MTG Salvation

I've stood up for my position. Standing up for it doesn't mean I am obligated to take on all comers. I have the right to pick and choose who I argue with.

I do not choose you.

1. I didn't see the response post.

2. Still not responding to it, either. I don't waste much time on people like you. Sorry if that's a problem. Wait, I'm not. Whatever.

Quote from IcecreamMan80

getting popcorn thrown at you in an argument over texting during a movie, yeah, probably not life threateningly justified self-defense.

The fact that you say "probably" here, even sarcastically, tells me I have good cause to not take any of your other opinions seriously.

Because it's not a reasonable expectation. Forty feet, when someone is running to close the distance, doesn't give you much time.

Just an FYI, I've been the victim of someone attempting to kill me via choking me to death, to the point where he was choking me and telling me his only purpose in life was to kill me. I had a suspicion, which proved to be right, that his actions were under the influence of Paxil and alcohol; thus, after separating his hands from my throat, I rendered him unconscious. Would I have been justified if I had killed him instead? Was I, somehow, obligated to try to kill him, had I had a gun or other weapon at the time?

I'd definitely say no to both. Had he died as a result of my efforts to escape further harm, I would hope for, but not expect, leniency to some degree. But I wouldn't say I would have been justified to shoot him after he'd locked me in a bathroom for fifteen minutes, then stabbed me with a pen and slapped me multiple times when he finally let me out (the actions he committed before I physically engaged him). Nor would I have been justified at any point before he started choking me.

I certainly do not believe I ever had the right to take his life, for certain.

Unless you're a pro shot, good luck intentionally shooting a charging attacker, or a stationary shooter at a distance, precisely in the knee... Considering missing the knee usually means you've not been effective.

This is why I say there needs to be court discretion. It's beyond a reasonable doubt to expect Joe Gunowner to be that precise a shot in such a situation, no less. But to have the burden shift to the State is simply absurd.

Edit: I totally missed the edit to the above post. Stealing =/= use of lethal force. The State is not the same as an individual, and the case you present is citizen v. citizen, not citizen v. State as an assault/murder case would be. Never mind that, if they're friends, they should be settling this amongst themselves and end of story.

Quote from Maverick827

Clearly the problem is that the victim was also not carrying a firearm to defend himself with.

I know this is sarcasm... But, even then, if you don't see your shooter, your gun may be taken out of the equation anyway. You may as well have left it home.

Edit: removed double post

Quote from Fluffy_Bunny

Without a stand your ground law... you are required to flee. You have to PROVE that your only option was to use lethal force. So useing my example... I could say "dude was running at me with an axe, what was I supposed to do?" and the answer would be: "run away or try to disarm him". If you cannot PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that you could not flee or disarm the guy... you are a murderer. With Stand Your Ground you no longer have to PROVE that you had no other option, the prosecution has to PROVE that you didn't have to use lethal force.

All the Stand Your Ground law does is moves the burden of proof from the shooter to the state.

The burden should always be with the shooter, with the court having discretionary ability.

As I grow, I learn I disagree with many basic tenets of our court system. They seem to only work in a world where no one ever lies when they swear to not lie on the stand, and where silence can be a better defense than testifying.

Quote from Fluffy_Bunny

That's the point though... without a Stand Your Ground law it would be illegal for me to shoot someone that was say... running at me with an axe. If pissed off dude was running at me with an axe intent on chopping my head in half it would be illegal for me to shoot him. Does that make sense to you?

It's already illegal to shoot him. However, when you get to court, give your testimony and let the evidence be examined, it should be clear whether or not you were standing your ground and not firing for an invalid reason.

The point is, regardless of whether your SYG defense is legitimate, you still have to prove it anyway, in which case the testimony and evidence will speak for itself. So, why bother having it as a law that people can hide behind and make it a court's discretion issue entirely, where there is never a guarantee unless legitimate.

Personally, I'd just rather live in a world with less guns than in a world where I have to be worried about cowards and psychos shooting at each other - and everyone else - on any sort of regular basis.

If you can walk around with an assault rifle, I want to walk around with two swords. I'll bet that is and will still be illegal. Guns are more lethal than swords and do not require you to be within a few feet of your victim. At least you have a chance at defeating a joker with two swords. A gun holder can accidentally kill you.

Many gun deaths to kids occur inside their homes or the homes of family members, often at the hands of other kids. Ever think about WHY, exactly, these things occur?

We treat driving as much more restricted a privilege in this country than we treat gun ownership. The only purpose of guns is to destroy property and life*; cars have a legitimate usage - personal transport - in which destruction is rare and nearly always accidental or circumstantial. Does it make sense to restrict driving more than gun ownership? I don't believe so.

* Edit: I want to be clear that I mean this in a perfectly literal sense. The only thing a bullet does on impact is destroy what it hits, regardless of whether what it hits was meant to be hit or not, or for what purpose it is being hit.

With the frivolous shootings that occur in America more often than anywhere else in the First World, yes, I do believe that there are wackos who are emboldened in their gun usage because of the prospect of walking off the charges on an SYG defense. It certainly makes the decision to unwisely use lethal force MUCH, MUCH easier.

EDIT: The point of my last post, which you missed, is they shouldn't be allowed to even use the defense. I think the law is best decided as applicable by juries and judges, not by shooters and their lawyers. If you are truly standing your ground in self-defense, it should be crystal clear from your testimony.

And hotheads deserve zero legal recourse, real or imagined, for their inability to control their tempers.

When you live in a society, you tacitly agree to restrictions on your actions, generally for the safety and security of the rest of society. Don't like it? Go, start your own society. Have fun.

Quote from Fluffy_Bunny

Ummmm.... what? So because someone "claims" stand your ground falsely we should get rid of that defense? Should we also do away with insanity pleas since criminals that are perfectly sane will try to use it as a defense?

There is no issue with the law. You can't just claim "stand your ground" and get off... a court has to agree. I think it will be hard to find a jury that will see popcorn throwing as a threat to someone's life.

It's the reality that people THINK they can use SYG as a defense for their improper actions that makes me think the law is not a good one. In thinking they can use that as a defense, they are discharging their weapon at another human being with the intent to injure or kill that person. We're claiming SYG as a defense over petty disputes, like shooting someone for playing their music too loud at a gas station (which happened, IIRC, shortly after the Trayvon Martin shooting) or texting during a movie.

Are there legitimate SYG cases? Maybe a few. Sadly, most people just want it as an excuse to protect themselves for their own stupidity, which then pushes their stupidity onto the victim.

If that doesn't sound wrong to you, I question your humanity.

Quote from IcecreamMan80

Yay! Another violent crime happens, and the focus goes right to WE NEED GUN CONTROL ERHMAHGAWD!

Close to 90 million gun owners didn't shoot someone yesterday.
A fraction of a percent did.
Most of the ones who did weren't lawful owners to begin with.
A fraction of them were.

Drunk drivers likely killed more people yesterday than gun owners.

If only the government had the guts to stand up to Anheuser-Busch and all those alcoholic beer chugging lunatics!

Bloody bonkers! We need more car control, or alcohol control!

No thanks, I'll keep my second amendment. I have never even drawn any of my guns on another human being. I hope that I never have to. But you know what they say, better to have one and not need it than need one and not have it.

9909, THIS is one of the reasons we can't even start the discussion in the US. As soon as someone hints at the prospect of regulating guns even a little bit over the current mess of state regulations, the pro-gun crowd acts like that person wants to take every single gun away, even if that's not remotely near that person's actual stand on guns.

I believe we should start by actually enforcing the laws already on the books as they should be enforced. Then, we can determine if more is necessary. And it may well be. But we don't even have the will to enforce existing statutes.

That's why it will take successful litigation to produce changes that we may, in the end, be fully uncomfortable with.

Quote from Blinking Spirit

We'd have to be talking full security checkpoints with guards and metal detectors at the entrances.

And no, I don't think it's "really messed up" that theaters, and other places of business, have failed to protect their clientele with security checkpoints. Because walking through a security checkpoint any time you want to go anywhere is crazy.

It's already crazy. I have to take off belt and shoes and go through metal scans to get on a boat to go to Ellis Island, which is all tourist now.

The movie theaters can have rules saying "No guns allowed!" and they can post those signs. But if they're not actually doing anything to enforce it, why bother?

It's going to take a lawsuit, but there will eventually be one, and your "crazy" will come to fruition out of corporations' desire to avoid further litigation because of out-of-control patrons who arm themselves with deadly force. Sadly, this is a problem that is growing in America, and, thus, will need to be dealt with. And, since our government is absolutely unwilling to stand up to the NRA and paranoid, fanatical gun owners, that may be our only option.

And this is why people have problems with others walking around with guns because they can. It's not that I think a gun carrier is insane; it's that whether or not he is insane cannot be known just by sight. Thus, it is hard to appropriately judge the threat level - which is a good case for thumbing down the foolish "Stand Your Ground" laws, as well, in addition to all the false claims of SYG when it absolutely does not apply.

I don't want the change. That is what I am saying. What do I hate about the change? The fact that it is.

So no, I doubt being specific will help any. Thanks for trying.

Love this game very much and always have a great time playing it.

bLatch, you really must be tons of fun at parties.