Wow, Wow, Wow.....No Gun Zones, Gun Registration, Background Checks and now Micro-stamping again!

[gejohnston]

55. they are more just changes

because the burden of proof is on the State, where it belongs.

When you change a law, you are either making it more strict or you are making it less strict. It's one or the other. SYG laws are a LOOSENING of strictures. Across the board, they take laws that require DTR or other alternatives to opening fire to be enacted first, and then scrub those out and instead say "go ahead and shoot first"

If I have a right to be someplace, why should anyone give way to some sociopath? What is the definition of reasonable? To some here any self defense or resistance is unreasonable. DTR also puts the burden of proof on the defendant. As for your "go ahead and shoot first", Oliver Wendall Holmes said it best:"detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife" in 1921.

"Stand your ground" governs U.S. federal case law in which right of self-defense is asserted against a charge of criminal homicide. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Beard v. U.S. (158 U.S. 550 (1895)) that a man who was "on his premises" when he came under attack and "...did not provoke the assault, and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm...was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground."[2][3]
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. declared in Brown v. United States (256 U.S. 335, 343 (16 May 1921)), a case that upheld the "no duty to retreat" maxim, that "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife".[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

Your automatic assumption is that when the justifiable homicide laws are loosened and there's suddenly a sevenfold increase in homicides ruled justified, that all must be right in the world and nothing could possibly be amiss there. And maybe you're right - there doesn't seem to be any specific data for that. I'm simply pointing out that much as when business strictures are loosened, it may just be a situation where inefficiency is entering the system and increasing the cost to the communities.

Your automatic assumption is that people are getting away with murder. The only to actually know is to go though each court transcript and make that determination. What matters is if they were in fact justified. What is the cost to the community if innocent people go to prison because they could not prove their innocence of murder? Business and Wall Street are not the same as use of force.

Of course, if you're measuring success by how many homicides are ruled to be legally justified - which does seem to be what you're doing - you're not exactly casting yourself or your position in the most positive of lights, y'know?

How so? Since you have the burden of proof that you did not commit murder and that you acted reasonably, that makes DTR fundamentally unjust because it requires you to prove your innocence. I count the success by the number of innocent people not in prison.