RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment ***

RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Politesub53 -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (10/15/2013 3:28:54 AM)
Any chance of this thread staying (even remotely) on topic? Just curious. [8\|]

EdBowie -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (10/15/2013 3:56:30 AM)
All of that depends on convincing a reasonable judge/juror that those mitigations and threats pass the legal test for 'in fear for my life'. Same test that would apply in countries without a proliferation of guns. And that test is the same test for rape, or for harassment... the person being raped is the one who gets to say whether they felt it was non-consensual, the person being harassed gets to say if it felt offensive or created a hostile environment. So the shooter gets to say what they felt. In making their case, they have to fit the pattern of events and the totality of the circumstances. If the prosecution doesn't believe them, it has to clear the very high bar of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that they are lying about how they felt at the moment... an easy thing to insinuate, but not so easy to prove. When the media reports on such cases, they don't have to meet any of these standards. They get to put up photo-shopped pictures, fabricated quotes, and misstatements about the facts and the law to make their sales increase. And it seems likely that what the media prints is what much of the world would form their opinions on. quote: ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies but it seems to me, from over here where there are basically no guns, that US law now seems to favour a kind of "shoot first and the rest will be decided by lawyers" attitude. Almost any kind of mitigation can be used, if there is any threat however small it's fine. It doesn't seem to matter whether the shooter thinks, just act, like you're in an action movie Crossing with another thread, Scott did not have to walk out of his house with a gun and shoot someone but he did, and he has a whole host of laws to hide behind. Unless you just walk up to a stranger and shoot them straight in the face you will get away with it.

eulero83 -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (10/15/2013 6:03:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie All of that depends on convincing a reasonable judge/juror that those mitigations and threats pass the legal test for 'in fear for my life'. Same test that would apply in countries without a proliferation of guns. with this reply I'm not trying to open a debate on the moral implication of this, it's to understand this thing of "in fear for my life" comes from in your legal system, because it's quite an alien concept for me and I'm curious about. the law on self defence in my coutry says (art 52 penal code): Can't be punished who made the act because being forced by the necessity to defend an own or other's right against an actual threat of an illicit offence, within the limit that defence is proportionated to offence. we are a civil law system so a judge has no obligation to follow precedents (can consider them but it's up to him) but must take a decision based just on the statute. the law shows this requirements for justification: about the aggression -the object of the attack must be a right of any nature. -the threat to this right must be illicit, so adverse to the criminal law. -there must be an actual thread not just a presumed one. about the reaction -reaction must be necessary to save the threatened right -reaction must be proportional to offence. in 2006 with the law number 59 it's been introduced the concept that inside your own home or workplace reaction is always proportionate to offence when defending your or other's safety or your or other's property when there is no withdrawal by the offender and risk of aggression. For what I understand our law number 59 of 2006 is what you call castle doctrine and inside home takes away the requirement of proportion between offence and reaction, while the stand your ground principle takes away the requirement that the reacton must be necessary to save the right as you can react even when you could avoid confrontation. What I don't understand if there is no requirement about the perception of the threat, I get it's not necessary to be actual but it's enought if it's presumed but what are the parameters to decide if it was or not reasonale to fear for your own safety? Does it depends only on the defendant subjective standards? Isn't needed any proof that I'm really under threat? Isn't there any requirement for the aggression to be illicit in the usa? if someone is not actually braking any law can I use deadly force? I ask this because I wouldn't think the SYG principle would change a lot in our system where there must be an actual aggression and not just a possibility, but if the requirements for aggression are missing or subjective at least without a SYG principle you could discriminate between real danger and just presumed one, if avoiding confrontation the threat persist or if not it means that was all in your head and nothing happens. If someone will try to explain me without starting a political or moral debate, but just about legal bases will be appreciated.

Kirata -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (10/15/2013 6:26:04 AM)
Here's the relevant law in Florida... § 776.012. Use of force in defense of person A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if: (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony;or (2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to § 776.013 § 776.013. Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm (1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if: (a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and (b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred. (2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if: (a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or (b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or (c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or (d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer. (3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. For a discussion, see here. K.

BamaD -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (10/15/2013 6:48:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx what I am saying is that when you have murder rate of 1.1% and pass strict gun laws which bring your murder rate down to 1% at a time when rates are dropping throughout the western world it doesn't really have that much bearing on the effects of gun control. While at the same time extoling the passing of concealed carry as proof of same.[8\|] Bad research for the last year I have been pointing out that the rapidity of the drop has been demographics. The leaders in the drop are generally those with concealed carry. That is not the same as saying the drop is solely or even primarily due to concealed carry.

eulero83 -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (10/15/2013 7:04:03 AM)
thanks Kirata, so there is an "offence must be proportional with defence" principle in the first part, the main difference is in the words "reasonably believes" and "actual" so in florida's law also a presumed thread can justify use of deadly force if it is reasonably to believe, to me it's different from saying if the "fear was sincere" there also must be some reasons to believe that and this must be discussed and found sufficient. Are law in other federal states different on this point?

Kirata -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (10/15/2013 7:49:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 thanks Kirata, so there is an "offence must be proportional with defence" principle in the first part, the main difference is in the words "reasonably believes" and "actual" so in florida's law also a presumed thread can justify use of deadly force if it is reasonably to believe, to me it's different from saying if the "fear was sincere" there also must be some reasons to believe that and this must be discussed and found sufficient. Are law in other federal states different on this point? I'm not familiar with the laws in other states, eulero, and as there are 49 of them I hope you'll forgive me for not doing the work necessary to give you a definitive answer. But I would be very surprised to find even one in which the "reasonable belief" restriction wasn't present. K.

Nosathro -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (10/15/2013 9:18:05 AM)
Oh Really??? 2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if: (c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity http://bossip.com/816195/justice-17-year-old-who-fatally-shot-man-in-the-face-using-illegal-gun-avoids-murder-charges-on-basis-of-stand-your-ground-law/

Kirata -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (10/15/2013 9:57:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro Oh Really??? 2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if: (c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity http://bossip.com/816195/justice-17-year-old-who-fatally-shot-man-in-the-face-using-illegal-gun-avoids-murder-charges-on-basis-of-stand-your-ground-law/ Ever hear of prosecutorial discretion? The guy tried to run them down with his car. Twice. That's menacing at best, if not attempted murder. Then he went after Pierson with a stick. Plus, Pierson was retreating, "fleeing" is the actual word used, when he fired in an attempt to get the guy off his ass. Oh yeah, I forgot, that part isn't in the Stink Progress story. The State Attorney hit the kid with evidence tampering and two counts of unlawful possession, but declined to prosecute him for homicide in the circumstances. You have a problem with that? K.

Nosathro -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (10/15/2013 12:34:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro Oh Really??? 2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if: (c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity http://bossip.com/816195/justice-17-year-old-who-fatally-shot-man-in-the-face-using-illegal-gun-avoids-murder-charges-on-basis-of-stand-your-ground-law/ Ever hear of prosecutorial discretion? The guy tried to run them down with his car. Twice. That's menacing at best, if not attempted murder. Then he went after Pierson with a stick. Plus, Pierson was retreating, "fleeing" is the actual word used, when he fired in an attempt to get the guy off his ass. Oh yeah, I forgot, that part isn't in the Stink Progress story. The State Attorney hit the kid with evidence tampering and two counts of unlawful possession, but declined to prosecute him for homicide in the circumstances. You have a problem with that? K. Yeah under the Florida law the kid was in violation of the law so he is not protected by the SYG, as you so shown that provision.

EdBowie -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (10/15/2013 3:39:55 PM)
Someone has explained it to you. Your reaction was to keep repeating the same mistaken claims. Horse, water, all that. quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie All of that depends on convincing a reasonable judge/juror that those mitigations and threats pass the legal test for 'in fear for my life'. Same test that would apply in countries without a proliferation of guns. with this reply I'm not trying to open a debate on the moral implication of this, it's to understand this thing of "in fear for my life" comes from in your legal system, because it's quite an alien concept for me and I'm curious about. the law on self defence in my coutry says (art 52 penal code): Can't be punished who made the act because being forced by the necessity to defend an own or other's right against an actual threat of an illicit offence, within the limit that defence is proportionated to offence. we are a civil law system so a judge has no obligation to follow precedents (can consider them but it's up to him) but must take a decision based just on the statute. the law shows this requirements for justification: about the aggression -the object of the attack must be a right of any nature. -the threat to this right must be illicit, so adverse to the criminal law. -there must be an actual thread not just a presumed one. about the reaction -reaction must be necessary to save the threatened right -reaction must be proportional to offence. in 2006 with the law number 59 it's been introduced the concept that inside your own home or workplace reaction is always proportionate to offence when defending your or other's safety or your or other's property when there is no withdrawal by the offender and risk of aggression. For what I understand our law number 59 of 2006 is what you call castle doctrine and inside home takes away the requirement of proportion between offence and reaction, while the stand your ground principle takes away the requirement that the reacton must be necessary to save the right as you can react even when you could avoid confrontation. What I don't understand if there is no requirement about the perception of the threat, I get it's not necessary to be actual but it's enought if it's presumed but what are the parameters to decide if it was or not reasonale to fear for your own safety? Does it depends only on the defendant subjective standards? Isn't needed any proof that I'm really under threat? Isn't there any requirement for the aggression to be illicit in the usa? if someone is not actually braking any law can I use deadly force? I ask this because I wouldn't think the SYG principle would change a lot in our system where there must be an actual aggression and not just a possibility, but if the requirements for aggression are missing or subjective at least without a SYG principle you could discriminate between real danger and just presumed one, if avoiding confrontation the threat persist or if not it means that was all in your head and nothing happens. If someone will try to explain me without starting a political or moral debate, but just about legal bases will be appreciated.

eulero83 -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (10/15/2013 3:55:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie Your reaction was to keep repeating the same mistaken claims. what reaction and what mistaken claims? I think I've been polite and asked a pertinent question. I still don't understand how "reasonably" is the same as "sincerely". By the way I quoted your post because you were the last of many from the usa writing the same thing, but it was direct to whoever had the kindness to answer.

Kirata -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (10/15/2013 5:38:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro Yeah under the Florida law the kid was in violation of the law so he is not protected by the SYG, as you so shown that provision. I realize that "prosecutorial discretion" is a couple of big words, so I'm not sure whether you didn't understand them or you object to prosecutorial discretion, though I'd be willing to bet. Mark "I wasn't really buying that AR-15" Kelly, Gabby Giffords' husband, was photographed recently holding a gun at a NY gun show. In NY, if you have a gun in your hand you are "in possession". And as Kelly doesn't have a NYS pistol license, that's technically a Class E felony. But the State Attorney won't be prosecuting him. Maybe you think he should? K.

EdBowie -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (10/15/2013 9:01:42 PM)
If you think that what I posted was the 'same thing' as what went before, then you are indeed wasting my time, since it was far from it. There is a standard legal definition of 'reasonable', and it isn't the same as your usage. quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie Your reaction was to keep repeating the same mistaken claims. what reaction and what mistaken claims? I think I've been polite and asked a pertinent question. I still don't understand how "reasonably" is the same as "sincerely". By the way I quoted your post because you were the last of many from the usa writing the same thing, but it was direct to whoever had the kindness to answer.

BamaD -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (10/15/2013 9:07:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro Oh Really??? 2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if: (c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity http://bossip.com/816195/justice-17-year-old-who-fatally-shot-man-in-the-face-using-illegal-gun-avoids-murder-charges-on-basis-of-stand-your-ground-law/ Ever hear of prosecutorial discretion? The guy tried to run them down with his car. Twice. That's menacing at best, if not attempted murder. Then he went after Pierson with a stick. Plus, Pierson was retreating, "fleeing" is the actual word used, when he fired in an attempt to get the guy off his ass. Oh yeah, I forgot, that part isn't in the Stink Progress story. The State Attorney hit the kid with evidence tampering and two counts of unlawful possession, but declined to prosecute him for homicide in the circumstances. You have a problem with that? K. Yeah under the Florida law the kid was in violation of the law so he is not protected by the SYG, as you so shown that provision. But being attacked by both car and club might bring up standard self defense. what did you expect him to do die?

BamaD -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (10/15/2013 11:37:50 PM)
Yeah under the Florida law the kid was in violation of the law so he is not protected by the SYG, as you so shown that provision. Not to be too picky but did the attack have anything to do with him possessing a firearm illegally? If he was fleeing it how in the world do you think that has anything to do with SYG?

Nosathro -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (10/15/2013 11:44:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro Yeah under the Florida law the kid was in violation of the law so he is not protected by the SYG, as you so shown that provision. I realize that "prosecutorial discretion" is a couple of big words, so I'm not sure whether you didn't understand them or you object to prosecutorial discretion, though I'd be willing to bet. Mark "I wasn't really buying that AR-15" Kelly, Gabby Giffords' husband, was photographed recently holding a gun at a NY gun show. In NY, if you have a gun in your hand you are "in possession". And as Kelly doesn't have a NYS pistol license, that's technically a Class E felony. But the State Attorney won't be prosecuting him. Maybe you think he should? K. Oh I understand discretion, I am questioning the wisdom in a case. The most serious possible charge will not be filed, even when the laws does make an exception yet they charge with the lesser crimes that are suppose to exempt the person from using the SYG law. Further simply having a weapon in one's hand does not prove "possession" as you define it, to support your ranting's. The ownership, control, or occupancy of a thing, most frequently land or Personal Property, by a person.The U.S. Supreme Court has said that "there is no word more ambiguous in its meaning than possession" (National Safe Deposit Co. v. Stead, 232 U.S. 58, 34 S. Ct. 209, 58 L. Ed. 504 [1914]). Depending on how and when it is used, the term possession has a variety of possible meanings. As a result, possession, or lack of possession, is often the subject of controversy in civil cases involving real and personal property and criminal cases involving drugs and weapons—for example, whether a renter is entitled to possession of an apartment or whether a criminal suspect is in possession of stolen property. Generally, to be guilty of criminal possession, a person must either know the item is illegal when it is received or must keep possession of the object after learning it is illegal. The above are not my words.

eulero83 -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (10/16/2013 12:06:03 AM)
even if we are in the unmoderated thread you can be polite and switch the aggressive mode off, as I told I don't know how it works and I was asking so if you could explain what you meant and what the legal definition is I'd be glad to read. you told this: quote: In making their case, they have to fit the pattern of events and the totality of the circumstances. If the prosecution doesn't believe them, it has to clear the very high bar of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that they are lying about how they felt at the moment... an easy thing to insinuate, but not so easy to prove. as I told in my legal system it's different because it's not important how you felt or what you thougt but what you saw and what you heard, for what I can understand from the words "reasonably belive" it means "there are good reasons to belive" if it's different expalin what it is the legal definition and if you can post a source it would be great. quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie If you think that what I posted was the 'same thing' as what went before, then you are indeed wasting my time, since it was far from it. There is a standard legal definition of 'reasonable', and it isn't the same as your usage. quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie Your reaction was to keep repeating the same mistaken claims. what reaction and what mistaken claims? I think I've been polite and asked a pertinent question. I still don't understand how "reasonably" is the same as "sincerely". By the way I quoted your post because you were the last of many from the usa writing the same thing, but it was direct to whoever had the kindness to answer.

BamaD -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (10/17/2013 9:04:18 PM)
FR How many people here even know the difference between A murder B self defense C castle doctrine D stand your ground? From the posts made on many threads I can see that a lot of people have no idea what the difference is or even that there is one except that the last three are legal loopholes for committing the first

EdBowie -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (10/17/2013 9:30:54 PM)
I've given you polite, honest, and factually correct answers, and you have had every chance to respond in kind. Your failure to do so is your choice, just as it is my choice to not waste any more time. quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 even if we are in the unmoderated thread you can be polite and switch the aggressive mode off, as I told I don't know how it works and I was asking so if you could explain what you meant and what the legal definition is I'd be glad to read. you told this: quote: In making their case, they have to fit the pattern of events and the totality of the circumstances. If the prosecution doesn't believe them, it has to clear the very high bar of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that they are lying about how they felt at the moment... an easy thing to insinuate, but not so easy to prove. as I told in my legal system it's different because it's not important how you felt or what you thougt but what you saw and what you heard, for what I can understand from the words "reasonably belive" it means "there are good reasons to belive" if it's different expalin what it is the legal definition and if you can post a source it would be great. quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie If you think that what I posted was the 'same thing' as what went before, then you are indeed wasting my time, since it was far from it. There is a standard legal definition of 'reasonable', and it isn't the same as your usage. quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie Your reaction was to keep repeating the same mistaken claims. what reaction and what mistaken claims? I think I've been polite and asked a pertinent question. I still don't understand how "reasonably" is the same as "sincerely". By the way I quoted your post because you were the last of many from the usa writing the same thing, but it was direct to whoever had the kindness to answer.

Page: << < prev 25 26 [27] 28 29 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.171875