Here's a case where Stand your ground probably should not have been evoked

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I would love someone to explain to me how removing the duty to retreat has fundamentally altered the ability to prosecute for homicide (other than the fact that a person could not be prosecuted for failing to retreat from a place at which they are legally present). This makes no sense. Stand your ground doesn't change the realities of legal self defense- there must be a reasonable fear of death or bodily harm. That's the point I'm making here- whether the person "stood his ground" or attempted to retreat, they would be subject to the same basic requirements to claim self-defense. Demagogues have taken a few strange cases in which prosecution seems appropriate, but hasn't immediately followed, and repeated these cases endlessly to serve their social/political agenda. Further, how do you know that self-defence claims aren't being "hammered out in a court of law?" I'm certain that these cases are on court dockets across the country. Are you simply referring to this handfull of sensastionalized cases?

You say I'm being naive or ignorant about human behavior with guns. I say you are grossly generalizing, which renders the observation useless. I have been around armed people all of my life, and involved in combat arms training, directly or indirectly since I served with the ITB and the SOA at Benning in the early 1980s. I move constantly amongst armed people- almost everyone I know is legally packing. Sure....I have seen my share of foolishness- mostly typical brainf_rts. But the irresponsible, negligent, or criminal behavior you insinuate is exceedingly rare in my experience. I can always tell someone whose gun I need to fear- they are the ones with criminal inclination and criminal records. Often this type has as little use for a CCW permit as they do for any other law. My persoanl experience is born out by the statistical data as well. Permit holders statistically commit all crimes ata much lower rate the the general population.

Here's an example that just happened today, right in my home town of Gilbert: I'm sure the shooter was a law-abiding citizen up until he decided to slaughter his family. Again, I support the 2nd Amendment and am against banning of guns, but these are the kinds of tragedies that the gun lobby chooses to ignore by continually proclaim that gun owners are law-abiding citizens. What I'd like to see is a little intellectual honesty from the gun lobby and acknowledge that there are those who misuse their firearms, who might otherwise be 'law-abiding citizens' - meaning they have no prior criminal record. I'm sure the shooter felt his guns were his way of self protection until he turned it onto his family and himself. Apparently his wife and children weren't well-trained in using a gun for self defense or clearly they'd be alive today.

Gilbert mass killing: Border militia leader identified as shooter

A border militia leader on Wednesday shot and killed four people at a Gilbert home, including a toddler, before committing suicide, sources said.

Sources identified the shooter as Jason "J.T." Ready, a reputed neo-Nazi who made headlines when he launched a militia movement to patrol the Arizona desert to hunt for illegal immigrants and drug smugglers.

Authorities have not identified the other victims, but reached by phone Wednesday afternoon, Hugo Mederos said the victims were his ex-wife, Lisa; their daughter, Amber; Amber's boyfriend, whose name The Republic is withholding until his next of kin could be notified, and Amber's 18-month-old baby, Lilly.

Mederos, who lives in Tampa, said Ready lived at the home with his girlfriend, Lisa.

Ready was a former Marine who headed the U.S. Border Guard, a militia-style group that routinely performed armed patrols in the southern Arizona desert. Early this year, Ready had formed an exploratory committee for a run as Pinal County sheriff.

In a statement of organization filed Jan. 11, Amber Mederos was listed as treasurer of the Committee to Elect J.T. Ready. Her name was nowhere to be found in amended paperwork filed March 12.

Gilbert police spokesman Sgt. Bill Balafas said the gunman's motives is unknown. Authorities recovered two handguns and a shotgun from the scene, Balafas said.

Read more: http://www.azcentral...l#ixzz1tlxvGzwa

"Martial arts trainers" say a lot of things, almost all of which are intended to sell their services and/or feed their egos. If you want to hear the voices of real experience then go to forums where the pros talk..... warriortalk or the like. The BS about beating up motivated criminal agressors using "karate" went out the window a long time ago friend. I can tell you from first hand experience also, that gun fighting at close quarters battle range to contact (grappling) is being taught very effectively by some of the most experienced and skilled gunfighters in the world..... some of them right in your own "backyard" fancypants.....'nuff said. A person (particularly a small female) would be much better served learning how to use a firearm to end a violent attack than wasting time with some sort of nut-kicking, eye-scratching tae-bo fitness ####### that passes for self-defense. I know or have known plenty of guys that simply can't be put down by the level of force or pain that a small female can generate, no matter how skilled or lucky. Simple physics and force of will. On the other hand, I have never met anyone that couldn't be put down by enough gunpowder-generated kinetic energy.

That's an dishonest and unfair synopsis of self-defense training. First of all, there's a difference between martial arts and self-defense. While all martial arts can be used as self-defense, not all self-defense training is martial arts. What's amusing is that the gun lobby touts statistics of lives saved because of the gun, yet you yourself said that you don't draw it unless you intend to use it. So I guess no one who feels threatened draws their gun and warns the perpetrator to back off, then I'm not sure where the gun lobby gets their numbers, because if in order for one to save their life, they must shoot the perpetrator, we'd have actual police records of such, but there just aren't that many. Relying solely on a gun is putting a finality to self defense. It's essentially saying that you won't try to defend yourself except where you feel it necessary to use lethal force, and that's where I'm saying there's a real problem as most altercations don't have to result in a person dying.

Edited May 3, 2012 by Mister Fancypants

[Dan and Judy 614]

If only Daniel had enough sense to be packing, He'd be alive today. I'm sure Daniel was in fear of his life when the guy almost ran him over. Moral of the story is: Carry a gun and shoot before the

other guy has a chance to fear for his life.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If only Daniel had enough sense to be packing, He'd be alive today. I'm sure Daniel was in fear of his life when the guy almost ran him over. Moral of the story is: Carry a gun and shoot before the

other guy has a chance to fear for his life.

[Dakine10 5,452]

Stand your ground is simple also....

It should be. In theory it might be, but one of the cases in the link has a guy shot in the back, and another has a guy chased down and killed in the ensuing confrontation. People are asking where the line should be drawn. When someone goes from a defensive situation to being the aggressor or pursuer - that should be the line. I'm not sure how stand your ground is coming up in those types of cases, but the fact that it is , to me at least, is the reason for concern.

[DaveE 178]

Cmon - it is just as easy to kill with a knife. In two recent Florida cases that were dismissed under that stand your ground law, the death was caused by stabbing.

First - high school kid being bullied. The bully followed him off the school bus and starting punching him. The kid stabbed him 12 times. "In her decision, signed Dec. 30, 2011, the judge said Saavedra had “no duty to retreat” and was “legally entitled to meet force with force, even deadly force.”

“The defendant was in a place where he had a right to be and was not acting unlawfully. He had more than enough reason to believe he was in danger of death or great bodily harm ... (He) was under attack from the first punch to the back of his head until he stabbed Dylan Nuno.”

Prosecutors will not be appealing the case, a move that upset Dylan Nuno’s family and friends.

Case here: Bully stabbing

Second case 2011 Florida: Guys finds out someone is stealing car radios. He not only stood his ground but chases the guy for a block before stabbing him to death. He then took the stolen radios and sold them. When the police interviewed him, he denied killing the guy until surveillance video surfaced. Judge says: Garcia blocked the bag with one hand and stabbed Roteta in the chest. Roteta's swinging of the bag could have caused serious bodily injury or death, and placed Garcia in fear for his life, the judge wrote.

Still, after the fatal stabbing, Garcia did not call 911. Instead, he hid the knife and sold two of Roteta's car radios, then initially denied the killing when interviewed by police. None of those facts played into the judge's decision Case Dismissed:

Case here: Radio heist

[xebec 195]

Here's an example that just happened today, right in my home town of Gilbert: I'm sure the shooter was a law-abiding citizen up until he decided to slaughter his family. Again, I support the 2nd Amendment and am against banning of guns, but these are the kinds of tragedies that the gun lobby chooses to ignore by continually proclaim that gun owners are law-abiding citizens. What I'd like to see is a little intellectual honesty from the gun lobby and acknowledge that there are those who misuse their firearms, who might otherwise be 'law-abiding citizens' - meaning they have no prior criminal record. I'm sure the shooter felt his guns were his way of self protection until he turned it onto his family and himself. Apparently his wife and children weren't well-trained in using a gun for self defense or clearly they'd be alive today.

People misuse all sorts of tools. The anti-gun (or anti-self defense) "lobby" refuse to acknowledge this. Your anectdotal evidence is a court-martialed, neo-nazi advocate of a border war. Some unstable people will do horrible things, with guns, knives, baseball bats, cars/canals, rivers, acid, and almost anything else that comes to hand when these people decide to kill. Criminals and psychos will kill. The fact is that people who want to discredit self-defense with a firearm will march out anectdotes that seem to support their case- they rarely want to look at the big picture....only the dramatic, emotionally charged, 24 hour news cycle cases that evoke a gut reaction (as opposed to a rational analysis). Why? Because the numbers are singularly unimpressive when it comes to undermining the right to self-defense,Even those brandished by the rabidly anti-gun VPC.

Compare that to vehicle-related deaths, alchohol-related deaths, or just about anything else..... Should speak for itself.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Long story short if anything is more dangerous than an idiot with a gun there is no need to be concerned about guns? Seriously?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

People misuse all sorts of tools. The anti-gun (or anti-self defense) "lobby" refuse to acknowledge this. Your anectdotal evidence is a court-martialed, neo-nazi advocate of a border war. Some unstable people will do horrible things, with guns, knives, baseball bats, cars/canals, rivers, acid, and almost anything else that comes to hand when these people decide to kill. Criminals and psychos will kill. The fact is that people who want to discredit self-defense with a firearm will march out anectdotes that seem to support their case- they rarely want to look at the big picture....only the dramatic, emotionally charged, 24 hour news cycle cases that evoke a gut reaction (as opposed to a rational analysis). Why? Because the numbers are singularly unimpressive when it comes to undermining the right to self-defense,Even those brandished by the rabidly anti-gun VPC.

Compare that to vehicle-related deaths, alchohol-related deaths, or just about anything else..... Should speak for itself.

Comparing death and injuries from the misuse of guns to cars is comparing apples to oranges. We're talking about forms of self-defense. The statistics you want to compare are how many wrongful injuries and death are cause by the misuse of guns versus other forms of self-defense. The gun lobby refuses to acknowledge that simply having a gun in your home increases the likelihood of yourself or one of your loved ones getting seriously injured or killed. And it's a false dichotomy to believe that such statistics means you are either for or against gun ownership. I support gun ownership, but I'm not going to pretend that having a gun in my home doesn't raise the risk of injury or death to myself or my family. While there are other things within a home that also raise the risk, those things have a use other than for inflicting lethal damage. While people do purchase guns solely for hunting purposes, a lot of people purchase guns for protection. And that's the great irony. If you have no other methods of self defense besides a gun, you have essentially raised the risk of unintended injury or death to yourself and family for the sake of protection. Again, I'm not arguing that we ban guns or trying to talk people out of owning guns. I just want a little honesty from the gun lobby and those who think a gun is the best tool for self-defense to admit that one, it is a dangerous weapon designed to inflict lethal damage with no real middle ground. Which goes back to honestly looking at other, non-lethal or less lethal forms of self-defense. Are they perfect? No. There is no perfect method of protecting yourself, but the most practical useful method for most situations is without the use of a weapon other than your own person.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Long story short if anything is more dangerous than an idiot with a gun there is no need to be concerned about guns? Seriously?

Trying to get gun advocates to admit that is like pulling teeth from a shark.

[xebec 195]

Long story short if anything is more dangerous than an idiot with a gun there is no need to be concerned about guns? Seriously?

Where is all the worry about knives? Cars? Baseball bats? Canals without proper barriers to stop cars? Long story short, if idiots in cars kill more people in four days than CHL holders killed since 1997, brain-dead hoplophobes still want to talk about "CHL killers." If anything is more dangerous than being struck by a falling piece of satellite there is no need to be concerned about falling satellites? Seriously? Ah, yes.... satellites, cars, and canal barriers aren't part of the quivering-progessive political/social agenda.

A good point presents itself here though (thanks to another drive-by posting bt R4O ) .... You , and other 911 dependents only want to discuss *gasp* gun violence *gasp* because it costs you nothing. Very easy to piss away a right you care nothing about.

Btw- I guarantee the public has much more to fear from you and your car, than from me and my gun.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

It's so stupid when gun advocates start talking about knives, cars, etc. (and what's this new one - canals?) as being just as deadly as guns.

I mean, if knives and cars and other inanimate objects are just as deadly, why aren't you collecting those things too for your personal home protection? Why aren't you calling your car a deadly weaapon? Why aren't you packing a hunting knife?

[xebec 195]

Trying to get gun advocates to admit that is like pulling teeth from a shark.

No number of deaths is too small to concern progressives, eh? Where is the outrage at the Organic produce industry fancypants? People are dying! Maybe you and your buddy R4O will step up and show us that it's about human life, not the agenda. Maybe you'll start posting about all sorts of statistically irrelevant dangers to human life, and leave your progressive politics out of it.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Where is all the worry about knives? Cars? Baseball bats? Canals without proper barriers to stop cars? Long story short, if idiots in cars kill more people in four days than CHL holders killed since 1997, brain-dead hoplophobes still want to talk about "CHL killers." If anything is more dangerous than being struck by a falling piece of satellite there is no need to be concerned about falling satellites? Seriously? Ah, yes.... satellites, cars, and canal barriers aren't part of the quivering-progessive political/social agenda.

A good point presents itself here though (thanks to another drive-by posting bt R4O ) .... You , and other 911 dependents only want to discuss *gasp* gun violence *gasp* because it costs you nothing. Very easy to piss away a right you care nothing about.

Btw- I guarantee the public has much more to fear from you and your car, than from me and my gun.

Again, comparing apples to oranges. How many people die every year by knives or baseball bats compared to guns? That's the stats you should be looking at. Dismissing the dangers of simply keeping a gun in your home is dishonest, and ironically, more people are killed by guns that were kept for protection. That's a fact that for whatever reason, the gun lobby refuses to acknowledge. Why? Because the gun manufacturers want people to believe purchasing a gun for protection is a smart decision for every 'law-abiding' citizen. Not everyone has the where-with-all, or capacity to safely own and operate a gun. Should we ban guns? Nope. But lets stop fibbing the public into thinking they are safer off to own a gun then not to.

[xebec 195]

It's so stupid when gun advocates start talking about knives, cars, etc. (and what's this new one - canals?) as being just as deadly as guns.

I mean, if knives and cars and other inanimate objects are just as deadly, why aren't you collecting those things too for your personal home protection? Why aren't you calling your car a deadly weaapon? Why aren't you packing a hunting knife?

Read the posts, so you don't sound like a complete dolt. We were discussing the specific issue of CHL holders and unjustifiable homicides by the same.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

No number of deaths is too small to concern progressives, eh? Where is the outrage at the Organic produce industry fancypants? People are dying! Maybe you and your buddy R4O will step up and show us that it's about human life, not the agenda. Maybe you'll start posting about all sorts of statistically irrelevant dangers to human life, and leave your progressive politics out of it.

You seem to have trouble making relevant comparisons. When you've got stats on deaths from all forms of self-defense, let me know. In the meantime, you're just chasing your tail with straw man arguments.