The Gun debate sandbox

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 5081 - 5100 of total 5484 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Jim Brennan

Trad climber
Canada
Mar 9, 2015 - 09:04pm PT
Madbolter,

You have now offered confusion as logic.

"All 'stand your ground ' means is that you don't have to first try to flee from a confrontation before you are legally allowed to defend yourself"...

What patent bullshit spread around as justification. If an individual is able to avoid harm by fleeing a situation, that is the bottom test legally for self defence. If there is no escape from a threat, an individual is entitled to use only as much force as necessary to stop the situation from escalating to homicide.

Those defeated Brits and their common law based on the Magna Carta always get in the way of a good Clint Eastwood movie...
Jim Brennan

Trad climber
Canada
Mar 9, 2015 - 09:08pm PT
So Fear, If this fellow drunk outside of a bar was continually slapped around while being told to leave without being allowed to leave, what would you think ?

It's a funny state of mind for the loser on his back, regarding when it's going to stop and when to "stand your ground".
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Mar 9, 2015 - 09:22pm PT
What patent bullshit spread around as justification. If an individual is able to avoid harm by fleeing a situation, that is the bottom test legally for self defence.

Don't complain to me. If you don't like it, complain to your legislators.

I'm only expressing what CO law actually says. In CO, as in other "stand your ground" states, you do NOT have to attempt to flee first before defending yourself.

The idea is that you should not have to spend your life running from bullies and other provocative threats, such as gang-bangers.

Again, if you don't like it, don't shoot the messenger. I'm just stating how it works in CO, which has been a model for other "stand your ground" states.
Jim Brennan

Trad climber
Canada
Mar 9, 2015 - 09:32pm PT
You are being the messenger that shoots. Does freedom equal license ?

Allowing emotion (darned if that MF'r is going to make a monkey out of me) to enter into what is the logic of law and how it's enforced is what's discussed in elementary school.

The video I posted is exactly why sorting each other out at high noon is why mutual knuckleheads get a lesson in peace keeping by the authorities.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Mar 9, 2015 - 10:01pm PT
You are being the messenger that shoots.

Whaaaaattt???

You seem to be ranting now rather than thinking.
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Mar 9, 2015 - 10:10pm PT
JB, you need a session breathing into a paper bag while intoning,

"I'm Canadian and I don't get it."
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Mar 9, 2015 - 10:11pm PT
The terminology is actually a mess. Here's a site that helps clear it up, as well as explain how these statutes are derived from the common law "castle doctrine."

In Colorado, there has never been a "duty to retreat."
Jim Brennan

Trad climber
Canada
Mar 9, 2015 - 11:17pm PT
OK,

Someone pushed me around and I shot him dead. The perfect logic in this as reflected in state's rights is indisputable. (even for a Canadian)

Darn, It would be perfect if every castle didn't have a back door.

Apartment dwellers, not wanting to jump out a third floor window could be a mitigating factor.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Mar 10, 2015 - 08:27pm PT
Someone pushed me around and I shot him dead.

Relentless straw-manning. That's not how the law works, even in "make my day" or "stand your ground" states. I'll repeat: "Imminent danger of severe bodily injury or death, as perceived by a reasonable person." That's a far, far higher bar to get over in front of a jury of 12 than, "He pushed me around."

Darn, It would be perfect if every castle didn't have a back door. Apartment dwellers, not wanting to jump out a third floor window could be a mitigating factor.

Do you really believe, I mean really (no trolling), that "society" (whatever that can possibly mean to you) so strips away your right of self-defense that the ONLY legitimate thing people can do in the face of aggression is to flee if flight is even remotely possible?

I mean, even a third-story window is scant excuse to "stand your ground!" Better to jump even from there and RISK maiming or death (certainly not guaranteed) than to (gag!) shoot the intruder bent on raping/killing you. Flee, flee, flee.... Whatever it takes to never actually stand up to evil and put it down.

Call a cop, if there's time, but always FLEEEEEEE!!!

Run, Forest, run!!!
Gary

Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Mar 10, 2015 - 08:40pm PT
Yet when Trayvon Martin stood his ground against an armed stalker his murderer got way with it on stand your ground.

So, the last stand-your-grounder left standing is the one in the right?
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Mar 10, 2015 - 08:51pm PT
Ahh... Gary. Always the master of the ridiculous. Every new post pushes the edges of the envelope a bit further. :-)

Edit: When Martin "stood his ground against an armed stalker" BY attacking him and beating his head into the concrete, at the moment he attacked was he in "imminent danger of severe bodily injury or death?"
Jim Brennan

Trad climber
Canada
Mar 10, 2015 - 11:27pm PT
I never said fleeing (even if remotely possible) was the only, ONLY ! legitimate thing people can do in the face of aggression. You do a fine job of editing a premise and truncating it's context.

Walking away (if possible) is understood as the first remedy to a situation that can possibly escalate into violence. That's so basic it's the first thing taught to everyone taking a martial arts or self defense program.

Letting pride replace objectivity is an emotional weakness that sees a lot of people f*#ked up or dead because they just had to prevail.

And Reilly... That was funny, you almost got me into a huff !
Gary

Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Mar 11, 2015 - 05:39am PT
Edit: When Martin "stood his ground against an armed stalker" BY attacking him and beating his head into the concrete, at the moment he attacked was he in "imminent danger of severe bodily injury or death?"

If someone with a gun came after you in the dark, would you feel threatened? Or would you think that was cool?
fear

Ice climber
hartford, ct
Mar 11, 2015 - 07:19am PT
Edit: When Martin "stood his ground against an armed stalker" BY attacking him and beating his head into the concrete, at the moment he attacked was he in "imminent danger of severe bodily injury or death?"


If someone with a gun came after you in the dark, would you feel threatened? Or would you think that was cool?

I wouldn't be straddling someone on the ground (who apparently scared me so with their gun) punching their head repeatedly into the street...
Gary

Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Mar 11, 2015 - 09:32am PT
^^ That wasn't the question.
fear

Ice climber
hartford, ct
Mar 11, 2015 - 10:35am PT
It depends on the details which you do not provide.


If an unknown person had a firearm(or any weapon) in their hands pointed at me in the dark, then of course I'd feel threatened.

I fear people's anticipated behaviors or intent, not just objects.

fear

Ice climber
hartford, ct
Mar 11, 2015 - 11:02am PT
Well, if TRULY cornered and having nothing else.....

But then straddling the (still armed) guy and pounding his head like something out of MMA on the tee-vee? Uhhh... no... lol ...

madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Mar 11, 2015 - 12:26pm PT
I never said fleeing (even if remotely possible) was the only, ONLY ! legitimate thing people can do in the face of aggression. You do a fine job of editing a premise and truncating it's context.

I'm to be forgiven for "misreading" your hyperbole from above:

Someone pushed me around and I shot him dead. The perfect logic in this as reflected in state's rights is indisputable.

Oh, and your bit about (perhaps) not having to flee if that would mean jumping out of a third-story window!

So sorry that I so totally "edited the premise and truncated the context!"

In point of fact, you have been perpetually confused about what "stand your ground" entails, as clearly you can't be bothered to actually look up how it works in such a state.

In point of fact, "no duty to flee" does NOT equate to "every right to stand there trash-talking, escalating, shoving, more escalating, coming to blows, and then when losing, pulling out a gun and shooting." That is NOT "stand your ground," and you are almost certain to go down for some form of illegal homicide if you are the shooter in such a case, even in a "stand your ground" state.

YOU are the one who is perpetually misrepresenting the arguments, JB.

OF COURSE the best choice is always to back away if you can. In fact, the best choice when armed is to avoid confrontation at all times. The primary thing "stand your ground" or "make my day" accomplishes is to give someone that defends themselves from an ASSAILANT the prima facie standing to HAVE defended themselves.

All of your "examples" do not involve defense against an ASSAILANT; they all treat the "defender" as a stupid, tactically-inept goofball who never should have been in the situation in the first place. I mean, how DARE you live on a third-story, so that your (fantasy) prima facie duty to flee puts you in such a bind???
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Mar 11, 2015 - 12:34pm PT
If someone with a gun came after you in the dark, would you feel threatened? Or would you think that was cool?

Martin didn't know that Zimmerman had a gun. Zimmerman was not brandishing it or revealing it in any way.

What Martin felt "threatened by" was Zimmerman's cell phone.

And that whole "stalking" bit is absurd. Unlike Martin, Zimmerman actually had a legitimate purpose and had every business being where he was. I'm NOT saying that Zimmerman handled the situation wisely! He was advised by the cops to stand down, and he should have... or at least kept a lot more distance!

But casting that encounter as "poor, innocent Martin who is just reacting legitimately to Zimmerman's 'aggression'" is flat-out ABSURD. Martin died because Martin was a thug with a criminal record who initiated an assault against (to his mind) a smaller, older, unarmed man. And in ANY state a defender is going to have cause to engage in deadly-force self-defense when his ASSAILANT is beating his head into the concrete!

So, your question is patently ridiculous on every level. Yes, if some guy is stalking me with gun drawn, I am going to find that a threat and seek the best possible response tactics for the situation! But the Martin/Zimmerman encounter was NONE of that!

Gary

Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Mar 11, 2015 - 01:13pm PT
Martin didn't know that Zimmerman had a gun. Zimmerman was not brandishing it or revealing it in any way.

What Martin felt "threatened by" was Zimmerman's cell phone.

What's your source for that information?

And that whole "stalking" bit is absurd.

He was following the kid with a gun. That could reasonably be termed stalking, couldn't it?

Unlike Martin, Zimmerman actually had a legitimate purpose and had every business being where he was.

Martin lived there, and was returning from the store with tea and candy. Is that not a legitimate purpose?

I'm NOT saying that Zimmerman handled the situation wisely! He was advised by the cops to stand down, and he should have... or at least kept a lot more distance!

Couldn't agree with you more.

But casting that encounter as "poor, innocent Martin who is just reacting legitimately to Zimmerman's 'aggression'" is flat-out ABSURD.

What's so absurd about that? Zimmerman has a history of violent encounters that predates his encounter with Martin. Is it really a stretch of the imagination to think that Zimmerman was being aggressive? His post trial activities aren't exactly indicative of a sterling character.

Martin died because Martin was a thug with a criminal record who initiated an assault against (to his mind) a smaller, older, unarmed man.

Martin stood up to an armed THUG with a criminal record.
And in ANY state a defender is going to have cause to engage in deadly-force self-defense when his ASSAILANT is beating his head into the concrete!

Do only armed people have the right to use deadly force in self-defense? Do those of us who carry forfeit the right to defend ourselves?


your question is patently ridiculous on every level.

No, it's not. Unfortunately, we'll never get to hear both sides of the story.
Messages 5081 - 5100 of total 5484 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews