'Stand your ground' promotes violence

[SecularMotion]

One amazing thing about the recent spate of laws that make it easier to shoot people and get away with it is how much prosecutors hate them. "It's an abomination," one Florida prosecutor told the Sun Sentinel, referring to the state's "stand your ground" law at the center of the tragic killing of Trayvon Martin.

And now we're hearing from Montana's county attorneys, sheriffs and police chiefs, all of whom oppose the 2009 law that expanded the "castle doctrine" to give homeowners more leeway to kill potential intruders. The law is "a solution that had no problem," the president of the Montana County Attorneys' Association said. And earlier this month, the prosecutor for the town of Kalispell cited the newly strengthened castle doctrine in refusing to indict Brice Harper, a man who shot and killed Dan Fredenberg, the husband of the woman Harper was having an affair with. Harper didn't kill Fredenberg at the end of a violent encounter. He killed an unarmed Fredenberg when he walked into Harper's garage.

The idea that Harper won't be charged is crazy making because he had a clear, safe choice that didn't involve shooting. According to the letter Flathead County attorney Ed Corrigan wrote explaining his decision not to prosecute, Fredenberg suspected that his wife, Heather Fredenberg, was having an affair with Harper. On the day of the shooting, she went to Harper's house with her 18-month-old twins to help him get ready to move out. Her husband called to ask if she was with Harper, and she didn't answer. Then she and Harper went for a drive — she wanted to get his opinion about a noise her car was making — and she saw her husband following behind. Harper got out of the car at his house. Heather Fredenberg told him to go inside and not to answer if her husband came to find him. Instead, Harper went inside, got his pistol from his bedroom, and stood at the door from his laundry room to his garage while Fredenberg approached. Harper told the police, "I told him I had a gun, but he just kept coming at me." He also claims Fredenberg was "charging at him, like he was on a mission." When Fredenberg was a few feet away, Harper shot him three times.

Harper told the police he feared for his life at that point. Maybe so. But it's hard to see how he could have reasonably had such a fear when he saw Fredenberg walking up the driveway and had the option of going inside and closing the door. Montana's law, however, gives people in this situation more leeway for a confrontation — this really is about standing your ground, for good reason or for bad. You can use force if you think it's necessary to prevent someone from unlawfully entering a house. You can use force "likely to cause death or serious bodily harm" if you think that's necessary to keep yourself from being assaulted. You don't have to fear that you may be killed or seriously injured. You have no duty to retreat or call the police. And if you have evidence that your use of force was justified, it's the state's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't.

http://www.montereyherald.com/opinion/ci_21876542/emily-bazelon-stand-your-ground-promotes-violence

[doc03]

1. Who wooda thunk that n/t

[gejohnston]

2. Frendenberg was drunk and had a history of domestic violence

the opinion writer, who doesn't seem to grasp the fact that bare hands are deadly weapons. The article admits that the current law isn't that much different than the previous one, and not that different than California's.

[1StrongBlackMan]

3. Shhhh ...

you might upset the gun group.

[gejohnston]

4. upset with an opinion writer

that I doubt anyone pays attention to? She is certainly entitled to her opinion and to get paid for putting it in print, but it doesn't mean anyone else has to accept it as anything more than what it is.

[DanTex]

12. This opinion happens to be backed by science.

There have been two recent studies about stand-your-ground and castle doctrine type laws, both of which have found an increase in non-justifiable homicide. Not too surprising -- if you encourage vigilanteism and make it easier for people to get away with shooting people, you end up with more people getting shot.

[gejohnston]

13. the law viewed them as justifiable

that is not to say the hearing judge or jury made a ruling I thought was wrong, but they most likely would make the same ruling regardless of the law.
and the other didn't know the difference between the SYG and Castle doctrine.
You don't even know what vigilantism means.

[DanTex]

15. LOL. We were just talking about all the false statements you make!

Looks like we have a few more to add to that list!

[gejohnston]

21. which you will not provide evidence of

we discussed one of those studies before. One confused Castle Doctrine with SYG and got some of the states wrong. I proved it the last time we discussed that, but as your "evidence" you will back up your claim with links to your post making that claim. You are getting as desperate as you are boorish.

[DanTex]

25. Evidence:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117282750#post75

[gejohnston]

38. are you serious?

First off do you know what the word "lie" means? It seems not, since you don't know what "vigilante" means either. Your misunderstanding or misuse of basic vocabulary says more about you than it does about me.

ie/lī/
Verb:

(of a person or animal) Be in or assume a horizontal or resting position.
Tell a lie or lies.

Noun:

The way, direction, or position in which something lies.
An intentionally false statement.

Key word is intentionally.
On the 70 percent, it is based on information I read before then. It was accurate to the best of my knowledge, and since Kleck said "conservatively" you did not really refute it. Either way, it was not an intentionally false statement
I stand by the Rachael and her plastic guns
I might have confused with that Kellerman screed with some of his others, or it was before I read it. Either way, see above. Either way, it was quite awhile ago.
So, what is your fucking problem? Are you keeping a dossier on me or something? Are you still pissed because the mods deleted many of your patronizing personal attacks in DU2? You still seem to be stuck at this level. You have this strange obsession with attacking me personally when you aren't making boorish and irrelevant rants about Beck and Palin.

[DanTex]

53. So you are claiming ignorance?

I gotta say, coming from you that is a pretty strong defense. Of course, the question then is why would anyone trust someone who claims to be well informed about gun policy but is so ignorant he can't manage to get his facts right.

In any case, intentional or not, this does show that you are willing to basically make stuff up off (or just take a "guess&quot and state it as fact. And then when you are proven wrong you make up some sorry excuse for it. So you'll forgive me if I take your claims with a grain of salt. Boy who cried wolf and all. I'm accustomed to working in an environment where the truth is highly regarded, and where people don't just toss around random guesses as if they were verified facts.

PS 70% is not even close to 25%. If you had said, say, 30%, I'd give it to you.

PS Rachel was right about plastic guns. She didn't say they had been manufactured, she said the materials technology to manufacture them existed. I am aware that the gun blogs have all declared "RACHEL MADDOW LIED ABOUT PLASTIC GUNZZZZ" but that doesn't make it true.

PPS Not pissed: I've had very few posts deleted, far fewer than many of your right-wing buddies here.

PPPS No dossier: just the simple fact that you make a lot of false statements, so it's not really too hard to google up some examples.

[gejohnston]

61. I make shit up?

I gotta say, coming from you that is a pretty strong defense. Of course, the question then is why would anyone trust someone who claims to be well informed about gun policy but is so ignorant he can't manage to get his facts right.

Everyone makes errors, but it seems odd coming from an pseudo-intellectual ideologue that has trouble with basic vocabulary.

PS 70% is not even close to 25%. If you had said, say, 30%, I'd give it to you.

not the same thing.

PS Rachel was right about plastic guns. She didn't say they had been manufactured, she said the materials technology to manufacture them existed. I am aware that the gun blogs have all declared "RACHEL MADDOW LIED ABOUT PLASTIC GUNZZZZ" but that doesn't make it true.

They have not been manufactured. AFAIK, the technology doesn't exist for plastic to take that much heat and pressure. Besides, the ammo would still show up on an x ray.

PPS Not pissed: I've had very few posts deleted, far fewer than many of your right-wing buddies here.

Bullshit, over half of them in DU2 were.

PPPS No dossier: just the simple fact that you make a lot of false statements, so it's not really too hard to google up some examples.

Only in your mind. You repeat the same false claims and absurd rants.

[DanTex]

70. LOL. Good times, gej!

Everyone makes errors,

But you seem to make "errors" much more frequently than the average human.

They have not been manufactured

Yes, but Maddow didn't say that they had been manufactured. I hope you understand that if you claim Rachel Maddow made a "demonstrably false" statement, you are claiming that a statement that she actually made is false. It's easy to come up with examples of things that Rachel Maddow didn't say which are false.

Bullshit, over half of them in DU2 were.

"Over half". More lies from gej! And, yes, this one is a lie. Even you aren't ignorant enough to plead ignorance on this one.

[gejohnston]

73. shall we count them?

Glock never said they had the ability to make them.

The gungeon in DU2? I stand by it. You are lying. Do you actually have a point or are you going to continue on your petty personal attacks?

[DanTex]

76. Yes, please count them. LOL.

Are you now going to claim that you don't even know what the word "half" means?

Speaking of definitions, do you know what "demonstrably" means? Can you "demonstrate" that Glock never made such a statement, or is this more of the "gejohnston version" of the world?

[gejohnston]

78. do you? You seem to have a problem with vocabulary

the fact that no one can find one speaks for its self. If it existed, I'm sure someone in the Starbucks roundtable has the time and the brains to look for it. Then again, that person would be smart enough to question the DanTex version of the world.

[DanTex]

80. Wait! I thought you were going to go back and count hidden posts!

I thought you were going to finally try and back one of your false statements with some evidence! No? The disappointment is crushing!

the fact that no one can find one speaks for its self

Wow! So now you've gone from "demonstrably false" to "you haven't personally contacted Rachel Maddow and checked her sources".

You're sinking, gej. Sinking fast...

[gejohnston]

81. not the same thing

and they were deleted, not hidden.

[DanTex]

82. Not the same as what?

Definition of HALF

a : either of two equal parts that compose something; also : a part approximately equal to one of these <half the distance> <the larger half of the fortune>

[gejohnston]

84. your point?

other than acting like a two year old? I hope you act more mature at the Starbucks roundtable.

[DanTex]

89. My point is that you are lying once again.

You know, about the "over half your posts" thing. Did you really not understand that from my previous posts?



Sinking, gej, sinking...

[gejohnston]

90. gun fourm in DU2

yeah, don't think so. So the jury system lets you get away with your condescending childish bullshit in DU3, how cool. In DU2 your personal attacks basically said I was uneducated and stupid. Now you are saying I am lying. So, what will it be in DU4?

[DanTex]

92. Well, you are lying. What else would you call the claim that over half my posts were deleted

if not a lie?

[gejohnston]

93. history, good night troll.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

19. Your citations do not say what you claim

Both of them are SYG in focus, and the second citation is behind a pay wall.

CD has been the law in the vast majority of states for quite some time. This shooting was CD and not SYG related.

[DanTex]

34. Actually, they dealt with both CD and SYG.

They looked at states that had expanded CD in certain ways, including SYG.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. As another strong black man, I am calling BS on this story for the third time on DU

The shooting was legal, even before Montana changed its law. Read the DA's summary, its pretty clear and damning.

The shooting indeed could have been avoided, but was clearly lawful

[1StrongBlackMan]

9. And that is the point of the OP ...

That "castle doctrine" laws promote violence.

I, personally, have seen situations that have escalated because one of the actors had a gun.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

16. The piece in the OP ignored and misstated things from the DA's report in an effort to support her

agenda. I believe she intentionally conflated SYG with Castle Doctrine to deceive her readers into confusing the two. I hope your can see through it

Castle Doctrine only applies in the residence, though there is some variations as to outer edge from state to state. There is no duty to retreat and intruders are presumed hostile and life threatening. Its the law in overwhelming majority of the states and has been for some time.

SYG removes the duty to retreat outside of the home. However, unlike CD, the shooter has to show that they were in reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury.

Read the DA's statement. Pretty damn clear that this was a legitimate shooting. Yes it could have been avoided, and IMO the wife did things that day that guaranteed a violent interaction. See it here: http://www.ravallirepublic.com/pdf_326cb5e1-516c-55c6-bbd6-0e79032957cf.html

I too have seen guns in the wrong hands escalate things. A home invader was about to shoot me but my late wife double tapped him. Washington DC police were not pleased, but no charges were filed. Classic defense, since DC did not support Castle Doctrine at that time.

I teach firearms on the weekends mostly to GLBTs and women. Those most in need of an effective defense against predators. Odds are if they have to shoot someone, it will be in their home. In that case Castle Doctrine works fine for me. Eliminating those who prey on the weaker members of our society is a good thing.

Gun control as this poster and others here advocate for fall hardest on the poor and minorities. As a minority with family roots in south, I can not and will not support it.

[DanTex]

18. Wow! "Gun control ... falls hardest on the poor and minorities."

Not sure I've heard that one before! I guess some people can convince themselves of anything! Sort of like right-wingers who think that women are the greatest victims of pro-choice legislation, or homophobes who claim that they really care about LGBT people more than anyone else because they want to "cure" them.

The reality, of course, is that the urban poor, minorities in particular, are the people who suffer the most from lax gun laws. The people who push lax gun laws are mostly white conservatives, who often harbor a very thinly veiled prejudice against people who live in urban areas. This anti-urbanism, which Sarah Palin made a hallmark of her 2008 campaign ("real America" and "small towns" and all that), often makes an ugly appearance on this board -- for some reason a lot of people don't feel the need to hide their contempt for people who live in cities.

There was a great comedic take on the callousness of right-wing zealots pushing guns into urban areas on the Daily Show -- a libertarian nutcase decided to give away toy guns in Harlem just to make a point. Obviously, no kids in his wealthy suburban neighborhood ever get shot by cops who mistake their toy guns for the real thing.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-may-12-2005/banned-aid

[ProgressiveProfessor]

20. Then you have not been listening and have little appreciation for the history on the matter

You are saying something with some truth when you bring up the urban/rural divide on this. However, it the urban areas it is the rich who push gun control with its racial and classist impacts.

[DanTex]

27. Yeah, and the Republicans are the "party of Lincoln".

Meanwhile, in the real world, in 2012, the people driving the pro-gun ideology are right-wingers, who are often racist (e.g. Ted Nugent). I don't see too many examples of working class urban minorities pushing for more permissive gun laws.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

31. I see some, and GLBTs and women who are choosing to own guns for self defense out of necessity

and are aghast at what the State of California and some local jurisdictions put them through to utilize a constitutional rights. This are not redneck cowboys, but everyday people who have decided to take responsibility for their own safety, since the state does not. They are also those the most at risk.

[DanTex]

35. By and large, people for whom gun violence is a reality of life tend to favor

tighter gun laws. And this is because they see first hand the absurdity and the futility of the idea that the way to combat gun violence is with more guns.

I hope you watch that Daily Show video. Yes, it is a "fake news" show, but the image of the smug libertarian asshole giving away toy guns in Harlem is really fitting. Intellectually, he is too blinded by ideology to allow for the fact that more "freedom" in some cases can be harmful. And, since there surely is no gun violence problem in his suburban neighborhood, that precludes him from having any direct experience about the actual consequences of gun violence and lax gun laws.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

37. That changes when they are personally targeted and realize there is no help other than themselves

GLBTs are an unlikely group in which to find new gun owners, but my classes are always full. They are at more risk than suburban soccer moms or urban hipsters in North Beach (SFO), and are often reluctant converts. However, they do pay attention, appreciate the seriousness of what they are doing, and tend not to be cowboys/cavalier about things. There has been a recent to 380 handguns recently, partly driven by smaller hand size and the desire for concealability.

The problem in the poorer areas is that the good people cannot afford protection, due in some part to regressive legislation.

Not where I can watch video at the moment.

[DanTex]

41. A very libertarian argument.

People also don't like paying taxes, but most are able to realize that without taxes society will not function. People like burning cheap fossil fuels, but if everyone burns cheap fossil fuels then the temperature goes up and everyone suffers. Some people want easy access to guns to defend themselves, but without adequate gun laws, then guns proliferate to the point where, even with a gun, individuals are much less safe that they would be in a society with more reasonable gun restrictions.

And the thing is, self-defense and gun control don't have to be in conflict (never mind, for now, the fact that there is basically no evidence at all that owning or carrying a gun actually provides a safety benefit). For example, if all handguns are registered, or if gun purchases are limited to one per month, or if gun license require a mental health examination, etc., none of that would stand in the way of a person who has a genuine self-defense need. What those things will do is prevent careless gun ownership, and also make it much more difficult for guns to be diverted from legal gun owners to criminals. That fact that most (all) pro-gunners oppose these and other mild gun control measures makes be doubt that this is really about self-defense, and it's really more about an absolutist right-wing ideology.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

102. Pragmatic, not libertarian

If I had said that the government never has and obligation to protect its citizens and its everyone for themselves, that would be libertarian. But the fact is that for the vast majority of cases, police do not prevent crimes, they document them. These are people with real needs and talking about society's goals etc does nothing to address the very real issues in the immediate. Society needs to remove the end to achieve the goals you seek.

[glacierbay]

104. We not only rarely prevent crime, but we are not responsible for an individuals safety

unless said individual is in our custody, we're only responsible for the general public's safety.

[Clames]

44. Blinded by ideology perfectly explains you and every other Brady Campaign hanger on.

Never mind the absurdity of using comedy shows and comedians as valid sources upon which to support a failing and increasingly fringe set of anti-gun beliefs. Never mind the fact that there are those who do have direct experience and still either carry or keep a firearm on themselves or in their homes. Never mind the daily stories of those who have successfully, legally, and justifiably used a firearm in defense of themselves or property. Blinded is a very applicable term for those who follow along with Mayor Bloomberg, Josh Sugarman, and every other hack that works for VPC, MAIG, LCPGV, etc and takes their "statistics" as incontrovertible truth. Fortunately, while very vocal, they are a small and declining population.

[DanTex]

50. Your views are insular and illogical, as right-wing ideologies tend to be.

I'm not sure where you've been the last decade or so, but outside of right-wing circles, the Daily Show and Colbert Report are considered some of the most intelligent sources of social commentary around. I know that Bill O'Reilly and the FOX crew likes to dismiss them as just comedians, so it's not surprising that you are once again in agreement with them.

As far as the "fringe element", there is plenty of polling that confirms that common sense gun laws like handgun registration is supported by large majorities of the population. The problem is the same as with global warming, and with economic policy, etc.: a well-funded right-wing lobby overrides the will of the people.

Another thing. Like most right-wingers, you only pay attention to what happens in the US. Xenophobia is very common on this board. If you would broaden your horizons a bit, you would see that the pro-gun ideology only really exists with right-wing Americans. The rest of the developed world has much tighter gun laws, and as a result their rates of homicide and gun violence are a small fraction of what we have in the US. And, as long as the US is there as an example of the catastrophic consequences of inadequate gun regulations, there is basically no chance of any "gun rights" movement gaining traction.

[Clames]

83. You just keep lying to yourself.

I'm not sure where you've been the last decade or so, but outside of right-wing circles, the Daily Show and Colbert Report are considered some of the most intelligent sources of social commentary around.

I've spent the last decade actually working on my education and being able to formulate my opinions based on fact. You on the other hand seem to have educated yourself with your TV set and whatever talking head is on it...

As far as the "fringe element", there is plenty of polling that confirms that common sense gun laws like handgun registration is supported by large majorities of the population.

Plenty of polling? You have any credible sources of such polls? Seems the best that aren't getting their pockets lined by the Joyce Foundation or the NRA precisely contradict that notion. Majority of Americans have no interest in further restrictions and support for gun rights has increased amongst blacks, hispanics, and whites. Further contradicting your notion that those who live in proximity to the most gun violence are those that are most outspoken for gun control is the fact that both blacks and hispanics have made the largest increases in support for gun rights.

Another thing. Like most right-wingers, you only pay attention to what happens in the US. Xenophobia is very common on this board. If you would broaden your horizons a bit, you would see that the pro-gun ideology only really exists with right-wing Americans. The rest of the developed world has much tighter gun laws, and as a result their rates of homicide and gun violence are a small fraction of what we have in the US. And, as long as the US is there as an example of the catastrophic consequences of inadequate gun regulations, there is basically no chance of any "gun rights" movement gaining traction.

You, like most right-wingers, attempt (poorly) to use your inflated sense of superiority to somehow drive the point that your view is the more worldly one when you couldn't be further from the truth. I, unlike yourself, was born overseas, travels abroad regularly and extensively, and has even discussed this very issue at depth with many I have met. I've found that many of my peers in the UK, including family members, do not share anything approaching the idiocy that is the mantra of extremist gun-control advocates in the US. They find it bewildering that so many like you tout UK's laws with absolutely no understanding of historical and cultural context and make the illogical leap that the gun laws are the sole deciding factor of low levels of gun crime when such levels existed decades before such laws. Xenophobia...that's laughable coming from you. As for your assertion that gun rights movements have no chance of gaining traction in these countries then it is you who needs to crawl out from under the VPC/MAIG/Brady Campaign rock you are currently hiding under (or behind...hard to tell with you). Shooting and gun ownership clubs are gaining traction in Australia, the UK, and Canada. Not only in terms of increasing membership but increasing political clout. People exercising real common sense and not Common Sense(c) as defined by narrow minded individuals that make up the anti-gun element.

[gejohnston]

85. one thing.

[DanTex]

87. Well that was interesting...

I've spent the last decade actually working on my education and being able to formulate my opinions based on fact.

Wow! A whole decade and still barely capable of forming a coherent sentence! Or should I say of "formulating your opinions based on fact"...

Plenty of polling? You have any credible sources of such polls?

Sure, here are a few.
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/08/09/rel7a.pdf
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/Bloompoll.pdf
But wait, lemme guess. You don't believe in polls, because they are "biased". Or should I say "skewed". No surprise, a lot of ideologs feel that way when they confront data that doesn't support their point of view. For example, the recent attacks on Nate Silver from the right-wing media.

Blah blah blah

Next semester, take a writing course. They'll teach you to arrange your thoughts in well-formed paragraphs. I'm sure the angry-stream-of-consciousness thing feels great and is an emotional release, but it doesn't read very well...

Interesting that you were born overseas, but if you honestly think that gun rights movements are making significant strides in countries outside the US, you are more delusional than I gave you credit for.

[Clames]

119. Another worthless and predictable response from you.

I'm sorry you find plain English sentences to be incoherent but there really isn't anyone to blame but yourself for such a failing. I'm sure you'd find a way to blame the NRA for that like you blame them for everything else.

[gejohnston]

106. for example?

Definition of XENOPHOBIA
: fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/xenophobia

[Eleanors38]

23. Yes, it certainly does. And some gun-banners agree...

"Even gun control advocate Robert Sherrill claimed: 'The Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed not to control guns but to control blacks.'"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_night_special

He also was of the opinion that the law would not affect those of better economic status who wanted to purchase firearms. As for your take: "...the callousness of right-wing zealots pushing guns into urban areas...", it should be pointed out that "right-wing zealots" are not doing the pushing. It's the criminals who smuggle arms into these areas for use by other criminals. Frankly, I wish the poor had the same access to firearms that other law-abiding citizens have, then "pushing" wouldn't be needed.

But there are some who wish to keep 'em on the plantation.

[DanTex]

42. The right-wing zealots doing the pushing the lax gun laws.

Gun violence is a predictable consequence of inadequate gun laws, which means that the gun lobby bears some responsibility for the gun violence epidemic in the US.

[friendly_iconoclast]

45. As opposed to 'progressives' like Ronald Reagan (Mulford Act), William Bennett, and Mike Bloomberg?

Statists all....

[DanTex]

55. Yes, but overall, gun control advocates are overwhelmingly progressives, whereas

gun rights advocates are overwhelmingly conservative. There are always a few counterexamples, not just with guns but with all issues.

On DU2 I asked for anyone to come up with a single example of a prominent progressive that was a supporter of gun rights, to the extreme extent that you find on this board. There were a total of zero examples.

[Eleanors38]

46. Do you think poor minorities in urban areas should have the same RKBA as other Americans?

[DanTex]

54. I think that all Americans have the right to live in a society that is not plagued by gun violence.

Do you agree?

I believe that all people should have the same RKBA, but that RKBA is a limited right, and that reasonable restrictions on gun access are appropriate and necessary to avoid epidemic levels of gun violence.

[friendly_iconoclast]

57. Most Americans *do* live in a society that is not plagued by gun violence.

Unfortunately, some don't- and the ones that are plagued by gun violence are often in places where gun laws are most restrictive- California's East Bay, Chicago, the District of Columbia.

Other places (such as true-blue Vermont) have little gun violence and very little restrictions on guns. Hell, even Houston, the closest city in size to Chicago, has one-third the murder rate
of Chicago-even with Texas' notably lax gun laws.

So the question is: What drives violent crime? It can't be the availability of guns- else Switzerland (where most adult men have assault rifles) would have a higher murder rate than Russia.
Look to inequality, poverty, and corruption, instead

[Tuesday Afternoon]

58. most excellent post. bravo and well said. thank you for saying it.

[DanTex]

60. LOL. Apparently, gun fanatics find pseudointellectual nonsense to be irresistible!

Not much of a surprise there!

[Tuesday Afternoon]

62. when you are able to see the bigger picture perhaps you can join in on the intelligent conversation

I am not a gun fanatic but, you wouldn't know the difference if it slapped you on the face.

[DanTex]

59. Do you guys ever say anything that is true?

It's like you are trying to set a record for false statements.

The top two cities for homicide in the US are New Orleans and St Louis, both located in gun-friendly states. I know that gun nuts like to focus on DC and Chicago, but those are chosen based on ideology, not statistics.

Of course, you can always cherry pick data, which is why it is important to look at scientific peer-reviewed studies, of which there are several showing that gun ownership is a significant factor contributing to homicide rates. I get that, like most right-wingers, you don't believe in science and systematic data analysis -- I imagine you are a big fan of "unskewedpolls.com". But, again, this is a Democratic forum, so if you want to post denialist nonsense, this is probably not the right place for you.

And I also get that no self-respecting right-winger would fail to bring up the "Russia has a high homicide rate" talking point, but what you obviously don't understand is that guns are not the only factor. Among developed nations, the US has by far the highest homicide rate, due to our lax gun laws. If you start cherry-picking nations like Russia which is essentially a lawless society, then of course you can find isolated instances that go against the general trend.

[gejohnston]

63. speaking of cherry picking

he never said they were the worst. He said they were more than many if not most gun friendly places. El Paso has among the lowest murder rates in North America.

[DanTex]

68. Yes, El Paso is a great example of cherry picking.

Do you have a point?

[gejohnston]

71. so are your examples.

But the gun laws have not changed in DC since their rates started dropping, and the only FFL, besides Josh Sugarmann, is now operating out of PD, I don't think their licensing scheme increased crime. Gun laws don't actually matter. It is not even a major reason.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

64. guns are not the only factor!! finally. you get it.

[gejohnston]

65. until it stops serving it's purpose

then he will tell us it is the main reason, like Japan.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

67. I know. but, for just a minute, it was nice. Let me enjoy the after glow a moment longer.

[DanTex]

66. I've said that many times.

Guns are just one of many factors. So much is obvious.

The problem is, the gun fanatics want to pretend that gun availability has no effect on rates of homicide and gun violence.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

69. from now on YOU can NOT call me a gun Fanatic because I have NEVER said such -

I am in here BECAUSE of all the other factors.

I work in the mental health field as a nurse.

I do Wound Care.

I have worked in EMRGENCY rooms.

I know the damage GUNS can do.

I don't come in here to take this shit lightly.

I come in here Because - I CARE -

about ALL Human Beings and the hope that we can all live our lives with some dignity and honor.

Quality of Life.

[DanTex]

72. OK. If you agree that gun availability is a significant contributor to gun violence

and homicide rates, then I will not call you a gun fanatic. Meanwhile, I agree (as I always have) that gun availability is not the only factor, and that there are many other factors that are also very important.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

74. kind of like saying only criminals commit crime. Your statement is a DUH. sorry but really

how dumb is it to say that GUN violence is caused by GUNS. no shit sherlock.

just like KNIFE violence is caused by knives.

the tool is not the MITIGATING factors.

and that is where we need to deal with the ills of society.

It is NOT easy.

WE NEED TO WORK TOGETHER to GET DEMOCRATS ELECTED so that ALL can live with dignity and honor.

[DanTex]

75. Well, we were almost there...

Gun availability is one of the factors. Reduce gun availability and you get less gun crimes, which means less homicide. Yes, we need to get more Democrats elected and we need to deal with the other ills of society besides gun proliferation. But that doesn't change the fact that gun availability is a factor, and, if the political will were there, we could address it, the way that most other developed nations have.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

86. yes You will get less GUN crime but, will you get LESS crime? No. Not according to statistics -

from other countries.

I want to solve the CRIME problem - I do not care what tools are used to commit the crime.

White Collar crime is the most criminal of all and Pen And Paper is what is used.

Shall we outlaw pen and paper?

[DanTex]

94. Gun crimes are far more lethal than non-gun crimes.

True, the US does not have more overall crimes. But we have a far higher homicide rate. Why? Because, in part, crimes in the US are much more likely to be committed with guns, which means that they are far more likely to end up with someone getting killed.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

96. all the more reason we need to address the underlying issues wouldn't you agree?

[DanTex]

98. Of course. And also the guns, wouldn't you agree?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

100. yes, gun education needs to start early.

[DanTex]

103. And there's the dodge....

It's funny, yes, but you are joking about a serious issue.

The fact is, sensible gun control laws are an essential tool in reducing gun violence and homicide. At one point, it seemed that you were reasonable enough to concede that gun availability does, in fact, increase homicide and gun violence rates. But maybe you are a pro-gun extremist after all.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

109. Wrong. Every since Ug clubbed Uhooga in that cave so long ago there has been

death and destruction. Unfortunately, Weaponry is here to stay.

I want to live in a Nation that is as knowledgable as it can be on ALL subjects and unfortunately that includes Weaponry.

Maybe, you want to put your head in the sand where unicorns poop rainbows and fart cotton candy.

[friendly_iconoclast]

77. Do you guys normally overlook inequality, poverty and corruption? Or just when convenient?

What I said about Chicago and Houston is undeniable and based on statistics. The reader can confirm by checking with the FBI Uniform Crime Reports website:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-6

In 2011, Houston had a population of 2,143,628 and 198 murders

In 2011, Chicago had a population of 2,703,713 and 431 murders

Let me get this straight:

When a polity has a high homicide rate, it's because of "lax gun laws" and being "in gun-friendly state(s)"- unless it has tough gun laws, in which case "guns are not the only factor".

Would you care to explain for us, in your own words, the disparity in murder rates between Chicago and Houston?

New Orleans and St Louis have lots of all three stated vices. NOLA in particular could give Chicago and the General Court of Massachusetts graduate-level lessons in corruption...

[DanTex]

79. Have you been paying attention at all?

As I've made very clear, there are other factors, including poverty, inequality, corruption, organized crime, etc. But gun availability is very clearly a factor as well.

Also, in case you were sick during Statistics 101, cherry picking one or two individual data points (e.g. Houston and Chicago) and trying draw definite conclusions from them is an extremely poor method. Instead, you look at the totality of the evidence, which, as several studies have found, shows a clear and significant effect of gun availability on homicide rates.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

88. Cherry Pick the whole world? USA, Mexico, Haiti, and Guatemala are the only countries I know

that RKBA.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

95. are you being deliberately obtuse? I ask in all honesty and sincerity.

[DanTex]

99. No. You?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

101. I am not the one having issues with gejohnston.

[friendly_iconoclast]

105. Yes- and I think gun availability is *far* down the causative list for violent crime.

Ironically, you are making a mirror-image version of the "Republican/right wing anti-gun control" argument. Their claim is that less restriction of legal guns will lower crime rates, without
considering socioeconomic factors. From you we get "More restriction of legal guns will lower crime rates, without considering socioeconomic factors.

I'd be so bold as to say gun laws are almost irrelevant when you live in some poverty-ridden hole, whether urban or rural.
Name a city or county in the US with a high murder rate and you will be naming a place with poor schools, little economic opportunity, and high inequality of income, and usually a
corrupt power structure.

You know what might be a good test? Someplace like Cleveland, Ohio-which had fairly restrictive gun laws up until a few years ago, when the State of Ohio passed a preemption law.
Suddenly, many of their restrictions on guns were gone- and TPTB there were not a bit happy about that.

I'm going to dredge the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports and see what happened to Cleveland's violent crime rates...

[Eleanors38]

115. Have the "right?" No. SHOULD they live without ANY

violence? Certainly.

Now, as things stand legally, should minorities have the same rkba as others?

[Eleanors38]

116. Wrong on several counts. We have a violent culture

Where laws to curb ANY violence have only a nominal effect. I see little to justify a "gun violence epidemic." In any case, the thugs take by far the greatest responsibility. A prohibitionist scheme will only reward the thug, HyperPunk, and the celebro punk with unarmed bodies to satisfy his needs.

[1StrongBlackMan]

52. Actually ...

That's a true statement.

The original gun control laws were aimed at the freedmen following emancipation. This was followed by gun control's rebirth in the '60s and early '70s.

[1StrongBlackMan]

36. I understand, ...

and largely agree with, the castle doctrine ... My home is my castle; enter and act the fool at your own peril; but I have major problems with this Stand Your Ground nonsense. I would think that the ego-bruising of retreating would be far less damaging to the average person, than having to deal with the aftermath of shooting someone ... especially when you know that the shooting could have been avoided by simply walking away.

Many years ago, my martial arts instructor taught his students to try and talk your way out of a confrontation; if that looks like that's gonna fail, walk away; if he/she follows you, run away; if he/she catches you, defend yourself. That's how adults handle themselves.

But that said, this:

I too have seen guns in the wrong hands escalate things. A home invader was about to shoot me but my late wife double tapped him.

Is NOT what I'm talking about, when I reference escalation due to someone having a gun. I'm talking about an argument escalating to gun play; when, but for the gun, the confrontation likely would have resulted in someone walking away, or at most, a fist-fight.

But I suspect you know what I meant.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

39. I have mixed feeling about duty to retreat and commensurate force requirements

Way to easy to Monday AM quarter back and often not viable in the situation as the shooter saw it. However, I too teach and counsel that walking away is always better as is calling 911. The cops may not make it in time, but at least they have a head start.

The concept of having a gun can embolden someone to do something stupid is at times valid. However, those carrying and doing that are often doing so illegally. Incidents as you describe are rare but do happen with those with proper training and credentials.

I see the good guys continuing to arm as police and social services are cut back. Until the causes of violence are addressed, not sure what else can be done at a practical level. I have no intention of allowing the vulnerable to be further weakened by the those safe in the private building or suburbs.

[ManiacJoe]

40. While the duty/requirement to retreat has never been a good one,

the tactic of retreat is often valid and should always be considered on a case-by-case basis.

[1StrongBlackMan]

48. Why would a duty/requirement to retreat ...

not be a good policy?

Retreat doesn't mean turn your back, close your eyes and hope for the best ... it merely means attempt to de-escalate and disentangle one's self from the impending conflict. E.g., pull your gun and back away; rather than pull the gun and start blasting. (yes, I know the rule ... don't pull a gun unless you fully intend to shoot)

[ProgressiveProfessor]

97. Preferred certainly, mandatory not so much

Think about it tactically where you may not know the status of over family members. If there are intruders and you have children in the house to account for that is a different situation where you are alone and could slip out the door with a cell phone.

Please note that I consider not all legal shootings unavoidable or necessary. Often there are things that could be done to avoid violence ahead of time. But by the time the perp is in your house, its too late for much else other than violence.

[ManiacJoe]

110. Practice vs theory.

In practice, most states that had laws requiring a retreat enforced them in a way that resulted in "turn your back, close your eyes and hope for the best". From a tactical point of view, always requiring a specific action (fleeing) is a bad thing. The tactics need to be governed by the circumstances. Sometimes fleeing is a better option, sometimes fighting is the better option.

Yes, de-escalating is always the best option. Sometimes it does not work.

[1StrongBlackMan]

111. The practice ...

in most states that had laws requiring a retreat is, in my experience, not as you have presented it ... they merely review, in hind-sight, any evidence that the shooter attempted to disengage/de-escalate the conflict, where the opportunity presented itself. If there is any evidence of attempting to disengage or de-escalate is present, the shooter walks. Likewise, if the evidence supports no reasonable opportunity to disengage/de-escalate, the shooter walks.

[ManiacJoe]

112. All I have is what has been reported in the news over the years.

Apparently there were enough cases that did not result in the ideal outcome, so folks changed the rules.

[1StrongBlackMan]

113. And the NRA's candidate buying campaign had nothing to do with it ... Right?

I live in a SYG state; but I don't recall voting on a single SYG issue. I do, however, know that everyone of my legislators took NRA money, prior to enacting SYG legislation.

[ManiacJoe]

114. To the best of my memory,

none of the states I have lived in had a duty to retreat.

I don't have a problem with legislators removing the "duty" so that others can decide the best tactics for themselves. Sometimes even the NRA gets it right.

[1StrongBlackMan]

117. Correction ...

ALL of the states you have lived in have had an inherent duty to retreat ... It is the basis of the self-defense affirmative defense.

[gejohnston]

118. depends on the states

If he lived in Washington state, Illinois, California, or Utah then he would be in SYG states. All but Illinois are by common law. Illinois passed a SYG law in 1961. If he lived in any state but on a federal reservation, where federal rules would apply, that would also by SYG by common law.
Florida didn't do anything new or radical. It just started a trend.

[ManiacJoe]

120. Care to be a lot more verbose on your basis?

This could be an interesting conversation, but your reasoning behind the claim is not obvious.

[1StrongBlackMan]

121. Sure, not that I believe it will matter ...

In the jurisdiction that I practiced (back when I did criminal law) ... Grand Juries merely reviewed, in hind-sight, any evidence that the shooter attempted to disengage/de-escalate the conflict, where the opportunity presented itself. If there is any evidence of attempting to disengage or de-escalate is present, the shooter walks. Likewise, if the evidence supported no reasonable opportunity to disengage/de-escalate, the shooter walks.

Okay? It's not about my "reasoning" ... It's about what I have lived.

[trouble.smith]

49. so you don't believe that a man has a right to use deadly force against an intruder in his own home?

or are you just opposed to specific circumstances that occasionally arise under castle doctrine laws? also, if I'm in the process of being robbed and/or assaulted on my property or otherwise, do you expect me to: A.) turn my back on the assailent and attempt to run away B.) allow myself to be robbed and/or beaten or c.) shoot the assailent with a concealed handgun the instant I realize that i am in danger of being robbed and/or assaulted?

[1StrongBlackMan]

51. Actually ...

I mis-wrote ... I meant to write:

"That "Stand Your Ground" laws (you know ... what the author of the OP said) promote violence.

[trouble.smith]

56. you wanna answer the questions?

[1StrongBlackMan]

91. Okay ...

so you don't believe that a man has a right to use deadly force against an intruder in his own home?

A right to use deadly force on someone that intrudes in my home, without other threatenin behavior ... no.

or are you just opposed to specific circumstances that occasionally arise under castle doctrine laws?

Read what I said, or argue by yourself ... I don't oppose the Castle Doctrine; I do, however, have a problem with Stand Your Ground laws. That's what I meant when I wrote: "I mis-wrote ... I meant to write: "That "Stand Your Ground" laws (you know ... what the author of the OP said) promote violence."

also, if I'm in the process of being robbed and/or assaulted on my property or otherwise, do you expect me to: A.) turn my back on the assailent and attempt to run away B.) allow myself to be robbed and/or beaten or c.) shoot the assailent with a concealed handgun the instant I realize that i am in danger of being robbed and/or assaulted?

That's a stupid question.

[trouble.smith]

107. ...........

"A right to use deadly force on someone that intrudes in my home, without other threatenin behavior ... no. "

So you believe you should wait until the person shoots at you or otherwise attacks you in your own home before you resort to deadly force? If someone is intruding in your home, that in and of itself respresents threatening behavior IMO. I know I would feel pretty threatened if an univited someone was creeping around in my house in the middle of the night. In the middle of the night, I don't know if he has a gun and I don't know his intent and I shouldn't have to risk my own life waiting for the situation to escalate to a point where it becomes more socially acceptable to shoot the intruder. In my castle, I have no duty to retreat whatsoever and I won't.

I don't oppose the Castle Doctrine; I do, however, have a problem with Stand Your Ground laws

In this case, castle doctrine and SYG are inextricably linked to one another. If you believe that a man doesn't have the right to stand his ground in his own home, you are against both castle doctrine and stand your ground.

That's a stupid question.

It's really the only question that matters and it isn't surprising that you won't answer it because doing so reveals your position as the absurdity that it is.

[1StrongBlackMan]

108. I don't know why I engage here; but ...

So you believe you should wait until the person shoots at you or otherwise attacks you in your own home before you resort to deadly force?

Strawman much? So someone in your home, even uninvited, leaves you with one option use deadly force ... which is wholly different from holding that individual at gun-point. Right?

In this case, castle doctrine and SYG are inextricably linked to one another. If you believe that a man doesn't have the right to stand his ground in his own home, you are against both castle doctrine and stand your ground.

Shhh ... You are revealing your ignorance on this particular topic. As a poster upthread (ProgressiveProfessor) has noted ... the castle doctrine and SYG are distinct laws. The former I support, though shooting would not be my first option; the latter, I have problems with, as it promotes unnecessary violence ... civilized people attempt to de-escalate conflict; rather than, "stand their ground", just because the law says they can.

It's really the only question that matters and it isn't surprising that you won't answer it because doing so reveals your position as the absurdity that it is.

No ... The absurdity revealed here is your need to build strawmen in order to "prove" your point.

Peace

[trouble.smith]

124. ...............

Strawman much? So someone in your home, even uninvited, leaves you with one option use deadly force ... which is wholly different from holding that individual at gun-point. Right?

do you know what a straw man argument is? because there isn't one here. my points are perfectly consistent with the OP and your own arguments. Now, if you want to flip on the lights and start asking questions, you go right ahead. If you're in my home in the middle of the night, I know pretty much everything that I need to know and I think most reasonable people will agree.

Shhh ... You are revealing your ignorance on this particular topic. As a poster upthread (ProgressiveProfessor) has noted ... the castle doctrine and SYG are distinct laws. The former I support, though shooting would not be my first option; the latter, I have problems with, as it promotes unnecessary violence ... civilized people attempt to de-escalate conflict; rather than, "stand their ground", just because the law says they can.

I'm revealing nothing except the inconsistency and weakness of your position. You claim you support castle doctrine but oppose SYG. In this case, a man's castle was invaded and yet you feel he should have done something other than stand his ground on his own property. How does this not connect the two issues-SYG and CD? Again, you say the question is absurd and, again, I say it is the only question that matters, at what point do you feel a man is entitled to pull his gun and defend himself on his own property OR OTHERWISE? what should he have done, waited until he's received a concussion and broken facial bones? wait until the assailent is right on top of you negating any advantage your gun might have given you? SYG and castle doctrine are both perfectly reasonable laws and you have made no rational argument which even slightly refutes that. Continue your ad hominem if you must. I'll stick with the righteousness of my position.

[1StrongBlackMan]

125. Okay ...

Just don't shoot me!

[Piazza Riforma]

10. They're upset because not everyone agrees with the theory

that walking away isn't very macho. It chills them to the bone that some people believe it's okay to run in your house, lock the doors and call the cops when confronted by a drunk asshole.

They think it's kosher point their piece at someone who threatens to "kick their ass" instead of trying to walk away first.

They can't seem to understand how a gun can be used as a last, as opposed to first, line of defense.

[gejohnston]

11. I agree with you to a point

but there are a number of mitigating factors, like maybe he did try to walk away or would have been in greater harm if he tried. The DA and the cops investigating it know more about that than either of us.

[PavePusher]

17. Should I have to leave my house if someone threatens me in it?

Should I be under a legal obligation to risk injury in a fist-fight with that same person?

[Piazza Riforma]

26. If he is IN your house then use what means you have to defend yourself

but if you have a chance to go into your house and lock the person OUT while you phone police thereby preventing even more violence it's okay to do so.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

33. I do not believe that the door would have held Fredenberg back for more than a few seconds

But then the justification would have been even stronger for the shooting.

[ileus]

5. Being a bully or criminal doesn't pay like it used to.

Back when law required you to to be a victim...

[Piazza Riforma]

6. Even when I had my rifle, I would have gone into my house and called the police.

Unfortunately resolving incidents like this without bloodshed has become passé, nay, taboo to today's gun crowd. It's just not macho to lock the door behind you and phone 911.

On a side note, IMO, Mr. Harper brought much of this on himself by getting mixed up with Heather Fredenberg so I feel no pity for him. Getting involved with someone that's in an effed up marriage is not only mind numbingly stupid but can be bad for your well being.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

22. There are any number of points that day where violence could have been avoided

But when the wife dropped her lover off in full view of her husband, IMO, violence was inevitable at that point. A large enraged drunk is not going to be deterred by a locked interior door that a middle school student could kick open.

A thought experiment: If Harper had gotten the door closed, and Fredenberg burst through it, do you think most of those who are whining about this would then be OK with the shooting? I say that since many of the non-DU comments seem to think Harper should have somehow accepted the beat down since he was involved at some level with Mrs Fredenberg.

[Piazza Riforma]

30. Never did I say he had to accept "his beatdown". I DID say that by getting involved with her he did

bring much of this on himself so it shouldn't have come as some big surprise. This is not a case of the clueless and hapless Mr. Harper being randomly run down by big, bad Fredenberg. He injected himself into a situation where he would have been better served staying away from. Absolutely they could have (and should have) driven to a police station or well populated place.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

32. Never said you did. The comments in the home town paper were an interesting read

many of which said he should have either accepted a whooping or gone man to man with Fredenberg under the circumstances.

There does not seem to be much of a penalty paid by Harper. DA is not pressing charges and an attempt by her to get a restraining order against him was denied. He was moving out of state when the incident happened and subsequently completed that move.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

8. I have to admire your determination

After losing the first go round on this while derivatively citing FOX news, here you come again.

Have you actually read the DA's summary? If you haven't (it was referenced repeated in your prior thread on this) do so and then get back to us. Its pretty clear what happened.

The honest thing to do would be to post an acknowledgement of your error and delete the OP locking the thread.

I won't hold my breath waiting for you do to the right thing.

[Atypical Liberal]

14. "The law is "a solution that had no problem"

"The law is "a solution that had no problem," the president of the Montana County Attorneys' Association said."

Except that's not true. People who use a deadly weapon to defend themselves, even rightfully and lawfully, have in the past ended up spending hundreds of thousands of dollars defending themselves from criminal and then civil lawsuits.

People who rightfully and lawfully defend themselves using deadly force should not end up wracking up crushing expenses defending themselves.

Look up the case of Gary Fadden for an example of this. His employer initially paid for some of his defense, but later he was on the hook for $45,000 which took him 8 years to pay off.

Let's look at the facts of the situation here. Harper was inside his home when his girlfriend's husband came onto his property and entered his garage. Why did Harper go get a gun? Because he knew that a pissed-off jealous husband was about to pay him a visit!

Now, we can debate until the cows come home about how stupid Harper was for having an affair with a married woman. But it's pretty clear that the husband was pretty damn stupid to enter Harper's home!

The fact of the matter is, Harper had every right to be where he was, and Mr. Fredenberg did not.

"You can use force if you think it's necessary to prevent someone from unlawfully entering a house. You can use force "likely to cause death or serious bodily harm" if you think that's necessary to keep yourself from being assaulted. You don't have to fear that you may be killed or seriously injured. You have no duty to retreat or call the police. And if you have evidence that your use of force was justified, it's the state's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't. "

And all of this is a very good thing. I can't imagine why anyone would be against this.

"Call me a wimp who's afraid of guns, but I cannot for the life of me understand why you'd want to move from permitting self-defense to encouraging someone to go inside to get a weapon and then lie in wait on someone else approaching their house. I can see why Harper thought Fredenberg would beat him up. I can't see why he put himself in the position of either getting beaten up or gunning him down. Nor is it hard to find other examples in which "stand your ground" or expanded castle doctrine laws let shooters off the hook when their refusal to walk away is integral to the confrontation. "

If you can "see why Harper thought Fredenberg would beat him up", inside his own home, then you have all the understanding you need for why it was completely legitimate for Harper to shoot him.

"The response to this week's New York Times story about Fredenberg's death and Corrigan's decision not to prosecute includes the claim, from Jacob Sullum of Reason, that Harper's decision to shoot would have been justified "even without the changes that the state legislature made to Montana's self-defense law in 2009." Corrigan said the key for him was that the law used to give people the right to shoot to kill intruders only if they entered in a "violent, riotous or tumultuous manner," but the new version of the law deleted the "violent, riotous or tumultuous" part. Sullum argues that Fredenberg was being violent or riotous or tumultuous. I don't see it — belligerent, maybe, but not actually violent."

I think it's pretty safe to assume that Fredenberg was not coming inside to deliver milk and cookies. Even the author admits that he can see why Harper thought Fredenberg would beat him up.

"It's one thing to fend off someone who is trying to kill you. It's another thing entirely to set up the legal framework so that if you say you felt in any way threatened, prosecutors have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were wrong. "

I am very pleased with the law the way it stands right now. When good people stand up to bad people in places where they have every right to be they should not have to bankrupt themselves defending themselves form the state after they have defended themselves from violence.

I submit that most cases of self-defense are pretty clear cut. Even this case. Here we have a jealous husband intruding into the home of his wife's lover, after following him around in his car. If this was not a clear-cut case of self-defense, I don't know what is.

The husband was foolish for trespassing onto Harper's property and entering his home, and it cost him his life.

[Eleanors38]

24. "...he walked into Harper's garage." Uh, how is this stand your ground? nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

28. It is not, its classic Castle Doctrine

I wonder if Fredenberg had burst through the door (something a middle schooler could do) and was then shot what would those wringing their hands have to say.

The DA's summary was damning. The only reason people are even talking about it is the salacious angle of a man shooting the husband he was cuckolding.

[slackmaster]

29. The author lost me on the second sentence

The Trayvon Martin murder case has nothing to do with a "Stand Your Ground" law.

[AtheistCrusader]

43. Pretty bad when an author can't tell the difference between castle doctrine and SYG.

Or that SYG isn't the defense being claimed in Trayvon Martin's killing.

[friendly_iconoclast]

47. Factual accuracy is strictly optional for gun control advocates

And it shows...

[4th law of robotics]

122. When you have the Truth on your side you can be kind of sloppy with the truth.

[mrf901]

123. criminal prosecutors --> conflict of interest

they carry a gun, so anti-gun laws don't apply to them

for one reason or another, they think
they are better off if the law-abiding general citizen
is not armed.

also applies to police, rich people, celebrities,
friends/political donors of the county sheriff .