It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Stand your ground laws help people with a violent history

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Are defend and kill one in the same?

I feel like there is some ground between those.




posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
"Private" individuals do not get any training at all


WRONG
www.freshfromflorida.com...

To obtain your CCW in Florida you must complete training courses, which MUST include firearm safety and generally include police-like situational training.

The entire purpose of Stand Your Ground is to remove the finicky-ness of a jury from completely arbitrary and non-legal "need or no-need" decision. If you are being threatened, you have a RIGHT to defend yourself. That's a basic human right and the grounds for SYG. I think that is a good thing because it is asinine to expect someone to either have to run away from another human being or get mugged, raped, beaten, or otherwise accosted because the nation has a few bleeding hearts that think street thugs should have more rights than someone minding their own damned business does.



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Are defend and kill one in the same?

I feel like there is some ground between those.


I've always supported disproportional response and believe it to be one hell of a deterrent. If you doubt that, just ponder why it is that the mafia is vary rarely victimized by petty criminals and lowlife street gangs.



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
"Private" individuals do not get any training at all


WRONG
www.freshfromflorida.com...

To obtain your CCW in Florida you must complete training courses, which MUST include firearm safety and generally include police-like situational training.


as I said before, having a CCW is irrelevant - you do not need a CCW to "stand your ground"



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Are defend and kill one in the same?

I feel like there is some ground between those.


One would think so, but the strident responses I am getting here suggest that a lot of people see no difference!!



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 06:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
as I said before, having a CCW is irrelevant - you do not need a CCW to "stand your ground"


Uh, doesn't that make the aggressor even more of a dunce? I mean, at least with a CCW the idiot picking the fight may not know they're running a risk of getting capped. If those "4/5ths unarmed" are actually pushing an openly armed man into a fight, well, Darwin had a theory about those types of organisms...



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 06:25 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

4/5th of the time there was no "push into a fight" at all.......the situation could have been defused by retreating....which is obviously exactly the opposite of "standing", but is also the point being made - standing kills more people.



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Actually...

In seven of every ten stand your ground cases, the person killed was unarmed – and in 79 percent of the cases, the assailant could have retreated to avoid the confrontation.


"To avoid the confrontation" is at best a "maybe." There are plenty of examples of some piece of crap continuing to badger, berate, attack, or otherwise assault someone trying to extracate themselves from a situation.

Stand your ground isn't going anywhere, my friend... unless, hmmm... unless people stop trying to intimidate and victimize others. There's a thought! Why don't we put pressure on the thugs for a change instead of blaming the victims when they defend themselves?

I, like you, am surprised at how little we value life as displayed in the number of people more than willing to die instead of just backing down. Seems like there's just as much open ground behind the aggressor as there would be behind the "stander," so maybe it's time for the thugs to start doing a little tail tucking and running away for a change, ya?



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Sounds like so many people are defending the right of a criminal to just come into a home and do what they want and the home owner should wait in the closet to be found and hurt or worse, who's to say that if they break in that they won't harm you. If they cross that line then they should be prepared to take whatever comes their way be it a Louisville slugger or an XD 40.



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: JHumm

sounds to me like you didn't bother reading the article.



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 07:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
a reply to: burdman30ott6

4/5th of the time there was no "push into a fight" at all.......the situation could have been defused by retreating....which is obviously exactly the opposite of "standing", but is also the point being made - standing kills more people.



YEah turning your back on someone in a fight is not a smart idea. What if they looked un armed but were not? Blam dead victim. People dont have X ray vision so just because you look un armed dont mean you always are does it? IF i pull a gun and you keep charging im gonna blast you with it. I suck at fist fighting so if I didnt start it and someone rushes me im going to put them down. This report was written by a ninnie and a bleeding heart moronic idiot.



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 08:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

OK, so if Stand Your Ground laws are bad, what do we replace them with? Because, if you want to get rid of a bad law you have to replace it with something, right?



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 08:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
A study of the use of "Stand your Ground" laws has found that they are most often invoked by people with a history of crime and/or violence, and as such they actually undermine public safety:


The Florida Experience

Florida’s 2005 law was invoked in nearly 200 shooting cases through 2012 – a majority of them involving fatalities. The cases were documented by the Tampa Bay Times:
•The Florida law’s chief beneficiaries were “those with records of crime and violence.” Nearly 60 percent of those making self-defense claims after killing someone had been arrested at least once before; a third had been accused of violent crimes or drug offenses; and over one-third had illegally carried guns or had threatened others with guns.
•In seven of every ten stand your ground cases, the person killed was unarmed – and in 79 percent of the cases, the assailant could have retreated to avoid the confrontation.
•Shooters who invoked stand your ground claims under Florida’s 2005 law succeeded in escaping prosecution two-thirds of the time.


more guns and a perception that you are going to "get off" if you use them unsurprisingly leads to more people using them.

And since most people have little or no training in how to defuse a violent situation, cope with the anxiety and panic of an armed confrontation (even if they are the only one armed) it is not particularly surprising (to me at least) that they make really bad decisions in such situations.


I read the Blog and it smelled of Cherry-picking. Below is the Tampa times study they seem to refer to and they discuss how they Cherry picked their stats in the lower left.

Tampa Times

I wonder how many of these would have been considered self defense without the law?



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 08:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul

originally posted by: EternalSolace
It shouldn't matter whether you have a criminal past, regardless of the crime, or not. Everyone should have the right to defend their home against any and all threats. No one should have to retreat in their home, hide, or wait to see what the intruder might do.

Your source says:


The Florida law’s chief beneficiaries were “those with records of crime and violence.”


It would seem to me that the chief beneficiaries were those who were defending their homes.


A simplistic answer - a more nuanced one would be to ask why is it that so many people who apparently "need" to be "helped" in this way are "those with records of crime and violence"??

where are the vast numbers of good righteous law abiding citizens (for the sake of argument....) using it??


Aloysius,

I know you are smarter than this!
I'll break this down so you can understand.
1. More crimes happen in areas of abject poverty and in lower income dwellings.
2. Convicted criminals tend to live in high crime area due to low pay job opportunities. They are criminals...
3. People living in high crime areas tend to be...criminals.
4. Few criminals stray far from their known area to commit crimes. Hence the Good people tend not to need to defend as often as criminals living in those high crime areas.

Source of this info, Me as a 20+ year LEO also living in a right to defend, home is my Castle state.

Cop a clue and realize you are on the wrong side of this argument. The hard statistic show that this law works to protect the good guys even more now that criminals are even more less likely to break into their homes.

Sirric
edit on 25/8/15 by sirric because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: JHumm

So you are saying that if someone has been in trouble before that they should not be afforded the right to protect themselves. And why is it OK for police to use excessive force when they say that they feared for their life in less dangerous situations even though they are far more trained at disarming someone . You see what the MSM wants you to see. Would you let someone break into your home and hurt you or your family without putting up a fight? If so then you are just a victim waiting to happen



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 09:00 PM
link   


are you not concerned that almost 4/5th of the people shot are unarmed?


Of course they're not concerned, pro life is just a slogan, not an actual value.



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 09:18 PM
link   
a reply to: JHumm

no I am not saying that.

I said what I am saying in the OP.



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 09:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: CB328



are you not concerned that almost 4/5th of the people shot are unarmed?


Of course they're not concerned, pro life is just a slogan, not an actual value.


When was the last time a fetus threatened to beat you up? Tried to mug you? Got aggressive on the street in any way whatsoever? Is there some portion of "innocence" that confuses you? Conversely, is there some manner of backwards world in which thuggish behavior, threats, attempted mugging, attempted raping, or any of the other actions which have lead to someone using SYG as a defense is considered an innocence?

The value in a person's life, an adult's life has been pissed away once said adult has demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to not be a delinquent goon on the streets. At that point no, I don't see any value in them.



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 09:24 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

so a foetus is more alive than a person threatening you??

I'm confused - why is a foetus being alive more important than an adult??
Is a person not entitled to life because they are a criminal - should we just execute all burglars without trial??



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 09:28 PM
link   
a reply to: sirric

your anecdotes do not actually constitute data.

My qualifications: no time at all as a LEO, and the published report as per the OP.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join