Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The_Dunedan
Manx;
Such stories are routinely "spiked" by the media. Two cases that I know of;
NYC: A Marine 2nd Looey, home on leave, defended his family using an unregistered pistol. He had been turned down for a pistol-permit because, on account of his duty-station at Cherry Point, he was not a New York "resident" despite the fact that his family lived there. He was convicted of manslaughter, posession of an unregistered handgun, and several lesser crimes; convictions which could have landed him in prison for 30 years. Because of massive public outcry, he only served a few days, but was hit with 5 year's Probation and is now barred from ever posessing any firearm, as he is now a Felon.
2: Ohio ( can't remember the city name; may have been Dayton ): A man in his early 80s found himself in similar circumstances after he shot two muggers off a friend of his. His friend had been attacked outside the door of the apartment building they shared, and the man in question fired several shots from a .22 pistol, killing one attacker and wounding the other. He was likewise prosecuted for Manslaughter and convicted. Due to his age, he also recieved probation.
Manx, this stuff happens every day. Check keepandbeararms.com sometime if you don't believe me; not a week goes by that they don't report someone being arrested or tried for defending themselvs from violent attack. The nat'l media "spike" these stories because they are, every one of them, without exception, victim-disarmament advocates. Those media companies that aren't owned/funded by George Soros, a rabid anti-rights nutjob, are owned/funded by Rupert Murdoch, who is just as bad if not worse.
|
your examples are not only non-compelling (neither person went to prison, which was your original contention--that people were innocently languishing away in prison for defending themselves) but they are also inconsistent with your claim that such stories are "spiked" by the media. Or does "massive public outcry" just occur without media attention, in your opinion?
Now, in answer to your question as to why this law was passed, you think that just because a law is passed that is sufficient evidence that there is a problem? That's bizarre reasoning. Laws are passed in response to vocal minorities. Whatever else they may be formed from, they are certainly not based on scientific evidence. Most people in this thread don't even give a shit what academics have to say about the issue. None of what you're referencing would stand up to the mildest statistical scrutiny--as Manx tried to point out to you.
Are you under the assumption that Oregon doesn't require people to run away before defending themselves, but florida does?
Why do you think raveneye thought that Oregon law did? Where do you think these types of legal cocnsiousness comes from--that people can't defend themselves in these states?
Like you, legislatures believe their constituents that people are being unfairly sent to prison for self-defense (although your examples clearly showed they were not, so I don't know why you thought they were helpful) and that they aren't able to adequately defend themselves (which they are, the law doesn't require that people run away from overt, and inescapable threats, but that reasonable measures are taken before lethal action is taken). That is the social context within which bad laws are passed that serve few people. Even if the legislatures aren't voted out, that doesn't signifiy the laws they pass are good. That's ridiculous, too. Most people won't ever experience this legislation in their day to day lives. They may or may not care, but they certainly won't be ranking it very high on their list of reasons to vote given that the law is already passed and it doesn't do anything to them. Most likely, you will have a small group of citizens who will vote FOR the legislatures for passing this, but not many who care AGAINST it. And then it becomes very clear why politicians vote the way they do--to obtain votes from their constituents. If you think they are altruistic, why are you thinking Manx is naive?
By the way, how many times have you had to shoot someone?
And how much personal experience do you have with the legal ramifications of using lethal force to defend yourself?
Defending oneself does not equal killing the person. So while you don't have to run away from a real threat at all costs, that isn't an automatic licesnse to kill someone over what you think is reasonable. The law is and never was like that. It's what a jury finds a reasonable person would do under the circumstances. And if you think the shooter has or is able to determine that for him or herself, you will be in for a very rude awakening if you ever do stand trial and your only defense is that you believed your life was in jeopardy.
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/wea...f_defense.html
It's probably important that some of you differentiate between defending oneself and leaving a situation. If you can leave a situation, you are expected to. That doesn't mean you have to leave instead of defending yourself when you can't leave. If someone pulls out a knife and threatens you from down the street, walk (back) away. How do you justify in your mind that someone pissed off and inebriated deserves to be killed for being an asshole for a few minutes? If someone is overtly threatenening you with deadly force, you don't have to back up while he or she is sticking the blade in you--which is what you seem to be implying when you make the claim that you can't defend yourself and must run away at all costs. When someon comes at you with a weapon, you're still a few steps away from needing to kill the person. Any self-defense class worth its salt will have already taught you that if you are really in this situation and it could have been avoided, you have already done multiple things wrong yourself.
And none of this applies to seeing someone else being attacked with force. You can use force in their shoes. You aren't forced to run away then.