Stand Your Ground Law

[Bengalzona]

(07-26-2018, 03:50 PM)PhilHos Wrote: This brings up a question: at what point, legally speaking, does it become physical: when they physically touch you, when they don't touch you but they are clearly in your personal space (i.e. literally their face is inches away from yours), when they don't touch you but in order to move you are required to go around them and/or push past them, or any other option I haven't considered?

How about when they are yelling at and threatening you or your family and they have a gun tucked into their waistband?

I think that would be grounds to splatter their brains all over their kids with a handcannon.

[Beaker]

(07-26-2018, 02:06 PM)GMDino Wrote: What if I was afraid the man who was ONLY verbally assaulting me might be unhinged and maybe even armed?!?!

Gotta stand my ground!

Don't blame the victim when you shoot him. Surely he did nothing to escalate the situation by yelling you and did nothing to deserve being shot by you.

[*PhilHos*]

(07-26-2018, 03:51 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: How about when they are yelling at and threatening you or your family and they have a gun tucked into their waistband?

I would think that's an implied threat but not in the realms of physical.

I ask because if someone's literally in your face, they already made it physical and you pushing them away would be an appropriate response (regardless of if they fall down or not).

[Bengalzona]

(07-26-2018, 03:54 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I ask because if someone's literally in your face, they already made it physical and you pushing them away would be an appropriate response (regardless of if they fall down or not).

I have some personal experience with this.

In my case, decking the bastard for getting up in my face was not considered an appropriate response by the police. Fortunately for me, the asshole had a warrant out for his arrest, so they hauled him off instead of me.

But perhaps pushing them away may have been a better choice.... if less gratifying.

[GMDino]

(07-26-2018, 03:52 PM)Beaker Wrote: Don't blame the victim when you shoot him. Surely he did nothing to escalate the situation by yelling you and did nothing to deserve being shot by you.

No one on this board would EVER blame the victim! 

It is totally the shooters fault!  But....

[*michaelsean*]

(07-26-2018, 04:06 PM)GMDino Wrote: No one on this board would EVER blame the victim! 

It is totally the shooters fault!  But....

And still nobody has.  I'm not sure why it bothers you that we talk about how things could have ended differently.  If a cop runs into a building to catch a bad guy and is shot, someone might say, "He should have waited for backup."  That's not blaming the cop.  And maybe there was nothing this guy could have done differently.  Maybe the killer was right in her face screaming, and he did what all of us would do.  All we are doing is talking about it.  

[*PhilHos*]

(07-26-2018, 04:16 PM)michaelsean Wrote: And still nobody has.  I'm not sure why it bothers you that we talk about how things could have ended differently.  If a cop runs into a building to catch a bad guy and is shot, someone might say, "He should have waited for backup."  That's not blaming the cop.  And maybe there was nothing this guy could have done differently.  Maybe the killer was right in her face screaming, and he did what all of us would do.  All we are doing is talking about it.  

You don't understand: talking about what someone could have done differently is BLAMING them for what happened! If you suggest someone lock their doors at night, you're blaming them for being robbed! If you suggest someone dosn't walkt down dark alleys alone, you're blaming them for being mugged! If you suggest someone should take certain precautions, you're blaming them for [insert bad thing] happening! 

[*bfine32*]

(07-24-2018, 08:14 AM)GMDino Wrote: Just wondering how many more ways we can blame everyone except the coward who shot the gun?

"Guns don't kill people!  People who defend their women or park in spaces illegally kill people!"

(07-24-2018, 08:55 AM)GMDino Wrote: Seems to me that's blaming the victim...but whatever.

(07-24-2018, 09:40 AM)GMDino Wrote: NDon't talk to anyone every because they might be unhinged and shoot you for no reason".  lol.  Okay,

"outrage"

(07-24-2018, 09:45 AM)GMDino Wrote: But in the topic of the thread the "lesson" seems to be don't risk human interaction or you might end up dead.  

(07-24-2018, 11:48 AM)GMDino Wrote: "Totally the shooters fault!!!  But...."

Dude you're funny.

(07-24-2018, 12:41 PM)GMDino Wrote: Clearly not finding a way to blame the victim.  

SSF and bfine were right.  

(07-24-2018, 02:11 PM)GMDino Wrote: I also understand that the post is meant to suggest the victim should have/could have done more to not get shot.  That's blaming the victim.

(07-24-2018, 05:25 PM)GMDino Wrote: Well as long as the people being provoked don't do anything they will be fine.  If they react at all and get shot, well I guess there's a lesson to be learned there about them.  

(07-25-2018, 10:07 AM)GMDino Wrote: Yep.  But some still feel the need to figure out what the victim did "wrong" to get shot.

Don't park in the wrong place...
Don't argue...
Don't push a guy yelling at your girlfriend...


None of which should result in getting shot and killed.  That's trying to find a way to blame the victim in at LEAST some small part for the actions of another wannabe cop/coward.

(07-25-2018, 12:02 PM)GMDino Wrote: Victim blaming.  "Totally the shooters fault!  But..."  Always the "but".

Guns don't kill people...people doing things that they should be shot for but get shot anyway kill people.

(07-26-2018, 08:40 AM)GMDino Wrote: And isn't that at the heart of the "stand your ground" debate?  The coward with the gun claims they felt threatened...even if they started the incident.

The lesson learned is let the bully/cowards run their mouths, push you, stalk you...you just be quiet and walk away or you probably did something to get yourself shot.

Oh, but the shooter is TOTALLY at fault.  But....

(07-26-2018, 12:08 PM)GMDino Wrote: You gotta stop defending yourself Pat or you might get shot by someone defending himself from you defending yourself.

And that would TOTALLY be the other guy's fault.  But....

(07-26-2018, 04:06 PM)GMDino Wrote: No one on this board would EVER blame the victim! 

It is totally the shooters fault!  But....

All of that to try and prove other folks wrong. Absolutely nothing of value added to the conversation; just a continued effort to prove others wrong when they say thimbledick is to blame for the shooting but there are measures the innocent can take to de-escualte the situation.

[Bengalzona]

I'd probably be more pro-gun... if people didn't actually use them to shoot other humans so often.

[*bfine32*]

(07-26-2018, 04:36 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I'd probably be more pro-gun... if people didn't actually use them to shoot other humans so often.

Hard to get around that 2nd Amendment.

I have always thought there should be increased standards to remove a firearm from your home other than to go to a shooting range.

[GMDino]

(07-26-2018, 04:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: All of that to try and prove other folks wrong. Absolutely nothing of value added to the conversation; just a continued effort to prove others wrong when they say thimbledick is to blame for the shooting but there are measures the innocent can take to de-escualte the situation.

While appreciate the effort of finally trying to cite your posts...context is important.


Like when one tells a well-timed, topical joke that some people don't find funny because they actually care about that subject, my responses were to people saying "Yes, but..."  while insisting they were only saying it to not blame the victim but to merely show how he got himself shot.

But I'll take your word that you are adding value to this conversation with your post. 

[Bengalzona]

(07-26-2018, 04:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Hard to get around that 2nd Amendment.

I have always thought there should be increased standards to remove a firearm from your home other than to go to a shooting range.

I could get onboard with that.

In the meantime, I'm still trying to figure out the best way to conceal a Smith & Wesson .44 Magnum. Third leg, maybe?

[GMDino]

(07-26-2018, 04:36 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I'd probably be more pro-gun... if people didn't actually use them to shoot other humans so often.

Well, they wouldn't if people would leave gun owners alone to bully and yell at people.

Geesh!  What are you thinking?!?!?

[*PhilHos*]

(07-26-2018, 04:49 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I could get onboard with that.

In the meantime, I'm still trying to figure out the best way to conceal a Smith & Wesson .44 Magnum. Third leg, maybe?

I already have a 3rd leg. 

[*bfine32*]

(07-26-2018, 04:49 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I could get onboard with that.

In the meantime, I'm still trying to figure out the best way to conceal a Smith & Wesson .44 Magnum. Third leg, maybe?

Bend over; I'll come by and show you.

[*PhilHos*]

(07-26-2018, 04:36 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I'd probably be more pro-gun... if people didn't actually use them to shoot other humans so often.

I'mma just leave this here:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/03/20/any-study-of-gun-violence-should-include-how-guns-save-lives/#6ec13afd5edc

Quote:The numbers of defensive gun uses (DGUs) each year is controversial. But one study ordered by the CDC and conducted by The National Academies’ Institute of Medicine and National Research Council reported that, “Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence”:

Quote:Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.

Another study estimates there are 1,029,615 DGUs per year “for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere” excluding “military service, police work, or work as a security guard,” (within the range of the National Academies’ paper), yielding an estimate of 162,000 cases per year where someone “almost certainly would have been killed” if they “had not used a gun for protection.”
(In comparison, there were 11,208 homicide deaths by firearm in the US in 2012. There were a total of 33,636 deaths due to “injury by firearms,” of which the majority were suicides, 21,175.)

[fredtoast]

(07-26-2018, 03:50 PM)PhilHos Wrote: This brings up a question: at what point, legally speaking, does it become physical: when they physically touch you, when they don't touch you but they are clearly in your personal space (i.e. literally their face is inches away from yours), when they don't touch you but in order to move you are required to go around them and/or push past them, or any other option I haven't considered?

The legal standard is whenever a reasonable person would be in fear of imminent bodily harm.

If this guy had just walked by the car and yelled at the lady she would not be in fear, but the fact that he approached the car, harassed her for a while, and was only inches from her at the time her boyfriend pushed him away I believe it would have been reasonable for her to be in fear of imminent bodily harm at that point.  The guy just was not acting rational at all.

By the way the boyfriend just pushed him away.  He did not punch him and he did not attempt to approach him once he was on the ground.

No matter what everyone here says I think we all would have done the exact same thing. the guy was acting crazy and right in the face of his girlfriend.  Who is going to wait for him to punch her before taking action?

[*PhilHos*]

(07-26-2018, 05:10 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The legal standard is whenever a reasonable person would be in fear of imminent bodily harm.

If this guy had just walked by the car and yelled at the lady she would not be in fear, but the fact that he approached the car, harassed her for a while, and was only inches from her at the time her boyfriend pushed him away I believe it would have been reasonable for her to be in fear of imminent bodily harm at that point.  The guy just was not acting rational at all.

By the way the boyfriend just pushed him away.  He did not punch him and he did not attempt to approach him once he was on the ground.

No matter what everyone here says I think we all would have done the exact same thing. the guy was acting crazy and right in the face of his girlfriend.  Who is going to wait for him to punch her before taking action?

Not disputing anything you said, but is there a standard for when something is considered PHYSICAL.

[Beaker]

(07-26-2018, 04:06 PM)GMDino Wrote: No one on this board would EVER blame the victim! 

It is totally the shooters fault!  But....

All victims are not totally innocent blameless victims. Some are.

[fredtoast]

(07-26-2018, 05:07 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I'mma just leave this here:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/03/20/any-study-of-gun-violence-should-include-how-guns-save-lives/#6ec13afd5edc

As many of you know I have often commented on how both sides try to manipulate gun violence statistics to promote their position, and there are clearly some problems with the numbers in this story.

For example he claims that there are just as many defensive gun uses as violent crimes and that these defensive uses saved 162,000 lives.  Yet the statistics show that there are 34 times more gun murders than defensive killings.  

I don't want to ban guns.  I own a gun.  I just think we need some reasonable laws that help keep guns out of the hands of criminals without restricting the rights of law abiding citizens.