Shoot first law: What could possibly go wrong?

Page 7 of 15 [ 233 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 15  Next

techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,149
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

08 Mar 2012, 12:42 pm

simon_says wrote:
There was a sales spike in 2009, probably driven by the financial crisis and possibly the crazed apocalyptic rhetoric of the NRA about what Obama was going to do. They are still saying crazy things about what he would do in a second term. They seem to exist to scare people into buying more guns.

The thing I was hearing from people was adding a component to ammunition to give it an expiration date, which in turn caused people apparently to run out and buy a lot of it.


_________________
“Love takes off the masks that we fear we cannot live without and know we cannot live within. I use the word "love" here not merely in the personal sense but as a state of being, or a state of grace - not in the infantile American sense of being made happy but in the tough and universal sense of quest and daring and growth.” - James Baldwin


Catarina
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 25 Feb 2012
Age: 58
Gender: Female
Posts: 42
Location: Northern Europe

08 Mar 2012, 12:48 pm

I do not have all the stats. But this is why "shoot when threatened" laws are just scary. Putting the shooter in jail won't get the mother her child back.


http://news.yahoo.com/family-florida-bo ... 37742.html



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,149
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

08 Mar 2012, 1:06 pm

Catarina wrote:
I do not have all the stats. But this is why "shoot when threatened" laws are just scary. Putting the shooter in jail won't get the mother her child back.


http://news.yahoo.com/family-florida-bo ... 37742.html

I read that story this morning, guy's an absolute nut and its a tragic loss. Sadder still, these types of people lack common sense regardless of how the laws go.


_________________
“Love takes off the masks that we fear we cannot live without and know we cannot live within. I use the word "love" here not merely in the personal sense but as a state of being, or a state of grace - not in the infantile American sense of being made happy but in the tough and universal sense of quest and daring and growth.” - James Baldwin


simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

08 Mar 2012, 1:40 pm

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Catarina wrote:
I do not have all the stats. But this is why "shoot when threatened" laws are just scary. Putting the shooter in jail won't get the mother her child back.

http://news.yahoo.com/family-florida-bo ... 37742.html

I read that story this morning, guy's an absolute nut and its a tragic loss. Sadder still, these types of people lack common sense regardless of how the laws go.


But the law encourages people to be active gunslingers when there are other options.

Quote:
Miami's police chief made a prediction shortly before the law took effect:

"Whether it's trick-or-treaters or kids playing in the yard of someone who doesn't want them there or some drunk guy stumbling into the wrong house,'' Chief John Timoney told the New York Times, "you're encouraging people to possibly use deadly physical force where it shouldn't be used.''

Four years later, Billy Kuch got drunk, so drunk that at 5 a.m. one day he stumbled to the door of the wrong house in a look-alike neighborhood and tried to open it, twice.

Before the "stand your ground" law, homeowner Gregory Stewart would have been expected to hunker down in his Land O'Lakes residence, dead-bolt secure, and call police.

With the law in place, he could use deadly force anywhere he had a right to be, provided he felt threatened with death or great bodily harm. He had no duty to retreat from danger.

Stewart left his wife inside with their baby and stepped outside, gun in hand.

Kuch put his hands up and asked for a light.

"Please don't make me shoot you," Stewart said.

Kuch, then 23, says he might have stumbled. Stewart, then 32, told police the unarmed man took three steps forward.

The bullet ripped into Kuch's chest, nicked his heart, shot through his liver, in and out of his stomach, through his spleen, then out his back. He felt like his body was on fire.

Stewart, when questioned by deputies, began to cry. "I could have given him a light," he said.

The days ticked by, Kuch in a coma as his parents waited for word of a trial. And waited. After two months, the Pinellas-Pasco State Attorney's Office decided the shooting was justified and dropped the aggravated battery charge.

Kuch's parents couldn't believe it.

"We're not against gun ownership," said Bill Kuch, 57 and retired from IBM. "But we're against this law that provides someone the right to kill you without prosecution."


http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafe ... 128317.ece



CrazyCatLord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,177

08 Mar 2012, 2:22 pm

If my neighbors were to patrol the streets with loaded guns, I would never leave the house again (even though I share their skin color).

But I've given up on this argument. Sensible gun control laws are never going to happen in the USA. The government might as well try to take people's Bibles or Big Macs away. If US citizens agree that the right to bear arms is worth the lives of approx. 10,000 people per year -- I'm not counting the suicides, because that is a perfectly valid use of firearms imho -- who am I to say otherwise. I'm just glad that I live in a country where the likelihood of being shot in the streets is near zero.



CoMF
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 7 Feb 2012
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 328

08 Mar 2012, 2:25 pm

I'm a bit late coming to this discussion, but the way I see it, if the person had the ability, opportunity, and intent to harm and/or kill you and you had no means of escape, the use of lethal force is perfectly justified. When any one of those elements are missing, using force tends to work against you. Also, punishing someone for protecting themselves makes no sense from a moral or philosphical perspective, especially when law enforcement may take an eternity to reach you.

More importantly, if you aren't comfortable with the thought of owning any kind of weapon, don't own one and don't deprive responsible individuals of their civil right to protect their lives and dignity.

The end.



CoMF
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 7 Feb 2012
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 328

08 Mar 2012, 2:28 pm

CrazyCatLord wrote:
Sensible gun control laws are never going to happen in the USA..


Define "sensible." Then introduce me to two people who share identical and coherent definitions of it.

Of course, that whole "slippery slope" thing rears it head at some point as well. :)



simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

08 Mar 2012, 2:42 pm

CoMF wrote:
I'm a bit late coming to this discussion, but the way I see it, if the person had the ability, opportunity, and intent to harm and/or kill you and you had no means of escape, the use of lethal force is perfectly justified. When any one of those elements are missing, using force tends to work against you. Also, punishing someone for protecting themselves makes no sense from a moral or philosphical perspective, especially when law enforcement may take an eternity to reach you.

More importantly, if you aren't comfortable with the thought of owning any kind of weapon, don't own one and don't deprive responsible individuals of their civil right to protect their lives and dignity.

The end.


But that's not what the thread is about. Stand your ground laws mean you don't have to retreat. In fact you can step into trouble, not retreat, and kill someone if you believe they were a threat. They don't need to have a weapon or even be particularly threatening. And if it's just the two of you, and you kill the other guy, you can say whatever you like.

It's certainly been abused in Florida as that link points out. There was talk of repealing it after it was used to justify a gang shootout in the street. lol. The previous governor even talked about it.

Quote:
One of the law's biggest critics is Willie Meggs, the state attorney for six counties in the Panhandle. He says he's a strong believer in gun rights but thinks the law is just another valuable tool for killers. The old law was working just fine, he says. He petitioned the Legislature to address the law last year. Nothing.

"Gangsters are using this law to have gunfights," he said. "That's exactly what this law breeds."

In 2008, two gangs in Tallahassee got into a shoot-out. A 15-year-old boy was killed. A judge dismissed charges against the shooters, citing "stand your ground."

"Before this law, we would have had a duty to avoid that," Meggs said. "I should not meet you in the street for a gunfight."

He says it devalues human life.



CoMF
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 7 Feb 2012
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 328

08 Mar 2012, 3:53 pm

simon_says wrote:
But that's not what the thread is about. Stand your ground laws mean you don't have to retreat. In fact you can step into trouble, not retreat, and kill someone if you believe they were a threat. They don't need to have a weapon or even be particularly threatening. And if it's just the two of you, and you kill the other guy, you can say whatever you like.


Really? Because I thought it had more to do with liability in self-defense scenarios rather than forcing someone to do something they may not necessarily be comfortable with. You can still flee under those laws, if you choose to do so.

As far as the "don't need to have a weapon or even be particularly threatening" aspect, I don't see how the criminal justice system would have its hands tied behind its back in that it can no longer determine whether a shooting was "justified" or was a potential murder due to suspicious circumstances, unless of course the law itself had a specific flaw which prevented it. Should that be the case, I'd prefer that attention be drawn to the actual text of the law in question rather than political rhetoric.

Incidentally, unless you can prove that there was a "disparity of force," you're going to have a difficult time convincing a judge and jury that shooting an unarmed attacker was "justified."


simon_says wrote:
It's certainly been abused in Florida as that link points out.

There was talk of repealing it after it was used to justify a gang shootout in the street. lol. The previous governor even talked about it.


Again, which part of the law(s) in question prevent these shootings from being classified as "suspicious" or potential murders? On their face, I would have challeneged these rulings and appealed to higher courts.



simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

08 Mar 2012, 4:08 pm

You can read the article as well as I can. They just need to establish that they felt threatened. If the police and DA believe that you honestly felt a threat, they may not even file a charge. Real threat doesnt need to be proven. So most of the cases in the article never reached a jury or judge. These were people killing their neighbors based on a perception of threat.

If the cases in the article don't trouble you, well....



CoMF
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 7 Feb 2012
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 328

08 Mar 2012, 4:33 pm

simon_says wrote:
Real threat doesnt need to be proven. So most of the cases in the article never reached a jury or judge. These were people killing their neighbors based on a perception of threat.

If the cases in the article don't trouble you, well....


They trouble me in that, as a matter of public policy, I don't see what good can come from the use of deadly force under suspicious circumstances. I sincerely doubt this was the intent of the framers of this legislation, but once again, this requires a closer look at the actual laws and the reasoning behind the DA's/judge's decisions, not political rhetoric. From there, we can challenge things accordingly.



simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

08 Mar 2012, 5:27 pm

CoMF wrote:
simon_says wrote:
Real threat doesnt need to be proven. So most of the cases in the article never reached a jury or judge. These were people killing their neighbors based on a perception of threat.

If the cases in the article don't trouble you, well....


They trouble me in that, as a matter of public policy, I don't see what good can come from the use of deadly force under suspicious circumstances. I sincerely doubt this was the intent of the framers of this legislation, but once again, this requires a closer look at the actual laws and the reasoning behind the DA's/judge's decisions, not political rhetoric. From there, we can challenge things accordingly.


Here's another one from the same article. Even the law's co sponsor thought it was ridiculous.

Quote:
One of those numbers: Michael Frazzini, 35, Cape Coral, father of two, decorated Army helicopter pilot who served five tours of duty. Now dead. Frazzini's elderly mother thought a 22-year-old neighbor was disturbing her property. One night in 2006, Frazzini stopped by to check things out. The neighbor later told authorities that he encountered Frazzini wearing a camouflage mask and wielding what looked like a pipe. The neighbor pulled a knife. The neighbor's father came out next and, thinking the masked man might attack his son, fired one shot from his .357 revolver into Frazzini's chest.

Frazzini died in his mother's back yard. The pipe turned out to be a 14-inch baseball bat.

The shooter walked away uncharged. A prosecutor said nobody involved in the decision felt good about it. Neither did one of the law's co-sponsors.

"The intent is that you can only use the same amount of force as you believe will be used against you," Lt. Gov. Jeff Kottkamp, then a state representative, said at the time. "It certainly wasn't that you can shoot and kill somebody wielding a souvenir baseball bat."

Maybe so. But there is no provision specifically barring someone with a permit from bringing a gun to a knife fight, let alone to a brawl that starts with fists.


People that should be catching Manslaughter charges are walking away with a "whoops".



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

08 Mar 2012, 5:39 pm

So, any stats beyond a few newspaper anecdotes? Self defense gone awry shooting do happen, but are rare enough to be deemed newsworthy when they happen given the media antipathy towards firearms (successful self defense rarely makes the paper), which can inflate the apparent number of them. In any case, what's not cut and dried is whether a different legal standard would have actually prevented any of the mentioned shootings or simply led to people being charged after the fact. IMHO most people don't think too hard about the law in a self defense situation.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


CoMF
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 7 Feb 2012
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 328

08 Mar 2012, 5:49 pm

simon_says wrote:
Here's another one from the same article. Even the law's co sponsor thought it was ridiculous.


From reading that article, I derive the following conclusions:

1) I find it suspicious that a military veteran was lurking around someone's back yard at night donning a camoflauge mask and holding a baseball bat.

2) The article is strangely silent on whether or not Frazzini was brandishing the bat and/or using it in a threatening manner, just as it is silent on whether or not his speech of behavior indicated he intended to harm the neighbor or his father.

In other words, the writer isn't telling the whole story, and is possibly doing so with the intent to manipulate the reader into making knee-jerk judgments. Statements such as "there is no provision specifically barring someone with a permit from bringing a gun to a knife fight, let alone to a brawl that starts with fists" allow us to ascertain the personal views of the writer quite readily, further proving that this was not responsible journalism by any stretch of the imagination.

We need to look at the law itself, see how it's being applied to individual situations by prosecuting DAs and judges, and correct any deficiencies accordingly. Anything else is just engaging in political rhetoric without getting to the root of the problem, if in fact one exists (which seems more likely than not, IMO).

simon_says wrote:
People that should be catching Manslaughter charges are walking away with a "whoops".


See what I stated above in my final paragraph. I'm not interested in your personal feelings regarding the use of firearms in self defense, nor anyone else's for that matter. What I am interested in is whether or not this is a bad law and if it's being applied inappropriately.



simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

08 Mar 2012, 6:03 pm

CoMF wrote:
simon_says wrote:
Here's another one from the same article. Even the law's co sponsor thought it was ridiculous.


From reading that article, I derive the following conclusions:

1) I find it suspicious that a military veteran was lurking around someone's back yard at night donning a camoflauge mask and holding a baseball bat.

2) The article is strangely silent on whether or not Frazzini was brandishing the bat and/or using it in a threatening manner, just as it is silent on whether or not his speech of behavior indicated he intended to harm the neighbor or his father.

In other words, the writer isn't telling the whole story, and is possibly doing so with the intent to manipulate the reader into making knee-jerk judgments. Statements such as "there is no provision specifically barring someone with a permit from bringing a gun to a knife fight, let alone to a brawl that starts with fists" allow us to ascertain the personal views of the writer quite readily, further proving that this was not responsible journalism by any stretch of the imagination.

We need to look at the law itself, see how it's being applied to individual situations by prosecuting DA's and judges, and correct any deficiencies accordingly. Anything else is just engaging in political rhetoric without getting to the root of the problem, if in fact one exists (which seems more likely than not, IMO).


Well, it's a news article, not a court report. But there are enough interesting cases there.

When a 6'1, 250lb armed adult shoots a drunken 23 year old 5'7, 165lb unarmed neighborhood kid on his front porch I have to think he has a very low IQ. He could have just had the cops take him to the drunk tank. And that's the problem. People can be very stupid. Making them into defacto law enforcement officers is a little nutty. Afterwards he's crying that he could have just given him a light? Boo hoo. He's just dumb. We've empowered dumb people to shoot others.

Quote:
See what I stated above in my final paragraph. I'm not interested in your personal feelings regarding the use of firearms in self defense, nor anyone else's for that matter. What I am interested in is whether or not this is a bad law and if it's being applied inappropriately


I'm not actually in the legislature or on the Florida bench. I'm commenting on an article from a Florida newspaper on an internet forum.



CoMF
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 7 Feb 2012
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 328

08 Mar 2012, 6:30 pm

simon_says wrote:
Well, it's a news article, not a court report. But there are enough interesting cases there.


Sorry, but I don't think very highly of hack journalists with a penchant for spin doctoring.

simon_says wrote:
When a 6'1, 250lb armed adult shoots a drunken 23 year old 5'7, 165lb unarmed neighborhood kid on his front porch I have to think he has a very low IQ.


Once again, the article seems to be taking a bit of liberty with the facts. It doesn't tell us whether or not Bill Kuch Jr's attempts to enter Stewart's home could've been reasonably construed to be "forceful," nor does it tell us whether he actually set foot in Stewart's home when he took three steps or if they were in a manner one could interpret as "threatening."

Taken on its face, I'd say Stewart made a bad judgment call rather than resort to insulting his intelligence.

I see no reason to discuss this matter any further, honestly. I already told you what needs to be done, and yet you can't seem to help allowing your personal feelings to obfuscate things.