Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Video & Multimedia
In reply to the discussion: Pic Of The Moment: So Much For Self Defense [View all]BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)134. Zimmerman's attorneys
wanted to use the SYG law, but as the media attention got brighter and the inconsistencies in his testimony of the events began to multiply, of course his defense attorneys declined to use it. But it's disingenuous at best that you completely omitted to mention that fact in your response.
I'm also certain that you didn't read the article, otherwise you'd know that it's rather long and it includes instances when SYG failed as a legal strategy. You're giving your interpretation of the Shoot First Ask Question Later law - and that's the problem. There are too many interpretations of this badly written law. Hence my contention that it was written not as a self-defense option, but to beef up the self-defense numbers {which has happened now it's passed} in order to continue selling more guns to frightened Americans. As you've pointed out, I'm not an attorney, but most people aren't. And that's the problem. People will bad intentions will use this badly written law as an open invite to settle scores and shoot and kill people they don't like with a 50/50 chance of getting off. That's not a good mindset for people who believe in a civilized society.
Two examples below that illustrate that fact:
SYG is a BAD law. It is ambiguous at best. It should be repealed indefinitely.
I love spaghetti westerns, but they have no place in the real world where people actually die. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
I'm also certain that you didn't read the article, otherwise you'd know that it's rather long and it includes instances when SYG failed as a legal strategy. You're giving your interpretation of the Shoot First Ask Question Later law - and that's the problem. There are too many interpretations of this badly written law. Hence my contention that it was written not as a self-defense option, but to beef up the self-defense numbers {which has happened now it's passed} in order to continue selling more guns to frightened Americans. As you've pointed out, I'm not an attorney, but most people aren't. And that's the problem. People will bad intentions will use this badly written law as an open invite to settle scores and shoot and kill people they don't like with a 50/50 chance of getting off. That's not a good mindset for people who believe in a civilized society.
Two examples below that illustrate that fact:
And courts are divided on what the law is when a victim is retreating.
David Heckman of Tampa lost his bid for "stand your ground" protection because his victim was walking away when Heckman shot him.
"We conclude that immunity does not apply because the victim was retreating," the court said.
But Jimmy Hair, who was sitting in a car when he was attacked in Tallahassee, was treated differently. He shot his victim as the man was being pulled from the vehicle. An appeals court gave immunity to Hair, saying: "The statute makes no exception from immunity when the victim is in retreat at the time the defensive force is employed."
While many have argued the law does not allow someone to pick a fight and claim immunity, it has been used to do just that. It is broad enough that one judge complained that in a Wild West-type shootout, where everybody is armed, everyone might go free.
"Each individual on each side of the exchange of gunfire can claim self-defense," Leon County Circuit Judge Terry P. Lewis wrote in 2010, saying it "could conceivably result in all persons who exchanged gunfire on a public street being immune from prosecution."
David Heckman of Tampa lost his bid for "stand your ground" protection because his victim was walking away when Heckman shot him.
"We conclude that immunity does not apply because the victim was retreating," the court said.
But Jimmy Hair, who was sitting in a car when he was attacked in Tallahassee, was treated differently. He shot his victim as the man was being pulled from the vehicle. An appeals court gave immunity to Hair, saying: "The statute makes no exception from immunity when the victim is in retreat at the time the defensive force is employed."
While many have argued the law does not allow someone to pick a fight and claim immunity, it has been used to do just that. It is broad enough that one judge complained that in a Wild West-type shootout, where everybody is armed, everyone might go free.
"Each individual on each side of the exchange of gunfire can claim self-defense," Leon County Circuit Judge Terry P. Lewis wrote in 2010, saying it "could conceivably result in all persons who exchanged gunfire on a public street being immune from prosecution."
SYG is a BAD law. It is ambiguous at best. It should be repealed indefinitely.
I love spaghetti westerns, but they have no place in the real world where people actually die. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
153 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Good find. There are a lot of gun cultists who consider Zimmerman commited a "justified" homicide.
Hoyt
Apr 2013
#1
Now with the "Shoot First Ask Questions Later" - I mean, "Stand Your Ground" laws
BlueCaliDem
Apr 2013
#14
Defending the NRA position is unthinkable. Are you a Zimmerman fan? "No one is going to shoot
firenewt
Apr 2013
#70
Cherry-picking information to support your fetish with guns doesn't help you.
BlueCaliDem
Apr 2013
#149
Having a gun in the home increases your chance of a gun death many times over.
SunSeeker
Apr 2013
#3
Bill....the numbers are different because the 2 studies use different methodology.
Alva Goldbook
Apr 2013
#48
US DoJ shows the vast majority of lawful defensive gun uses do not involve fatalities.
AtheistCrusader
Apr 2013
#7
From the report cited in another reply. I guess we can all cite stats as needed.
SlimJimmy
Apr 2013
#12
My point is that the number used in the OP is wildly low and the Kleck study wildly high. The
SlimJimmy
Apr 2013
#37
Actually, including all sets of numbers, I suspect the cost would roll AGAINST the use of firearms.
AtheistCrusader
Apr 2013
#81
I'm not buying the lethal use of force metric as the only one that qualifies. That's not being
SlimJimmy
Apr 2013
#84
I think the OP is using an extremely strict metric in making his point. In the interest of fairness
SlimJimmy
Apr 2013
#92
I view it (at a minmum) as 108k that did not suffer an attack on their person or worse, death.
SlimJimmy
Apr 2013
#107
I opt on the side of owning firearms, but expecting reasonable regulation of that ownership.
AtheistCrusader
Apr 2013
#112
If I brandish a shotgun at an armed intruder and stop them from assaulting my family, that is
SlimJimmy
Apr 2013
#98
How on God's green planet do you come to the conclusion that I support the unrestricted
SlimJimmy
Apr 2013
#105
I'll reserve judgement on your intent here. But suffice it to say that you have misrepresented my
SlimJimmy
Apr 2013
#114
Gunners love to cherry pick that 1997 survey, without disclosing the report's conclusion
SunSeeker
Apr 2013
#13
Per capita violent assault comparisons to other G20 nations are not... favorable to us.
AtheistCrusader
Apr 2013
#23
Wrong. The US has lower rape and assault rates than many gun-free countries.
Alva Goldbook
Apr 2013
#55
Yeah, I'd bet the unintentional shootings are far more likely to be fatal than the intential ones.
enki23
Apr 2013
#119
Your last sentence is something that some of us want to consider, but, as there SHOULD be in any
patrice
Apr 2013
#73
Yes. And 390k from smoking, 49k from second hand smoke alone - that one always gets me.
geckosfeet
Apr 2013
#115
You might feel safer still if you duct tape pillows to all the sharp corners of your furniture.
IveWornAHundredPants
Apr 2013
#121
Surprise, Surprise, Surprise - Will The Gun Violence Fallacies Never End
cantbeserious
Apr 2013
#120
There are some crazy people who think that ALL the gun-related deaths are bad!
IveWornAHundredPants
Apr 2013
#128
What's more "self defense" than defending yourself against yourself?
Warren DeMontague
Apr 2013
#137
Thanks EarlG! This kind of post sure rings the dinner bell for the gungions.
FailureToCommunicate
Apr 2013
#138