(04-13-2012 10:01 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-13-2012 09:28 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-13-2012 08:53 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The entire concept of a duty to retreat is retarded. Boy, talk about making yourself a victim.

If criminals expect you to back off at the slightest provocation, what do you think they will do?

We are making it a crime to NOT allow yourself to be victimized. So if a woman is being raped, she shouldn't resist, huh?

Imagine yourself in the situation... Youre getting jumped by a mugger, you might be able to get away... Or you might be able to hit the guy with the crowbar on the ground.... You hit him with the crowbar, killing him, and the pos's family sues you for not escaping when you "could" have?

Did you ink you might be able to run away from the guy hitting you with the baseball bat for no reason?
Yes, maybe
Did you try?
No
Guilty!!

stupid stupid concept

The DTR...IMO has nothing to do with retreating from a violent act. There is no DTR in that case. I see it as a duty to try and remove one's self from a volatile situation before you have to resort to using deadly force. It has to do with using ones head and not ones emotions.

The term duty puts the responsibility for action squarely on the shoulders of the victim. If you are the aggressor, i am required to back down. What hapens when people always back down from aggressors? You get more aggressors. There is no DUTY to stand your ground... You are merely given more latitude, given that you are under attack and in fear for your life.

To go back to the rape analogy, if someone puts a knife to your throat and tells you not to make a sound, the fact that you don't scream or say "no" doesn't potentially work against you. There is no duty to resist... And we don't need a law to tell people it is okay to resist if they choose to. We only need a law to tell us tat should we resist well enough to kill the bastard, we arent guilty of murder


Syg laws are only pertinent when you feel threatened. If dtr laws are their opposite, then it follows that they only come into play once a threat has been established. If you spit in the general direction of someone, and I think you were spitting at them, and I call you a jerk for doing it and you punch me in the mouth and grab a bat and come towards me and I shoot you... Who had the duty to retreat and when? You, when I confronted you for something you aren't even aware you did, or me, when after confronting you, you hit me? IMO, that is WAY too much mind reading.

Using one's head and not putting yourself in situations that might become sketchy is the best defense. If someone verbally assaults me and I am carrying...I will simply walk away and remove myself from the situation. I will do nothing make the situation worse. If I am assaulted physically without provocation...we have a problem. That is the way I interpret the DTR and SYG paradigms. I will do everything I can to not have to ever pull out my weapon....because when I pull it out...someone is going to die.

You clearly don't understand what you're talking about. You bring up someone "being jumped" by a mugger, or being hit by a baseball bat to illustrate how the duty to retreat is "retarded." Except you only have a duty to retreat if it's safe to do so, as I said, so you don't have to retreat while being hit by a baseball bat and can fight back if you're being hit by the baseball bat or have been "jumped" (from a violent act, as Fo said). Your examples were inapplicable. You're wrong.

You told me to look up "probable" in the dictionary and told me there is a difference between probable cause and possible cause. Clearly you were under the impression the threshold was 50%, which you've refused to walk back even after I point you to case law on the subject. It wouldn't have bothered me if you weren't so arrogant about it, as you are here. Hey, do you think a monkey wrench is for monkeys too?

Fo, I'm sure you have the same CCW mentality as I do. I always think of the consequences of getting involved in any altercation. If you pull out your gun, even in self-defense, you better have money to hire a lawyer. Using a gun, even when justified, will cost you. You only pull it when you have no other choice. I think most CCW folks have this view.

And Max, I don't like the duty to retreat mainly because it is too easy to monday morning quarterback or second guess split second self-defense decisions. It's easy to sit in a courtroom and break down what happened and offer other alternatives that may not have been realistic for a person in the heat of the moment faced with a deadly situation. And it makes the victim of a crime defend himself in court from the actions of the aggressor. Duty to Retreat helps the aggressor.

The one change to SYG I would support is to make it clear that you can only use deadly force in regard to a forcible felony if that forcible felony is being committed against an individual. I think this is what the case law says in my district, but I'd support that language in SYG. I'd have to look up the case law. I've never heard of a case in Florida like the example you offered, i.e. that a person could be shot for breaking into a car to get a car stereo without anyone being in the car. Maybe no jury would think it was "reasonably necessary" to stop it? I'll look it up. Deadly force should only be used to protect people.

So now you're a mind reader

Proof : i said

Quote:You've explained possible cause, not probable cause. You've assumed tons of facts not in evidence.

Possible cause is not a legal term, so clearly I am not suggesting a different legal definition, merely a different practical one... And I said you failed NOT because my story was more likely..(51/49) but because yours relies on facts not in evidence. You lose counselor. Be glad we can't enforce sanctions.

I told you to look it up because it IS where the word comes from. Whether it is 51% or not is something YOU made up and attributed to me because you couldn't win the argument without putting words in my mouth. You kept saying you could make up a story that someone would believe was in any ay possible... I said it had to be supported by facts, and not merely possible. I asked what facts you had to support your story. I never said your position was less likely.. I said the facts we had in the paper didn't support your story. You kept saying it was possible, if you accepted the lies in the media.. And I told you to look up the words. If they meant that it was merely possible... They wouldn't have called it probable cause... That it had to be supported by facts. I never once talked about your story being less likely than mine. Same thing I said all along. You are a bald faced liar, and everyone on here can look it up for themselves.

Now, here you are arguing similarly.. When everyone can read for themselves what Fo wrote... That you lied about what he said.

If you aren't being threatened, there is also no right to stand your ground. Your contention is stupid, unless you are arguing that you don't have the right to argue... But instead have the duty to walk away from the argument. Which seems odd that you favor this, since you never do it yourself

This argument is a perfect example.. You started the argument... You have been confronted... Assume for a minute that this were a personal rather than public argument... And that one of us resorted to violence, ending in a shooting. For the purposes of the demonstration, and because of our positions, let's say that you continue to be the aggressor and threaten my life. If until that moment, there is neither a duty to retreat nor a right to stand your ground... There is no issue... At that very moment, doin have a duty to run or the right to stand my ground? Is there an opportunity for me to run if i think i can do it safely, which I certainly have under syg, because there is no duty to stand my ground, or a duty to run if I can?

It matters because sleazeball lawyers will claim that I COULD have safely run, but didn't... And thus am guilty because that was my duty under the law.

There is a difference between a duty and a right. I ALWAyS have the right to run

(04-14-2012 10:08 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  Fo, I'm sure you have the same CCW mentality as I do. I always think of the consequences of getting involved in any altercation. If you pull out your gun, even in self-defense, you better have money to hire a lawyer. Using a gun, even when justified, will cost you. You only pull it when you have no other choice. I think most CCW folks have this view.

And Max, I don't like the duty to retreat mainly because it is too easy to monday morning quarterback or second guess split second self-defense decisions. It's easy to sit in a courtroom and break down what happened and offer other alternatives that may not have been realistic for a person in the heat of the moment faced with a deadly situation. And it makes the victim of a crime defend himself in court from the actions of the aggressor. Duty to Retreat helps the aggressor.

The one change to SYG I would support is to make it clear that you can only use deadly force in regard to a forcible felony if that forcible felony is being committed against an individual. I think this is what the case law says in my district, but I'd support that language in SYG. I'd have to look up the case law. I've never heard of a case in Florida like the example you offered, i.e. that a person could be shot for breaking into a car to get a car stereo without anyone being in the car. Maybe no jury would think it was "reasonably necessary" to stop it? I'll look it up. Deadly force should only be used to protect people.

My CC instructor made it very clear multiple times that property crimes are not grounds for using deadly force unless someone enters your home. That is the the way I also interpret the law and regardless would not shoot someone for breaking into my unoccupied vehicle.

Of course.

My daughter and I have discussed this, and it is the best advice I can give. Don't pull unless you intend to use, but if you pull, empty it and reload, in case he has accomplices. Then keep the gun on him and eyes trained for others while you wait on the police

If she has the obligation to flee 'if she can', rather than the right to kill 'if she must'. The burden of proof is completely different... And the risk of her being wrong is much less

If she felt threatened and felt she had to kill the rapist, and it turns out that she was wrong and might have been able to get away, I'm comfortable with that decision. I wouldn't be as comfortable if she were under an obligation to run I'd she thought she could get away and was wrong.

(04-14-2012 10:08 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  Fo, I'm sure you have the same CCW mentality as I do. I always think of the consequences of getting involved in any altercation. If you pull out your gun, even in self-defense, you better have money to hire a lawyer. Using a gun, even when justified, will cost you. You only pull it when you have no other choice. I think most CCW folks have this view.

And Max, I don't like the duty to retreat mainly because it is too easy to monday morning quarterback or second guess split second self-defense decisions. It's easy to sit in a courtroom and break down what happened and offer other alternatives that may not have been realistic for a person in the heat of the moment faced with a deadly situation. And it makes the victim of a crime defend himself in court from the actions of the aggressor. Duty to Retreat helps the aggressor.

The one change to SYG I would support is to make it clear that you can only use deadly force in regard to a forcible felony if that forcible felony is being committed against an individual. I think this is what the case law says in my district, but I'd support that language in SYG. I'd have to look up the case law. I've never heard of a case in Florida like the example you offered, i.e. that a person could be shot for breaking into a car to get a car stereo without anyone being in the car. Maybe no jury would think it was "reasonably necessary" to stop it? I'll look it up. Deadly force should only be used to protect people.

In Texas deadly force can be used at night to protect property.
[/quote] you

Bottom line... Duty to run places the burden on the victim, and encourages the aggressor

That is bad policy

The ability and legal right to keep yourself from being a victim, no matter what that entails... From walking away, running or fighting back and killing... If you feel it necessary... Is good

(04-14-2012 10:08 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  You only pull it when you have no other choice. I think most CCW folks have this view

"Most" isn't good enough.

(04-14-2012 03:55 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(04-14-2012 10:08 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  You only pull it when you have no other choice. I think most CCW folks have this view

"Most" isn't good enough.

Which do you think is a larger number--The number of CCW folks who don't have that view, or the number of criminals who don't have that view?

(04-14-2012 02:52 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(04-14-2012 10:08 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  Fo, I'm sure you have the same CCW mentality as I do. I always think of the consequences of getting involved in any altercation. If you pull out your gun, even in self-defense, you better have money to hire a lawyer. Using a gun, even when justified, will cost you. You only pull it when you have no other choice. I think most CCW folks have this view.

And Max, I don't like the duty to retreat mainly because it is too easy to monday morning quarterback or second guess split second self-defense decisions. It's easy to sit in a courtroom and break down what happened and offer other alternatives that may not have been realistic for a person in the heat of the moment faced with a deadly situation. And it makes the victim of a crime defend himself in court from the actions of the aggressor. Duty to Retreat helps the aggressor.

The one change to SYG I would support is to make it clear that you can only use deadly force in regard to a forcible felony if that forcible felony is being committed against an individual. I think this is what the case law says in my district, but I'd support that language in SYG. I'd have to look up the case law. I've never heard of a case in Florida like the example you offered, i.e. that a person could be shot for breaking into a car to get a car stereo without anyone being in the car. Maybe no jury would think it was "reasonably necessary" to stop it? I'll look it up. Deadly force should only be used to protect people.

In Texas deadly force can be used at night to protect property.

you
[/quote]

I support states rights and the people of Texas can do as they wish. Even if I was a Texan...I would not kill someone over a property crime. That is just the way I roll. Unless I felt the life of myself,family or another person in my vicinity was in eminent danger of mortal violence, I would not brandish my firearm. I see the other point of view and respect it. I just would not be comfortable killing someone over a property crime and I was taught that when I pull my weapon...I shoot to kill. I am not going to pull it and threaten anyone or shoot over their heads or try to wound them. I am going for the 3 shot kill the second I pull it out.