Raveneye,

I don't see that what you highlighted makes any difference.

What that says is that if you are attacking someone and then you withdraw, they may not continue to attack you in the name of self defense.

That is pretty much standard wording from what I personally know of self defense statutes.

And it has nothing to do with the proposed Florida statute.

In the Florida case, it is specifying that if you are being attacked (active, present tense), you are not required to retreat in order to defend yourself.

I'm not claiming keepandbeararms.com makes anything up. There is a vast difference between making something up and culling information that suits an agenda. If the reports they cull regarding prosecutions for defensive actions are anything like those reports culled by ziadel, they're nothing more than the prosecution of people claiming to have used their gun in self-defense. It may sound scary to you - but since you WANT to believe the individual arrested was only acting in self-defense, I should expect it would sound scary to you. I don't care either way - so to me it sounds like DAs who do not believe the claim of the defendent - in other words: par for the course.

In regards to emotionally based arguments. Yes, that is precisely what you are arguing. You have not listed any studies of wrongful prosecution that demonstrate that people unequivocally involved in defensive measures are being significantly prosecuted. Instead, you are relying on the word of a defendent as to their guilt or non-guilt, as reported to you by a website called Keep and Bear Arms. As long as you desire to use such non-evidence as the purpose for changing laws, you will be arguing from an emotional level, void of relevancy.

I'm not sure what instructors and what instructors teach have to do with this discussion.

Dignity and moral fortitude? Is that what you call crazy? Given the option of avoiding a violent situation or partaking in a violent situation, anyone who chooses the latter is crazy - not dignified or morally strong. Any rational person who is unfortunate enough to have had trouble find them will attempt to avoid the situation. You added the word "required" where it never existed in an attempt to claim that such a person is then prevented from defending his/herself if they needed to. People are not prevented from defending themselves - which is why this legislation is a solution to a non-problem, advocating violent resolutions over non-violent resolutions.

I think if you re-read the statute, you'll see that the second part limits the rights of the initiator to claim self defense when being attacked by other participants in the fight. It says nothing about the rights of the other participants. It is only about the rights of the initial aggressor.

Yep. Even if you were the initial aggressor, in the middle of a fight. That's my point.

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.

You seem to miss the point....You don't have to be sent to a PMITA prison to be victimized by the criminal justice system...being tried when innocent is a trial in and of itself.

That's all you were able to tease out of my post?

I don't miss the point, you just don't agree with my points.
EDIT: here's my point reiterated in bold: this law isn't going to result in more murders, it's not going to result in less murders. it's going to result in a vocal minority becoming agitated about a non-issue: that their right to defend themselves is at risk. That paranoid minority is going to vote for the people it thinks is defending it's non-jeopardized ability to defend themselves. That's the reason for this bill: To churn the waters so conversations like this thread will turn to gun control and gun owners wil feel persecuted by urban dwellers who live in high crime areas when they explain to them that carrying guns doesn't make them feel or become more safe from street crime.

FYI, everyone going through the trial stage is an innocent person.
Are you seriously going to contend that all persons tried are victimized by the criminal justice system?

Regardless, grand jury indictements (which the accused does not attend) are hardly victimizing processes. All of those cases listed, as are over 90% of all criminal cases, were completed via plea bargains. If the cases were as strong as you seem to believe they were, they should have gone to trial. I should mention that a preliminary reading of the cases indicate that their probation was a result of breaking the law in some other fasion, not actually the act of defending themselves. In the first case, the man used an unregistered firearm. Now you may think it's a silly requirement and a technicality that he couldn't obtain registration, but he chose to use an illegally held firearm and ought to be held responsible for that. His and his family's life was worth enough to break the law, fair enough. He's a felon. He's alive. Decisions we make and consequences we live with.

If one member of society kills another human being, I think it's a reasonable demand to make that he or she lay out the facts and circumstances before his or her peers in order to ascertain whether the killing was justified. How else do you propose to seperate the legitimate killings from illegitimate ones?

I looked at another of your links. I can't believe you would actually use this person as your poster boy of people "victimized" by the judicial process:

The reason he was convicted was due to inadequate council, not because of rampant anti-self defense legislation. The reason he wasn't re-convicted, however, doesn't appear to be innocence, but rather the fact that the victim (the man who was shot in the back--after being maced and verbally assaulted, testimony corroberated by witnesses) couldn't be located for the retrial. I'm reading the account of his demeanor and it doesn't substaniate what you implied--that he is just a normal citizen caught in the maw of the criminal justice system.

I'm looking through this thread and seeing a lot of disinformation. If it's not intentional, then you should re-think your position. The accused does not testify before the grand jury. The accused is not forced to take a plea bargain. People are not being locked up wholesale for reasonably defending themselves. It doesn't matter what you think of the sitation--you weren't present. The best system we have, indeed touted as the best system in the world, is a jury trial process. And reasonable is defined by what those twelve citizens think a reasonable person would do under the circumstances. If you can't live with that, don't carry and don't kill people attacking you.

I also feel the need to inject some perspective into this discussion about the wide generalizations some of you are making comparing state crime stats to one another. It doesn't make much sense to compare California crime to Florida crime. For one thing, there is huge disparity between population sizes, types, and even regional.

For example, all of California operates under the same strict gun regulations. Yet, there are only a few regions, low-income, dense urban environments, that account for those high stats. I can compare Compton to anyplace, Florida or I can compare Irvine to anyplace, Florida. Which one is going to have the lowest crime rate? If guns solely accounted for the difference, the per capita rate of crime/murder should be the same. It isn't.

Next, many of you argue that possessing firearms prevents crime/murder of innocent people. Well, while that most assuradely occurs, the stats you are reading about are not innocent people or regular joes and janets being accosted and killed. The most frequent murder victim is a young, urban black male. The most common perpetrator: the same. Violence occurs between members of the same race and class, with occasional crossovers.

It will be a rare day, statistically speaking, when any of you rural dwellers need to pull a gun for safety against an threatening criminal--unless you're arguing in a bar or back alley and the situation escalates to violence.

When you make comments like only criminals have guns, yes, true, but they rarely kill anyone else. So you need to look at a complexity of issues, not whether a particular region allows weapons to be carried or not. So when you arm a bunch of people in suburban Texas, I have no doubt that crime goes down in those particular places. But if you start arming californians, you'll get a bunch of gunslingers in rural sacramento, hollywood, and san diego. people in compton and more dense urban centers are already armed and killing one another. Not much is going to decrease in the overall crime averages. That's the consequence of living in a city with 30 million people. There are highly concentrated locii of violence and crime. Arming people in the rest of the state isn't going to dent those averages. There are better ways to reduce violence than arguing arming and training citizens will resolve our culture's preoccupation with violence as a dispute resolution.

So you take Grants Pass as an example. You have 20, 000 people. How many murders this year? I think it's 0, but I haven't looked. Counting from here until last year, I will be able to count them on one hand. And none of them are a result of some regular person being accosted in a back alley. Any murder in that town is likely over meth--and both the victim and the killer would have had access to firearms.

But if gun weilding fixes the problem, why the high crime rate in Portland?
Why the low rate in say, Lake Oswego, but the high rate in the inner city?
I'm just pointing out that you may be using too broad of a brush.

You said all there needs to be said about this argument in your first paragraph. Gun control should be handled on a local level and not handled by the federal government. Some places may feel the need to limit access to firearms in a particularly high crime area in the inner city. Most rural folks that hunt and have grown up with guns in the home don't necessarily need the same rules and regulations that are needed in more densely populated areas. Perhaps even statewide is to large of an area and it needs to be broken down into a county by county basis. I don't understand why everyone is so concerned about what's happening in Florida. I'm quite sure if there is a rash of "murders" the law will be amended to clarify what's considered self defense. And if in fact it is a "vocal minority" pushing this legislation the next election will reflect this and we will see some new faces and a new make-up of the legislature. Frankly, unless you live there its none of your business. Apparently the Florida legislature and its constituents feel this is needed legislation and the government is working as it should on the state level. Good for them!! Finally a legislature that listens to the voice of the people. I wish the same thing would happen here in the state of Indiana on other issues not necessarily pertaining to gun control.

This Florida legislation was motivated by a case of self-defense in the home in which the defender got a prison sentence (but was pardoned) even thouth the state Supreme Court eventually reversed the decision and found that no retreat requirement exists within your home. The bill's original purpose was to clarify in statute that there is no requirement to retreat when you are in your own home.

But in response to the gun lobby (NRA mainly), Republicans decided to try to slip in the same language for self defense in public places. They introduced the same wording to eliminate the retreat requirement also in public places.

This is a major change in Florida law. Most Floridians don't support it. It was already tried back when Askew was governor, and he voted it down.

Again, there are two major problems with this legislation: (1) its conditions for the use of deadly force are far too vague and permissive; (2) it makes no distinction whatsoever between initiators of force and non-initiators, in public places.

There are several other more minor probems, such as the fact that as written it is contradictory and poorly phrased and organized, doesn't expressly prohibit pre-arranged conflicts (though these might be covered elsewhere, who knows).

But the major problems should be enough for oppose this legislation. Even cowboy red states such as Montana have explicit retreat requirements at least for initiators of force, whose purpose is to break the cycle of escalation, and disallow self defense claims for people who knowingly and purposely provoke the use of force.

Thanks for the clarification, raveneye.
I should have been more clear, if my post came across as claiming that legislation such as this is spawned by a vocal minority.
That wasn't my intent.

What I meant was that more than likely one isolated, highly publicized incident likely spawned this legislation (as you have now pointed out). Other cases might occur, but the catalyst is often one anomalous incident.

Such as the case in Terry Shiavo. Many people are in her condition, but only her name becomes law.

Such as the case with the the 6 year old shot with a tazer in a florida school. More kids probably were affected, but only his case became symbolic of a social "problem."

Why the hell does this happen in florida. I'm just kidding. That's how legislation works. Such as the case with Megan's law, such as the case with three strikes law, such is the case...I hope you all get the point.

Then people begin to rally around it and that's when the catering begins--the vocal minority, as I called them, start chattering and the press picks their chatter up and it suddenly looks like it's a widespread problem. Meanwhile, the rest of the population is busy going to work.

That isn't to say that vocal minorities cause legislation, but that they amp it up and often turn local debates and issues into national agendas. Such is politics, but I digress.

The point to remember is that bad law is enacted all the time that is supposed to address some social problem. However, social scientists are rarely, if ever, consulted on whether something actually is a problem and whether the legislation would appropriately address it. If there wasn't so much agitation against academics, the damn policies enacted might make sense and actually work. They might not, but who knows--the general public doesn't trust the people who credentialed them to even pay attention to what they're saying.

Amen to that.

BTW, for anybody who's interested in the case that started the rallying cry in Florida, here's a FindLaw link:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script..._91925&invol=1

I do not live my life in such a way that I provoke violence. I have been punched with brass knuckles and been able to fend off the attacker with an enraged look and tha ability to remain standing. I did not lift a hand to fight back, but I was able to end the situation. I have ended several fights in which participants tried to involve me without using any more force than was required to separate the particapants and test the upper limits of what my voice can do. Judging by this, I thik that we can all agree that I am not the kind of person who provokes violence or lives a violent lifestyle.

Several weeks ago, I was a few yards away from an attempted robbery. I was in the middle of a good part of the city, only two blocks toward the business district from a college campus, and a whole lot of people who do not live lives that provoke violence were subjected to a situation in which a criminal with obvious malicious intent swept teh crowd with a loaded gun (which, I might add, was imported and sold to him illegally, where gun control could not stop him from obtaining the weapon.) Fortunately, the idiot did this two blocks from a police station (and three blocks from another) and nobody was shot. If the police had not responded in less than half a minute, that criminal easily could have escalated the situation to the point where a responsible, armed citizen would have had to subdue him to save a lot of innocent people.

You may also remember an incident about three or four weeks ago that made national news. An armed robber shot and killed two jewelers in Fairfield, CT. The Donnellys were unarmed, and because of this, they were both killed in cold blood. I had met them previously, and they were two of the nicest people you could imagine. I pride myself (maybe wrongly) on being desensetized to almost everything, but when I saw security camera footage of Mrs. Donnelly on her knees pleading for the robber not to shoot her, I knew what I was seeing, and I was physically ill after seeing that. If even one of them had been armed, a man who had killed several people before in robberies that he carried out to support his drug habit would be dead instead of two innocent people who remind everyone of their favority aunt and uncle or grandparents. If one person walking by had been armed, he or she could have saved those innocent people, even if he or she didn't feel the need to own a gun because they live in this town where yearly violent crimes (aside from the occasional high school fight or drunken bar fight) can be counted on one hand.

I live, work, and go to school in safe areas where the necessity of owning and carrying a gun is comparable to the necessity of owning a luxury car. I have not been in a fight once in my life. I have had several one-hit incidents, but I have never hit back. I don't take unnecessary risks like walking aroudn bad areas after dark. I still feel that owning and carrying a gun is safer than not doing so.

While the scenario you described is certainly tragic, I think it's important to seperate causal inference from speculation.

You premise this paragraph on the assumption that the couple was killed because they were unarmed, and later that others in the area weren't armed. I want to point out that neither you nor I will ever know if the situation would have been different had the people been armed. We also don't know how this relates to the millions of people robbed without being killed--possibly because they weren't armed, or possibly due to luck or whathaveyou.

The only causal statement we can accurately make, with certainty, in this scenario is that the couple died as a result of someone being armed with a gun. So while your statements seem to make sense, and resonate with myself and no doubt others, they can not be made to relay a truth from this story. There is no overarching moral to this story suggesting that armed victims or populace would have de-escalated the situation you described. The speculations confirm your suspicions, but that's about all they do in this situation. Not much to be done about it, it's not as though we can really do a pre and post test of these kinds of interations--so we need to look to quasi-experimentation and see what the literature says rather than create social policy as a response to heartwrenching stories and speculation on what could have changed the interaction.

Social policy as a response to heartwrenching stories and speculation is exactly how we wound up with most of our gun laws.

Two prime examples are Dianne Feinstein and Sara Brady, and all of the harm they've done.

Well, part of me says the emphasized section above is true, in that it is never necessary to own a luxury car; it is simply something you desire for comfort. The other part of me rails against the idea that you could compare the necessity of a car to that of a firearm.

However.

Thanks to the concerted and untiring efforts of the gun lobby in protecting the Second Amendment to the Constitution, you are free to carry a gun. As I am free not to. Let us live and let live...especially the one of us with a weapon.

All Ketucky officeholders – from the governor in Frankfort to constables in the farthest reaches of the Commonwealth – must renounce dueling. Before lawmakers can be formally seated, they must affirm – usually with some snickering in the audience – that they “have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it.”

Funny, we have all these Patriot Act laws and we are fearful of terrorism but we want to arm the whole population.

I realize that I can't make any sort of definitive statement, but had the people been armed, they may have at least have had a chance to fight back and survive.

I will live and let live, unless someone is refusing to do the same for the rest of us. If I came across a person attacking someone in a way that could only be stopped with lethal force, I would not hesitate to use such force to save an inocent life.

Numerous suicide bombers in Israel have been prevented from carrying out attacks against civilian targets by those who legally carry concealed weapons. The terrorists who have attacked us in the past have targeted and killed civilians; very rarely does a person who legally owns a gun use it to massacre the innocent.