100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
| Topic: I say, Ban the 'Stand you Ground' Law | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Let's do like Colorado and implement the 'Make My Day' Law.
Sounds much cooler! Lawmakers are looking at expanding Colorado's "Make My Day" law -- which says people who use deadly force to protect themselves in their homes can't be prosecuted. A proposal called "Make My Day Better" would also protect people who use deadly force to protect themselves in their businesses and automobiles. State Representative Cory Gardner will present his bill to a House committee Wednesday. The Republican from Yuma points to the case of a Denver businessman who told police that he shot a burglar in self-defense inside his restaurant. A judge threw out an attempted murder charge against him but ordered him to stand trial on a charge of first-degree assault. Prosecutors say the law does NOT apply to businesses. Gardner says there's no reason people can't protect themselves in their businesses or cars. But Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald says lawmakers need to be careful of unintended consequences. She wonders if they want to approve lethal force to protect a car. PS. I suggest allowing folks to be able to protect themselves anywhere they are. Without limits. Screw the thugs! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmmmm Seems we have this little document that supports such things.... In it is this little section call "The 2nd Amendment" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmmmm Seems we have this little document that supports such things.... In it is this little section call "The 2nd Amendment" depends upon who 'interprets' it,,, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" I see nothing there relating to use against citizens, seems to actually be referring to a MILITIA and the 'PEOPLE',, which I would interpret to refer to a GROUP that can defend its state,,, but, IM not a judge so my opinion has as much weight as anyone elses here,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2nd Amendment, the ORIGINAL homeland security! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2nd Amendment, the ORIGINAL homeland security! true, in the time it was written, the people who wrote it had come from a country where government used guns to oppress,, so their concern was relevant to those times |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Sojourning_Soul
on
Fri 06/15/12 11:13 AM
|
|
2nd Amendment, the ORIGINAL homeland security! true, in the time it was written, the people who wrote it had come from a country where government used guns to oppress,, so their concern was relevant to those times Oh....and our govt don't use guns against us now? 
Guess FEMA needs 750,000 rounds of armor piercing ammunition to hunt food with! The people of a nation ARE it's best defense....what the govt has chosen to call "terrorists"! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2nd Amendment, the ORIGINAL homeland security! true, in the time it was written, the people who wrote it had come from a country where government used guns to oppress,, so their concern was relevant to those times Oh....and our govt don't use guns against us now?
Guess FEMA needs 750,000 rounds of armor piercing ammunition to hunt food with! no clue if that is true,,,,,or consistent with my example of 'broad' government use of weapons to oppress its citizenry (as opposed to isolated use in specific situations to contain potential violent crime) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Sojourning_Soul
on
Fri 06/15/12 11:17 AM
|
|
2nd Amendment, the ORIGINAL homeland security! true, in the time it was written, the people who wrote it had come from a country where government used guns to oppress,, so their concern was relevant to those times Oh....and our govt don't use guns against us now?
Guess FEMA needs 750,000 rounds of armor piercing ammunition to hunt food with! no clue if that is true,,,,,or consistent with my example of 'broad' government use of weapons to oppress its citizenry (as opposed to isolated use in specific situations to contain potential violent crime) Yeah, like citizens defending their property rights? My bad....it's 750,000,000 rounds of ammo! http://theintelhub.com/2012/04/05/the-us-government-has-ordered-over-750-million-rounds-of-40-caliber-hollow-point-ammunition-in-the-last-three-years/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually its called common law, and is established with thousands of documented cases.
Also the supreme court has ruled on this multiple times. Reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury is the standard and an obligation to retreat is Stupid, and not supported via anything other than arbitrary hand waving. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually its called common law, and is established with thousands of documented cases. Also the supreme court has ruled on this multiple times. Reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury is the standard and an obligation to retreat is Stupid, and not supported via anything other than arbitrary hand waving. its not the vague wording that is finding objection its the interpretation of it by some 'reasonable' is a fairly subjective standard , often left to juries if I have a knife, after someone approaches me who has harmed me in the past I may 'stand my ground' as they approach me, meaning not move from where I WAS before I encountered them and I can CLAIM I had reasonable fear, but SO can they,, being I have a knife and they dont but the REASON comes into who has the most opportunity to AVOID the confrontation in the first place, usually the person who initiates a contact that escalates into what could REASONABLY harm either party,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Fri 06/15/12 11:52 AM
|
|
Actually its called common law, and is established with thousands of documented cases. Also the supreme court has ruled on this multiple times. Reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury is the standard and an obligation to retreat is Stupid, and not supported via anything other than arbitrary hand waving. its not the vague wording that is finding objection its the interpretation of it by some 'reasonable' is a fairly subjective standard , often left to juries if I have a knife, after someone approaches me who has harmed me in the past I may 'stand my ground' as they approach me, meaning not move from where I WAS before I encountered them and I can CLAIM I had reasonable fear, but SO can they,, being I have a knife and they dont but the REASON comes into who has the most opportunity to AVOID the confrontation in the first place, usually the person who initiates a contact that escalates into what could REASONABLY harm either party,,, Reasonable is the standard becuase no one can come up with every set of circumstances under which someone may need to defend themselves, so its absurd to try to make the law black and white. YOU KNOW this, you just like playing with words and pretending to not know the differences to push your own political ideaology. but the REASON comes into who has the most opportunity to AVOID the confrontation in the first place, usually the person who initiates a contact that escalates into what could REASONABLY harm either party,,, You are going to have to do better than that to support a "flee to the wall" statue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually its called common law, and is established with thousands of documented cases. Also the supreme court has ruled on this multiple times. Reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury is the standard and an obligation to retreat is Stupid, and not supported via anything other than arbitrary hand waving. its not the vague wording that is finding objection its the interpretation of it by some 'reasonable' is a fairly subjective standard , often left to juries if I have a knife, after someone approaches me who has harmed me in the past I may 'stand my ground' as they approach me, meaning not move from where I WAS before I encountered them and I can CLAIM I had reasonable fear, but SO can they,, being I have a knife and they dont but the REASON comes into who has the most opportunity to AVOID the confrontation in the first place, usually the person who initiates a contact that escalates into what could REASONABLY harm either party,,, Reasonable is the standard becuase no one can come up with every set of circumstances under which someone may need to defend themselves, so its absurd to try to make the law black and white. YOU KNOW this, you just like playing with words and pretending to not know the differences to push your own political ideaology. but the REASON comes into who has the most opportunity to AVOID the confrontation in the first place, usually the person who initiates a contact that escalates into what could REASONABLY harm either party,,, You are going to have to do better than that to support a "flee to the wall" statue.
see other thread 
|
|
|
|
|
