Excellent statement by Bloomberg. SYG is retarded. Period. It lets pu$$$y pencil d!ck concealed carriers become judge, jury and executioner and use their deadly weapons whenever they're scared.

(04-13-2012 01:45 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Excellent statement by Bloomberg. SYG is retarded. Period. It lets pu$$$y pencil d!ck concealed carriers become judge, jury and executioner and use their deadly weapons whenever they're scared.

Someone mouths off to another person, and the other person shoots the one talking ****, doesn't qualify for the SYG law. I thought you were an attorney? It would behoove you to actually read the ******* law. You have to be physically threatened and fearing for your life. Kinda like being knocked to the ground and having your head pounded into the ground.

Um, I've copy and pasted the full law on here several times and analyzed it, thank you. You need a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm OR a reasonable belief that you're stopping a forcible felony (so you can shoot and kill somebody you see stealing a car radio, or think is stealing a car radio-- he might actually own the car and is replacing it).

But the worst part of SYG is in effect repealing the duty to retreat. This means you can find trouble or wait for trouble. Examples I've given are waiting for an extremely slow person (perhaps an old man with a walker) waving a bat 100 yards away in an empty parking lot to get close so you can shoot and kill, even though you could easily run away; or hearing a person inside your house and you, alone in your house and thinking it's a burglar, pull out your shotgun and seek him out to shoot him instead of safely climbing out the window; or as the Washington Post reported, leaving the safety of your house after a confused drunk knocks on the door and shoot him when he lunges toward you (apparently not even trying to throw a punch). It allows pencil d!ck Clint Eastwood wannabes to take the law into their own hands and appoint themselves cop, judge, jury and executioner. It should go without saying that many of the people shot were and are going to be not guilty of any crime (like that true story drunk), but low IQ ARE COUNTRY morons now get to make that determination.

Quote:stopping a forcible felony (so you can shoot and kill somebody you see stealing a car radio, or think is stealing a car radio-- he might actually own the car and is replacing it)

WRONG!

Attorney my ass.

(04-13-2012 02:21 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

Quote:stopping a forcible felony (so you can shoot and kill somebody you see stealing a car radio, or think is stealing a car radio-- he might actually own the car and is replacing it)

WRONG!

Attorney my ass.

This....Property crimes are not grounds for use of violent force. Only violent crime involving physical harm fall under this paradigm.

Here's the actual law:

Quote:776.012Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1)He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2)Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

Quote:776.08 Forcible felony.
"Forcible felony" means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

Admittedly there'd have to be someone in the car or around it for it to be forcible. Although I think this list is too extensive, I have less issue with this part of SYG than I do with the removal of the duty to retreat.

(04-13-2012 02:26 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-13-2012 02:21 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

Quote:stopping a forcible felony (so you can shoot and kill somebody you see stealing a car radio, or think is stealing a car radio-- he might actually own the car and is replacing it)

WRONG!

Attorney my ass.

This....Property crimes are not grounds for use of violent force. Only violent crime involving physical harm fall under this paradigm.

Burglary is a property crime. Arson is a property crime. I'm not sure if aggravated stalking is a violent crime. Aggravated assault doesn't have to be violent. But SYG allows you to kill anyone you suspect is doing either.

(04-13-2012 02:09 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Um, I've copy and pasted the full law on here several times and analyzed it, thank you. You need a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm OR a reasonable belief that you're stopping a forcible felony (so you can shoot and kill somebody you see stealing a car radio, or think is stealing a car radio-- he might actually own the car and is replacing it).

But the worst part of SYG is in effect repealing the duty to retreat. This means you can find trouble or wait for trouble. Examples I've given are waiting for an extremely slow person (perhaps an old man with a walker) waving a bat 100 yards away in an empty parking lot to get close so you can shoot and kill, even though you could easily run away; or hearing a person inside your house and you, alone in your house and thinking it's a burglar, pull out your shotgun and seek him out to shoot him instead of safely climbing out the window; or as the Washington Post reported, leaving the safety of your house after a confused drunk knocks on the door and shoot him when he lunges toward you (apparently not even trying to throw a punch). It allows pencil d!ck Clint Eastwood wannabes to take the law into their own hands and appoint themselves cop, judge, jury and executioner. It should go without saying that many of the people shot were and are going to be not guilty of any crime (like that true story drunk), but low IQ ARE COUNTRY morons now get to make that determination.

The scenarios you cite are not the kinds of things that SYG would protect.

Car stereo would not work as SYG, unless the criminal was breaking into your car while you were in it. You have a right to resist force against you or a forcible felony against you. We're talking rape, aggravated battery, car-jacking, etc. The force has to be reasonably necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a felony. And if you're wrong and murder someone who is innocent, you ass is going to prison.

1) Bat guy 100 feet away walking to you. You'd have to wait until he got closer or you wouldn't be in reasonable fear of great bodily harm or for your life. Doubtful any judge or jury is going to believe that a slow guy 100 feet away was necessary. You'd need more facts. You could stand your ground and if he got within 10-20 feet and was threatening to beat you to death, maybe SYG would apply.

2) This one is the castle doctrine, not SYG. If you are in your home, it is presumed that the burglar is trying to commit a forcible felony against you. I think that's a great law. If someone is in a dwelling to commit a crime (which is what burglary is: breaking in with the intent to commit a crime inside), you should be able to kill them. It's your f*ckin house, they should never break into it. They took the risk.

3) Wash Post: like all media stories, I bet this story is greatly misrepresented. I'd want to hear the actual facts, i.e. read the police reports etc. The media always gets the facts of a case wrong. They always got them wrong when I was a prosecutor. It was laughable.

SYG doesn't allow you to be judge jury and executioner. It allows you to use self-defense when it's reasonable based upon the threat you faced. If you SYG, you must hate all self-defense claims. Zimmerman could've claimed self-defense without SYG and it would be the same result. Arguably, Martin was committed Aggravated Battery against Zimmerman by slamming his head into the concrete.

Pretty much every CCW holder I've ever met was cautious and respectful. They're not the ones you need to worry about. They're law abiding normal folks. You need to worry about the people who don't apply for CCW and don't go through the background check or do the training course. Worry about the criminals who carry guns.

(04-13-2012 02:54 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(04-13-2012 02:26 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-13-2012 02:21 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

Quote:stopping a forcible felony (so you can shoot and kill somebody you see stealing a car radio, or think is stealing a car radio-- he might actually own the car and is replacing it)

WRONG!

Attorney my ass.

This....Property crimes are not grounds for use of violent force. Only violent crime involving physical harm fall under this paradigm.

Burglary is a property crime. Arson is a property crime. I'm not sure if aggravated stalking is a violent crime. Aggravated assault doesn't have to be violent. But SYG allows you to kill anyone you suspect is doing either.

A person must reasonably believe that deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony for your scenario to work.

Here's the definition
776.08Forcible felony.—“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

Quote:Car stereo would not work as SYG, unless the criminal was breaking into your car while you were in it. You have a right to resist force against you or a forcible felony against you. We're talking rape, aggravated battery, car-jacking, etc.

No it doesn't have to be against you. You can see a woman sitting in a car, and a man reaching in to take out the car stereo and, believing the woman is being robbed, kill the man. Even if it turns out the man is her husband and is removing it, LOLSYG gets you off.'

Quote:1) Bat guy 100 feet away walking to you. You'd have to wait until he got closer or you wouldn't be in reasonable fear of great bodily harm or for your life. Doubtful any judge or jury is going to believe that a slow guy 100 feet away was necessary. You'd need more facts. You could stand your ground and if he got within 10-20 feet and was threatening to beat you to death, maybe SYG would apply.

Dude that's the point. You can wait for him to get close and shoot him. Even though you're an Olympic runner, you can say, "Hmm, I wonder what it feels like to kill a man. I'm going to wait a few seconds for him to get here and find out!"

Quote:2) This one is the castle doctrine, not SYG. If you are in your home, it is presumed that the burglar is trying to commit a forcible felony against you. I think that's a great law. If someone is in a dwelling to commit a crime (which is what burglary is: breaking in with the intent to commit a crime inside), you should be able to kill them. It's your f*ckin house, they should never break into it. They took the risk.

True, LOLSYG is an expansion of the castle doctrine's removal of the duty to retreat inside your home, and applies it EVERYWHERE. I oppose even the castle doctrine. First of all, how do you know he's not a lost drunk or has Alzheimers (so they're legitimately lost) or is the neighborhood kids playing a prank? It shouldn't be up to you to decide his guilt. The law should encourage everyone to defuse every situation safely when possible. Protection of human life should be the ultimate goal of the law, not your feeling of manhood that's jeopardized when you slink out the window to avoid a burglar.

Quote:SYG doesn't allow you to be judge jury and executioner. It allows you to use self-defense when it's reasonable based upon the threat you faced.

But it allows you to seek or even welcome that threat. That's messed up. It allows you to stalk somebody and when they get scared enough turn around to punch you, shoot them. (And I'm not saying that's what happened with Zimmerman, just saying this would be allowable).

Quote:If you SYG, you must hate all self-defense claims. Zimmerman could've claimed self-defense without SYG and it would be the same result. Arguably, Martin was committed Aggravated Battery against Zimmerman by slamming his head into the concrete.

I don't hate all self defense claims. Certainly many cases of self defense are justified. What I hate is allowing people with deadly weapons to look for trouble and claim self defense when they find it, because I think that's an abuse of self defense. Re: Zimmerman, maybe, maybe not. Depends on the facts. If Martin told him to back off or he'd beat him and Z kept following then LOLSYG could be the difference because Z didn't retreat when he had the chance. Of course Z says he did retreat but that's up to the jury to decide (now that he's finally been arrested).

Quote:Pretty much every CCW holder I've ever met was cautious and respectful. They're not the ones you need to worry about. They're law abiding normal folks. You need to worry about the people who don't apply for CCW and don't go through the background check or do the training course. Worry about the criminals who carry guns.

I worry about everyone with guns. Police a lot less than others, but there's a lot of dumb CCWers out there with only, what, a few hours training?

(04-13-2012 02:59 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(04-13-2012 02:54 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(04-13-2012 02:26 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-13-2012 02:21 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

Quote:stopping a forcible felony (so you can shoot and kill somebody you see stealing a car radio, or think is stealing a car radio-- he might actually own the car and is replacing it)

WRONG!

Attorney my ass.

This....Property crimes are not grounds for use of violent force. Only violent crime involving physical harm fall under this paradigm.

Burglary is a property crime. Arson is a property crime. I'm not sure if aggravated stalking is a violent crime. Aggravated assault doesn't have to be violent. But SYG allows you to kill anyone you suspect is doing either.

A person must reasonably believe that deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony for your scenario to work.

Here's the definition
776.08Forcible felony.—“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

I know, it's all about the reasonable belief of the person at that moment in time. But that person doesn't always know for a fact that a crime is being committed (and even if it is the strictest sentence might be 10 years, not DEATH), and even if it is, he's taking the law into his own hands. This isn't Nam, there are rules!

(04-13-2012 03:20 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(04-13-2012 02:59 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(04-13-2012 02:54 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(04-13-2012 02:26 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-13-2012 02:21 PM)Rebel Wrote:  WRONG!

Attorney my ass.

This....Property crimes are not grounds for use of violent force. Only violent crime involving physical harm fall under this paradigm.

Burglary is a property crime. Arson is a property crime. I'm not sure if aggravated stalking is a violent crime. Aggravated assault doesn't have to be violent. But SYG allows you to kill anyone you suspect is doing either.

A person must reasonably believe that deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony for your scenario to work.

Here's the definition
776.08Forcible felony.—“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

I know, it's all about the reasonable belief of the person at that moment in time. But that person doesn't always know for a fact that a crime is being committed (and even if it is the strictest sentence might be 10 years, not DEATH), and even if it is, he's taking the law into his own hands. This isn't Nam, there are rules!

Everyone that obtains a CCP is trained to NOT pull a weapon during a property crime outside of your home. It is an absolute NO NO. You call the police...Period. Now if the MOFO enters your home...well then his ass is grass.

Like Jug...I have never met a CCP holder that looked for trouble. Are there some?...yes. One can never fully eliminate the lunatic fringe. CCP holders have saved thousands of lives. That fact is undeniable. The Martin case is terrible and I believe justice will be served, I hope CCP classes use this as an example of how NOT to handle yourself. Zimmerman's actions surely exacerbated the situation This should not have happened. I have talked to several CCP holders over the last couple of weeks. Every one of them criticize Zimmerman for his actions leading up to the confrontation. One of the things you learn in a class is to NEVER allow yourself to be within "closing" distance in a potential confrontation. An unarmed perp will almost always get to you before you can pull your weapon. Zimmerman made this mistake and then the situation escalated out of control. If he had kept his distance...this most likely would not have happened.

(04-13-2012 01:45 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Excellent statement by Bloomberg. SYG is retarded. Period. It lets pu$$$y pencil d!ck concealed carriers become judge, jury and executioner and use their deadly weapons whenever they're scared.

You are a f'ing as$wipe idiot. Blood splatter..... Rolling back on that legal slut.

Duty to retreat is nothing more than cover for scared little dickless cowards. How such puke chicken shitte punks can continue to call men who refuse to flee their own homes pu$$ys is one of the biggest absurdities to ever be posted on this board.

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

(04-13-2012 08:19 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Duty to retreat is nothing more than cover for scared little dickless cowards. How such puke chicken shitte punks can continue to call men who refuse to flee their own homes pu$$ys is one of the biggest absurdities to ever be posted on this board.

As a carrier...I can say that I believe there is a difference between the DTR in public and that involving my home. In public...I will do whatever is possible to NOT have to resort to using my weapon. In my home..if your dumb ass breaks in?...you are dead(and I will make sure you are). I have no obligation to retreat in MY damn home. I consider anyone entering my home without my permission a violent criminal that is there to do me mortal harm.

In regard to the DTR... Even with the SYG law...I would still feel the same obligation to show as much restraint as possible in public. I NEVER want to have to kill anyone unless it is absolutely necessary for the protection of myself, my family or to stop a criminal in an act of mortal violence. There is nothing cowardly about using ones head instead of having to use ones weapon. I submit that almost ALL CCP holders have a similar mindset.

I pray that I never have to use deadly force against anyone. It is not anything to be glorified or sensationalized. We are talking about life and death. This is very serious sh!t that has ramifications in ones life after they pull the trigger... regardless of whether you are justified or not. When you pull a weapon...you damn well better be ready to use it and be ready to deal with the aftermath of killing someone.

(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.

(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.

Correct Fo, the duty to retreat only applies if you can retreat safely without putting yourself at risk. Hambone is an idiot who has no idea what he's talking about, like the time he was telling me probable cause had to be "probable" and it was not "possible" cause lol. BTW that barebones affadavit seemed to meet the standard for 2nd degree probable cause without much ado.

(04-13-2012 10:05 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Correct Fo, the duty to retreat only applies if you can retreat safely without putting yourself at risk. Hambone is an idiot who has no idea what he's talking about, like the time he was telling me probable cause had to be "probable" and it was not "possible" cause lol. BTW that barebones affadavit seemed to meet the standard for 2nd degree probable cause without much ado.

Your brainless response has nothing to do with my comment... Or fo's. He clearly said, has nothing to do with retreating from a violent act... And you, being the dick less wonder that you are, come in and tell him that he is correct, if he can retreat safely.

If it has nothing to do with retreating from a violent act, then there is no safety issue. How ******* stupid are you?

The fact that probably versus possible is all you got out of the previous conversation shows that you don't have the mental capacity to fart. I said you cant just pull shitnoutnofnyour ass and claim that because it is within the realm of possibility, that it shows probable cause... I said it had to be supported by the facts.. Something plaintiffs attorneys usually don't concern themselves with.