Good article. Thanks for sharing.
This is a discussion on Stand Your Ground Laws and the Dignity of Human Life within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; A very good opinion piece on the Stand Your Ground Laws: Stand Your Ground Laws | Stand Your Ground laws and the dignity of human ...
A very good opinion piece on the Stand Your Ground Laws:
Stand Your Ground Laws | Stand Your Ground laws and the dignity of human life | The Daily Caller
Good article. Thanks for sharing.
Don"t let stupid be your skill set....
And Shepards we shall be, for Thee, my Lord, for Thee,
Power hath descended forth from Thy hand, So that our feet may swiftly carry out thy command,
And we shall flow a river forth to Thee, And teeming with souls shall it ever be,
Finally a voice of reason coming from the media...
Thanks for the post "Mano".
"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it".
It's a rule so simple that it's complicated for the media!
someone needs to send a copy to rev jesse jackson and al sharpen
That is a very principled article restoring my faith in the fourth estate.
I don't expect loss of ground on the state level in the aftermath of the Martin killing; but legislators have cold feet in states where SYG laws were being formed. From yesterday's WSJ:The animus of the national anti-SYG anti-2A groups will fade with the memory of Martin while "we the living" continue to address evil.[A]ttempts to pass such laws in Alaska and Iowa were halted after Mr. Martin was killed....Eastern states inherited a duty to retreat from English Common Law and are addressing legislatively. As settlers moved west, that legal antiquity didn't follow as the newer states adopted "true man" law. As the OP's article quoted:“An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing it.” In other words, fleeing an attacker doesn’t send a message about the value of human life or the merits of right and wrong, instead, it simply emboldens him to attack again without compunction. - Jeff Cooper, as quoted in the OP's articleFrom the state of MD:This is why even some of the bluest of states, like California, have Stand Your Ground laws. California’s Criminal Code 3470 is quite clear: “[The defendant] is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself, and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of death or great bodily injury has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating.”
Whereas a disarmed public is a criminal’s paradise, and one in which crime victims are left no option but to flee in fear and trepidation, an armed public with the right to use those arms turns the tables on the criminal: forcing him to flee and face a bit of trepidation for a change. In this way, Stand Your Ground laws uphold the dignity of innocent life by allowing crime victims to fight back instead of seeking an avenue for retreat.That is what it is all about.Included in the doctrine of self-defense is a duty to retreat, that is, a duty by the individual claiming self-defense to retreat and escape the danger if it was in his/her power to do so and was consistent with maintaining his/her safety.... Traditionally, under the common law, the right to the use of deadly force in self-defense did not apply until the claimant “retreated to the wall.” Some states have adopted the “true man” doctrine as an alternative to the common law doctrine of self-defense. The true man doctrine applies when the individual claiming self-defense was in a place where he/she had a right to be and faced a reasonably apparent danger of death or serious bodily harm. Under this doctrine, an individual has the right to stand his/her ground against an attacker and is under no obligation to retreat and can use force, and if reasonable, deadly force against his/her attacker. This doctrine provides that an individual faced with a felonious attack is under no obligation to retreat, even if it is safe to do so. Nor is the individual required to deliberate whether a retreat is reasonable under the circumstances. However, the true man doctrine does not authorize certain behavior, including: (1) the use of unreasonable force; or (2) initiation of a confrontation or attack.
-Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
Excellent article. Nice to see someone with a clue putting a piece out there on this issue.
Good write-up, but theres no way I'm gonna read that in the Detroit Free Press
or any other daily hometown Gazette fill in the _ _ _ _ _ .
Was suprised by the Cali. wording, even if the victim could escape, they don't have to.
I would rather die with good men than hide with cowards
If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans
Don't ever think that the reason I'm peaceful is because I don't know how to be violent
M&Pc .357SIG, 2340Sigpro .357SIG
CALCRIM 3470 addresses non-homicides, CALCRIM No. 505 addresses homicides.California Criminal Jury Instructions
Series 500 HOMICIDE B. JUSTIFICATIONS AND EXCUSES
CALCRIM No. 505
505. Justifiable Homicide:
Self-Defense or Defense of Another
The defendant is not guilty of (murder/ [or] manslaughter/attempted murder/ [or] attempted voluntary manslaughter) if (he/she) was justified in (killing/attempting to kill) someone in (self defense/[or] defense of another). The defendant acted in lawful (self-defense/ [or] defense of another) if:
1. The defendant reasonably believed that (he/she/ [or] someone else/ [or] ) was in imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily injury [or was in imminent danger of being (raped/maimed/robbed/___ )];
2. The defendant reasonably believed that the immediate use of deadly force was necessary to defend against that danger;
3. The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against that danger.
Belief in future harm is not sufficient, no matter how great or how likely the harm is believed to be. The defendant must have believed there was imminent danger of great bodily injury to (himself/herself/ [or] someone else). Defendant’s belief must have been reasonable and (he/she) must have acted only because of that belief. The defendant is only entitled to use that amount of force that a reasonable person would believe is necessary in the same situation. If the defendant used more force than was reasonable, the [attempted] killing was not justified.
When deciding whether the defendant’s beliefs were reasonable, consider all the circumstances as they were known to and appeared to the defendant and consider what a reasonable person in a similar situation with similar knowledge would have believed. If the defendant’s beliefs were reasonable, the danger does not need to have actually existed.
I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.
I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.
Veni, Vidi, Velcro
"One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation."
--Thomas B. Reed, American Attorney
Second Amendment -- Established December 15, 1791 and slowly eroded ever since What happened to "..... shall not be infringed."
[QUOTE=barstoolguru;2236386]someone needs to send a copy to rev jesse jackson and al sharpen[/QUOTE
On tape, or with a reader...
Proverbs 27:12 says: “The prudent see danger and take refuge, but the simple keep going and suffer for it.”
Certified Glock Armorer
NRA Life Member
Self-defense............if you don't do it who will for ya ?
I'm sure when Al was stabbed by that assailiant years ago......he would have like to have been able to defend himself.....how soon we all forget.
Bet ya Al would have liked to have been Carrying then.........
I liked the dog analogy the author used.
"Was there no end to the conspiracy of irrational prejudice against Red Ryder and his peacemaker?"
Revolvers, “more elegant weapons for a more civilized age.”