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: 3
9
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 09:31 PM
link   
So....what?

I'm suppose to just let someone rob me? Attack me? Rape someone in my family? Break in to my home and steal stuff?

Criminals who don't want to get hurt or killed, here's a message for you:

Stop breaking the law!




posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 09:35 PM
link   
a reply to: TerminalVelocity

who said that??



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 09:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
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??




"Foetus" Ah-haha, you're not American. Silly me, I assumed you were and as the old saying goes, made an ass of me.

We honestly have no rational path forward in this discussion, Aloysius. It's nothing personal, but it an American thing which you won't ever understand. I apologize for wasting your time here, but I've banged my head against a non-American wall often enough over issues like gun control and the right to defend yourself using disproportionate response often enough to know this is a fool's errand of an argument for any American to have with someone from a nation which has almost certainly already stripped their citizens of most firearm and personal defense RIGHTS.

I will, however, say this to you and anyone else who is bothered by Stand Your Ground. You're always welcome in America and we love to see folks come here to spend their money! That said, we're not changing to appease anyone, nor are we going to change just because foreigners think we should. Our laws are our own and most of the issues that rile up the Europeans the most about America are cast in the stones which are the US Constitution. So, if you do accept our welcome and come visit, you may want to avoid SYG states if the issues bothers you that much.



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 09:42 PM
link   

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

who said that??




You did. At least in your OP.

You presented an article, stating that Stand Your Ground laws are bad for public safety. No where in your OP do you argue against it, but indeed support this (cherry picked data of one state only) idea.

Stand Your Ground is based upon the idea that you have the right to defend yourself. You have the right to not accept being beaten by someone, just stand there or flee your house when someone breaks in.

I don't really have a violent bone in my body, but someone breaks into my house at 2 AM (3rd degree burglary) and they are most likely going to end up eating buckshot from my 12 gauge shotgun. Why?

Because it's 2 AM in the morning and they've broken into my house, that's why. I have NO idea what their intent is, or if they are armed or not. I really don't care at that point. If they don't want to get shot, then stay the hell out of my house.
Same goes for any other situation: don't want to get hurt or killed, then don't attack me, don't try to rob me, and do NOT try to hurt anyone else around me.



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 09:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Aliensun


Those people without a pair will object, of course.


As will those with brass ones soooooooooooo big that they can stand strong and courageous even in the face of danger, with such honor for the sanctity of life -- and such respect for everyone's inalienable right to life -- that lethal force is always their last resort... never the first.



In case you missed it, the discussion was about not defending your rights in respect to your personal body. think about it.



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 09:47 PM
link   
no I'm not American - I have English as an official language

so that gives me a basically unbiased view on your national obsession - one which I dont' think any actual American can properly appreciate!

however there are many Americans studying this situation and using "actual data" - eg Does Strengthening Self -Defense Law Deter or escalate Violence ? - 8% more murders - that is actual murders - not killings justified by these laws - in states that enact them - from one of hte authors of that paper:


We asked what happened to homicide rates in states that passed these laws between 2000 and 2010, compared to other states over the same time period. We found that homicide rates in states with a version of the Stand Your Ground law increased by an average of 8 percent over states without it — which translates to roughly 600 additional homicides per year. These homicides are classified by police as criminal homicides, not as justifiable homicides.



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 10:46 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

So we should all strive to act like the mafia?

That is where I get lost.

I am pro defending your self and yours. I am against the idea that killing the person is the only way to accomplish that. And against laws that support that notion.



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 11:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

I believe we can both be appeased here. You may use non lethal methods to defend yourself all you wish... To my knowledge no state has passed a "shoot to kill" law mandating you use the strongest defense at hand. However, the SYG laws are becoming more prominent, so folks like myself who believe safety is found in full incapacitation can defend themselves as they see fit as well. Everyone wins except those dumb enough to be the aggressor. It is what it is.



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 03:44 AM
link   
Coward pulls gun after he starts fight and loses.
www.liveleak.com...

Gun owners always interest me. I have always wondered why they are so paranoid and live their lives by what if scenarios.

I don't agree with stand your ground..if you start something and then pull your gun, kill them..you should be charged with murder. If you are in danger than I could understand but if you physically attack someone and than pull your gun..you are a coward and should be charged.



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 03:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aliensun

In case you missed it, the discussion was about not defending your rights in respect to your personal body. think about it.


Actually, in case you missed it, the discussion is about violent people using Stand Your Ground laws to violate the inalienable right to life... if everyone doesn't have that right, no one has that right... if I want to defend my rights, I must also defend others rights... therefore no one has the right to kill anyone, and lethal force should ALWAYS be the absolute last resort.

Think about it.



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

To be fair, your OP does imply that the real criminals are the ones using they're firearms to protect themselves during an attack. I carry every day and hope that I never have to use my firearm to protect me and my family--and if I do, it will be a last resort, not a first--but to use that study (that I admittedly haven't read in its entirety yet) to come to the conclusion that SYG laws are generally invoked by untrained, criminal cowards.

You said:

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 challenge you to prove this, because if the weapon is carried concealed, most states require training, proof of proficiency in cleaning, operating, and firing the weapon, and the people willing to pay for the permit and go through the classes to attain it are generally already decently trained in use of firearms--at least in my experience, which is why I challenge you to prove this claim.



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: lucifershiningone
Coward pulls gun after he starts fight and loses.
www.liveleak.com...

Gun owners always interest me. I have always wondered why they are so paranoid and live their lives by what if scenarios.

I don't agree with stand your ground..if you start something and then pull your gun, kill them..you should be charged with murder. If you are in danger than I could understand but if you physically attack someone and than pull your gun..you are a coward and should be charged.


Now THAT is a situation where SYG does not apply. IF you start the fight and then try to claim self defense you should automatically be charged with murder.



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
Your position FAILED.


certainly the idea of the laws is that people get to defend themselves and "get off" - however are you not concerned that almost 4/5th of the people shot are unarmed? And that retreating from eth situation would usually result in no-one being shot??

You could offer more to this than just kneejerk "you aint' gonna take my guns" kind of thinking and response.



First of all, there are countless situations that a logical person may consider. Size difference between aggressor and one who has a gun, particularly between a woman and man, your "source" doesn't differentiate. Trayvon Martin is a good example. I know your probably blindly followed msnbc during the case, but the pictures of the innocent looking Trayvon Martin when he was 13 years old are not nearly the same as the 6 ft 1 golden grilled, drug dealing man that was pounding Zimmermans head on the sidewalk. I always find it both funny and disturbing that Libs comment on an event after it happened and then try to preach how the person they are talking about could have done whatever it was better, when they were never in the situation. Liberals and anti gunners have after the fact say sos down to a science.



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 04:04 PM
link   
a reply to: chuck258

I don't get MSNBC - so your unsupported assumptions start with a rubbish premise, and cannot get any better than that.

If you bothered to read the article, and the 2nd one I linked to, they did consider the circumstances of the cases examined.....so that's now 2 premise that you have made that are false.

Whatever you do, make sure you argue without bothering to try to understand the information presented - it makes you look so much more cleverer.....



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 04:28 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??


Poverty. The desperate are more likely to use drugs, to turn to criminal activities and to live in violent neighborhood because that is all that they can afford. They are more likely to be exposed to violence and have to live their lives in such a way that they must be able to defend against violence. It's easy to end up in situation that is interpreted by the law as criminal or even violently criminal; whether you instigated anything or not. If you get in a scuffle, even if you didn't start it, and you have some weed on you when the cops show up, you will still get charged. If you are in the wrong neighborhood, you will get charged. If you don't have any money for a lawyer, you will get charged. If it is a combination of all three, forget it, you're scum and will be treated as such as far as the system is concerned. After that you are a criminal and the sound of all the doors for social mobility slamming shut is deafening. Stand Your Ground doesn't usually amount to much if you're poor, but I can see why people try it. Most of these people with criminal histories, even violent ones, are desperate and at least some of them (although certainly not all) aren't even that violent. They are just trying to survive and they have learned that they must defend themselves and theirs because the law is their enemy too.

As far as your upstanding law abiding citizens... Someone who is upper middle class or above is far less likely to be in such a violent situation. Chances are though, even if their home is broken into they won't face any charges even if they shoot someone. It wouldn't even be a media blip. There is a demarcation line in how the law and the media interprets these events based upon socio-economic status.
edit on 26-8-2015 by redhorse because: is



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: redhorse

Indeed - the "normal" laws on self defence have never ceased to apply anywhere.



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 06:26 PM
link   
For my non-American friends, perhaps there is a wrinkle here which you are unaware of but which most American have come to terms with...
overlawyered.com...

the Supreme Court has declined to put police and other public authorities under any general duty to protect individuals from crime.


So yeah, in a logical world, protection from criminals would come from "police trained in de-escalation techniques and properly trained in non lethal methods of subdual." Buuuuuuuuuut, Earth is far from logical and America's legal system is just slightly more logical than a combination bathtub toast bar where you can bathe while you're toasting you English muffins in the morning. Most people are going to err on the side of caution, figuring it is far, far better to live your life freely with a handful of folks considering you a 'murderer' than be 6 feet under because some thug jacked you and the police did their jobs perfectly, including following the Supreme Court ruling that declares they are in no way responsible for the protection of individuals.



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

I am aware of that - it is not actually relevant to the conclusions of the 2 studies I have linked to.



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 06:48 PM
link   

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

I am aware of that - it is not actually relevant to the conclusions of the 2 studies I have linked to.



Is it irrelevant to you because it is inconvenient to your position? Under the letter of Stand Your Ground, it is absolutely relevant. In fact, it's a large part of *why* these types of self defense laws exist in the US. People recognized that they could only depend on themselves to defend themselves and then noticed a trend years ago towards emotion rather than evidence driven prosecution and/or civil lawsuits against law abiding citizens who had defended themselves. Thus, Stand Your Ground. Over the past 30 years 45 States have adopted the Castle Doctrine protecting people inside their own homes from prosecution and suit over the use of warranted deadly force. Over the past 10 years, 22 states have expanded those into Stand Your Ground Laws. 9 of those states even go so far as to identify "Defense of property" as legal grounds to apply deadly force. I have no doubt, as time passes, more states will join this logical and legally prudent movement.



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

it is not relevant because (almost by definition) there are rarely police at the site of a "stand your ground" incident.....not even when an ex-policeman shoots someone for deadly use of popcorn.......

Police all over the world have always had discretion - your supreme court case is not unique.


edit on 26-8-2015 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join