot him. However, when you get to court, give your testimony and let the evidence be examined, it should be clear whether or not you were standing your ground and not firing for an invalid reason.
Incorrect.
Shooting people is not illegal.
The shootings legality is determined in court.
A particular shooting might be found to be illegal, unlawful, negligent, or legal, and/or lawful.
The point is, regardless of whether your SYG defense is legitimate, you still have to prove it anyway, in which case the testimony and evidence will speak for itself. So, why bother having it as a law that people can hide behind and make it a court's discretion issue entirely, where there is never a guarantee unless legitimate.
SYG simply says you do not have to run away.
It isn't the affirmative defense.
The defense is self-defense, and you (or the state) will have your day in court to prove it (or prove otherwise).
Personally, I'd just rather live in a world with less guns than in a world where I have to be worried about cowards and psychos shooting at each other - and everyone else - on any sort of regular basis.
Oh, you mean like cops?
If you can walk around with an assault rifle, I want to walk around with two swords. I'll bet that is and will still be illegal. Guns are more lethal than swords and do not require you to be within a few feet of your victim. At least you have a chance at defeating a joker with two swords. A gun holder can accidentally kill you.
In some places a sword is fine.
I encourage you, if you are so convinced of your righteousness on the subject, to un-invent the gun - good luck with that.
Many gun deaths to kids occur inside their homes or the homes of family members, often at the hands of other kids. Ever think about WHY, exactly, these things occur?
And many kids drown in their swimming pools.
We treat driving as much more restricted a privilege in this country than we treat gun ownership. The only purpose of guns is to destroy property and life*; cars have a legitimate usage - personal transport - in which destruction is rare and nearly always accidental or circumstantial. Does it make sense to restrict driving more than gun ownership? I don't believe so.
Driving a car is a privilege, gun ownership is a right.
Not even counting drunk driving - many many more people are killed in auto crashes each year.
Self-defense, and the defense of the people against tyranny is a natural (some say god given) right - if our options were limited to rocks, we'd have a right to keep and possess rocks. If our options were limited to swords...
To be armed is so crucial to the maintenance of liberty, it just so happened to become the 2nd Amendment.
Oh, and to answer your earlier question - while I may not have a degree in Constitutional law, I do have a paralegal degree, and had to pass a constitutional law course to obtain it. I also study the constitution just for fun.
If I could afford law school, or the interest bearing loans, I'd probably have my degree in the subject.
I'm still buried under over 10 grand in student loans for the degree I have.
Unless you're a pro shot, good luck intentionally shooting a charging attacker, or a stationary shooter at a distance, precisely in the knee... Considering missing the knee usually means you've not been effective.
Wait, now I have to shoot them in the knee?
Being that I go to the range often, and I'm a fairly good shot, I'll aim for body mass, with the intent to STOP them from doing whatever it is they are trying to do to me. (if I'm ever faced with the difficult situation of having my life threatened)
This is why I say there needs to be court discretion. It's beyond a reasonable doubt to expect Joe Gunowner to be that precise a shot in such a situation, no less. But to have the burden shift to the State is simply absurd.
Sorry but the burden should always be on the state.
Nearly 50% of all felony crimes go unsolved, and many never make it past the grand jury - yet, as much as I hate that fact, I'm not about to switch the burden to the accused. The state has enough power as it is.
Excuses excuses.
You "probably" just want to avoid actually defending your naive and asinine position from scrutiny.
The fact that you say "probably" here, even sarcastically, tells me I have good cause to not take any of your other opinions seriously.
This exactly.
I mean, talk about disproportionate responses on the part of the shooter, to horrific consequences. And according to some, it's "probably not life threateningly justified self-defense?" Wow.
I would say the shooter's probably going to get what he deserves but this is Florida we're talking about.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was disappointed by Disappointing Signet, Inc.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Read.
Constitutional lawyers, and the Supreme Court of the United States, consistently interpret the Second Amendment as protecting individual ownership. This not being a Debate thread, I won't get into the reasoning, but suffice it to say that your assumption here that legal precedent is on your side is incorrect.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Your pedant-fu is weak. "Six Things..." does not imply that there are only six things.
If only there were some way you could go and read what the article says!
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Ummmm.... what? So because someone "claims" stand your ground falsely we should get rid of that defense? Should we also do away with insanity pleas since criminals that are perfectly sane will try to use it as a defense?
There is no issue with the law. You can't just claim "stand your ground" and get off... a court has to agree. I think it will be hard to find a jury that will see popcorn throwing as a threat to someone's life.
Yea, there was a shooting here a couple months ago in a grocery store because 1 guy ran into another guy with his cart coming out of an aisle... or something it was REALLY stupid.
Hand guns need to go, they serve zero purpose.
It's the reality that people THINK they can use SYG as a defense for their improper actions that makes me think the law is not a good one. In thinking they can use that as a defense, they are discharging their weapon at another human being with the intent to injure or kill that person. We're claiming SYG as a defense over petty disputes, like shooting someone for playing their music too loud at a gas station (which happened, IIRC, shortly after the Trayvon Martin shooting) or texting during a movie.
Are there legitimate SYG cases? Maybe a few. Sadly, most people just want it as an excuse to protect themselves for their own stupidity, which then pushes their stupidity onto the victim.
If that doesn't sound wrong to you, I question your humanity.
The MirroCube - 420 card Mirrodin themed cube
And if I've offended you, I'm sorry, but maybe you need to be offended. But here's my apology and one more thing...
And why would people keep trying it if the media reports on that fact that no... getting popcorn thrown at you doesnt not give you the right to protect yourself with lethal force? People have been killing each other over stupid petty **** long before SYG and in areas without SYG. Some people are just hot heads.
And to the Sasquatch:
Hand guns serve a lot of purposes including: hunting, entertainment, tournament/competition, and protection.
When you live in a society, you tacitly agree to restrictions on your actions, generally for the safety and security of the rest of society. Don't like it? Go, start your own society. Have fun.
The MirroCube - 420 card Mirrodin themed cube
And if I've offended you, I'm sorry, but maybe you need to be offended. But here's my apology and one more thing...
And they dont get any... They can claim Stand Your Ground all they want but unless the courts agree, their claims dont mean anything. I am very confused because it seems that you believe there are actually people out there that think to themselves "man if anyone pisses me off today I get to shoot them because WOOO SYG!".
EDIT: The point of my last post, which you missed, is they shouldn't be allowed to even use the defense. I think the law is best decided as applicable by juries and judges, not by shooters and their lawyers. If you are truly standing your ground in self-defense, it should be crystal clear from your testimony.
The MirroCube - 420 card Mirrodin themed cube
And if I've offended you, I'm sorry, but maybe you need to be offended. But here's my apology and one more thing...
That's the point though... without a Stand Your Ground law it would be illegal for me to shoot someone that was say... running at me with an axe. If pissed off dude was running at me with an axe intent on chopping my head in half it would be illegal for me to shoot him. Does that make sense to you?
Florida mother arrested for slapping a group of young children playing in a playground.
Feel free to bid on my cards here!
The point is, regardless of whether your SYG defense is legitimate, you still have to prove it anyway, in which case the testimony and evidence will speak for itself. So, why bother having it as a law that people can hide behind and make it a court's discretion issue entirely, where there is never a guarantee unless legitimate.
Personally, I'd just rather live in a world with less guns than in a world where I have to be worried about cowards and psychos shooting at each other - and everyone else - on any sort of regular basis.
If you can walk around with an assault rifle, I want to walk around with two swords. I'll bet that is and will still be illegal. Guns are more lethal than swords and do not require you to be within a few feet of your victim. At least you have a chance at defeating a joker with two swords. A gun holder can accidentally kill you.
Many gun deaths to kids occur inside their homes or the homes of family members, often at the hands of other kids. Ever think about WHY, exactly, these things occur?
We treat driving as much more restricted a privilege in this country than we treat gun ownership. The only purpose of guns is to destroy property and life*; cars have a legitimate usage - personal transport - in which destruction is rare and nearly always accidental or circumstantial. Does it make sense to restrict driving more than gun ownership? I don't believe so.
* Edit: I want to be clear that I mean this in a perfectly literal sense. The only thing a bullet does on impact is destroy what it hits, regardless of whether what it hits was meant to be hit or not, or for what purpose it is being hit.
The MirroCube - 420 card Mirrodin themed cube
And if I've offended you, I'm sorry, but maybe you need to be offended. But here's my apology and one more thing...
Though I'll put it in a small font.
Please stop hijacking my reply box.
Ignoring the rest of your post because it would turn this into a full blown gun control debate...
I'm not sure you understand what a stand your ground law does...
INFORMATIONAL-NOT OPINION:
In Florida with Stand Your Ground Laws:
Is true.
Without a stand your ground law... you are required to flee. You have to PROVE that your only option was to use lethal force. So useing my example... I could say "dude was running at me with an axe, what was I supposed to do?" and the answer would be: "run away or try to disarm him". If you cannot PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that you could not flee or disarm the guy... you are a murderer. With Stand Your Ground you no longer have to PROVE that you had no other option, the prosecution has to PROVE that you didn't have to use lethal force.
All the Stand Your Ground law does is moves the burden of proof from the shooter to the state.
Edit:
So in this case... the guy shot someone for throwing popcorn at him... The State now has to prove that he had other options and he did not have to use lethal force. That's not going to be hard... it's going to be trivially easy. His life was clearly not in danger. SYG laws in this case are a non-issue, he'd have a better chance pleading insanity.
I know this is sarcasm... But, even then, if you don't see your shooter, your gun may be taken out of the equation anyway. You may as well have left it home.
Edit: removed double post
The burden should always be with the shooter, with the court having discretionary ability.
As I grow, I learn I disagree with many basic tenets of our court system. They seem to only work in a world where no one ever lies when they swear to not lie on the stand, and where silence can be a better defense than testifying.
The MirroCube - 420 card Mirrodin themed cube
And if I've offended you, I'm sorry, but maybe you need to be offended. But here's my apology and one more thing...
Quick example with theft that demonstrates the same issue:
Bob and Jim are friends. Bob has an iPod. Somehow Jim ends up with that iPod. Jim says Bob gave it to him as a gift. Bob says Jim stole it. Both stories are plausible. For Jim to be labeled a criminal... where should the burden of proof lie? Is it better to make Bob prove that Jim stole the iPod and possibly let Jim walk free, or is it better to make Jim prove that he didn't steal the iPod and throw him in jail when he might be innocent.
This is why I say there needs to be court discretion. It's beyond a reasonable doubt to expect Joe Gunowner to be that precise a shot in such a situation, no less. But to have the burden shift to the State is simply absurd.
Edit: I totally missed the edit to the above post. Stealing =/= use of lethal force. The State is not the same as an individual, and the case you present is citizen v. citizen, not citizen v. State as an assault/murder case would be. Never mind that, if they're friends, they should be settling this amongst themselves and end of story.
The MirroCube - 420 card Mirrodin themed cube
And if I've offended you, I'm sorry, but maybe you need to be offended. But here's my apology and one more thing...
Incorrect.
Shooting people is not illegal.
The shootings legality is determined in court.
A particular shooting might be found to be illegal, unlawful, negligent, or legal, and/or lawful.
SYG simply says you do not have to run away.
It isn't the affirmative defense.
The defense is self-defense, and you (or the state) will have your day in court to prove it (or prove otherwise).
Oh, you mean like cops?
In some places a sword is fine.
I encourage you, if you are so convinced of your righteousness on the subject, to un-invent the gun - good luck with that.
And many kids drown in their swimming pools.
Driving a car is a privilege, gun ownership is a right.
Not even counting drunk driving - many many more people are killed in auto crashes each year.
Self-defense, and the defense of the people against tyranny is a natural (some say god given) right - if our options were limited to rocks, we'd have a right to keep and possess rocks. If our options were limited to swords...
To be armed is so crucial to the maintenance of liberty, it just so happened to become the 2nd Amendment.
Oh, and to answer your earlier question - while I may not have a degree in Constitutional law, I do have a paralegal degree, and had to pass a constitutional law course to obtain it. I also study the constitution just for fun.
If I could afford law school, or the interest bearing loans, I'd probably have my degree in the subject.
I'm still buried under over 10 grand in student loans for the degree I have.
EDIT:
Wait, now I have to shoot them in the knee?
Being that I go to the range often, and I'm a fairly good shot, I'll aim for body mass, with the intent to STOP them from doing whatever it is they are trying to do to me. (if I'm ever faced with the difficult situation of having my life threatened)
Sorry but the burden should always be on the state.
Nearly 50% of all felony crimes go unsolved, and many never make it past the grand jury - yet, as much as I hate that fact, I'm not about to switch the burden to the accused. The state has enough power as it is.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
But you didnt try to... I mean the guy was charging from 40 feet away. Why didnt you try to hit him in the leg first? And then try shooting higher? Why didnt you try to run away instead, you had a 40 foot lead?
Just an FYI, I've been the victim of someone attempting to kill me via choking me to death, to the point where he was choking me and telling me his only purpose in life was to kill me. I had a suspicion, which proved to be right, that his actions were under the influence of Paxil and alcohol; thus, after separating his hands from my throat, I rendered him unconscious. Would I have been justified if I had killed him instead? Was I, somehow, obligated to try to kill him, had I had a gun or other weapon at the time?
I'd definitely say no to both. Had he died as a result of my efforts to escape further harm, I would hope for, but not expect, leniency to some degree. But I wouldn't say I would have been justified to shoot him after he'd locked me in a bathroom for fifteen minutes, then stabbed me with a pen and slapped me multiple times when he finally let me out (the actions he committed before I physically engaged him). Nor would I have been justified at any point before he started choking me.
I certainly do not believe I ever had the right to take his life, for certain.
The MirroCube - 420 card Mirrodin themed cube
And if I've offended you, I'm sorry, but maybe you need to be offended. But here's my apology and one more thing...
Not every case is the same, not every killing is the same, and not every instance is justified.
I probably even agree with you about THIS GUY, getting popcorn thrown at you in an argument over texting during a movie, yeah, probably not life threateningly justified self-defense.
If only every case was so easy to stick in a neat little box you can sneer at the injustice of it until big brother infringes on our rights some more.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
The fact that you say "probably" here, even sarcastically, tells me I have good cause to not take any of your other opinions seriously.
The MirroCube - 420 card Mirrodin themed cube
And if I've offended you, I'm sorry, but maybe you need to be offended. But here's my apology and one more thing...
You know, this one
Excuses excuses.
You "probably" just want to avoid actually defending your naive and asinine position from scrutiny.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
2. Still not responding to it, either. I don't waste much time on people like you. Sorry if that's a problem. Wait, I'm not. Whatever.
The MirroCube - 420 card Mirrodin themed cube
And if I've offended you, I'm sorry, but maybe you need to be offended. But here's my apology and one more thing...
This exactly.
I mean, talk about disproportionate responses on the part of the shooter, to horrific consequences. And according to some, it's "probably not life threateningly justified self-defense?" Wow.
I would say the shooter's probably going to get what he deserves but this is Florida we're talking about.