Skip to main content

View Diary: Gun Control ← There, said it - We are going about this the wrong way (619 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That's too narrow a view (4+ / 0-)

    of why we make laws.

    Passing laws doesn't just define acceptable behaviour, it also sends out a message.

    "Stand your ground", especially when replacing "Back to the wall", sends out the wrong message entirely, and we are reaping the consequences.

    I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
    but I fear we will remain Democrats.

    by twigg on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 08:35:28 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  And yours is too expansive; because it constrains (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fuzzyguy, 43north, oldpunk, PavePusher

      the ability to set legitimate extenuating circumstances for the innocent only to those that won't be misunderstood, or claimed to be misunderstood, by the malevolent.

      Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

      by Robobagpiper on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 08:47:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm confident that (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Robobagpiper, fuzzyguy, 43north

        you and I could find a middle ground :)

        I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
        but I fear we will remain Democrats.

        by twigg on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 09:43:08 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Can we agree that people who start the fight (6+ / 0-)

          should still be required to retreat?

          If so, we're in luck.

          Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

          by Robobagpiper on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 09:44:41 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The old Castle Doctrine (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            coquiero, twigg, Neon Mama

            that enumerates the right to defend your property and person. It was unambiguous and perfectly adequate for practically all self-defense models.

            I think Stand Your Ground is far ambiguous to serve as a reasonable model of self-defense. SYG invites vigilantism and creatively self-serving interpretations of the law.

            •  I think you misunderstand that one too. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              oldpunk, PavePusher

              The "Castle Doctrine" refers to older, but similar, changes to justifiable use of force laws that remove the duty to retreat inside one's home, vehicle, or place of business. And when they began to be passed, there was the predictable and unfounded warnings of blood running in the streets.

              In fact, Castle Doctrine is perfectly analogous to "Stand Your Ground", since the two are the same principle applied to different locations.

              Justifiable use of force law is usually broken into multiple parts: one section for inside one's home or business or vehicle; one for everywhere else one has a right to be. There are other provisions (use of force against police officers, use of force by the aggressor, limited immunity clauses, etc.). In the case of the  former, one has to be present in the home when the intrusion takes place, the intrusion has to be forcible, and so on. In the latter, you have to have a right to be there, be acting lawfully, be attacked, and have reasonable fear that force is necessary to prevent imminent bodily harm to oneself, or prevent a forcible felony on another. What's ambiguous in either of these? If the state is not a CD/SYG state, you have prove you tried to run away before using force, or you're criminally liable for the use of force. If it is, you don't.

              But neither section of law, when read, is ambiguous in any way. Both generally set out very strict requirements that must be met before force can be deemed justified, whether or not retreat is one of them.

              Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

              by Robobagpiper on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 04:12:24 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site