Quote:
|
Originally Posted by maddog
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by John Carter
As it also says in the article linked, this is the way it already is in most parts of the US.
|
And therefore wholly unnecessary. Except to give the impression, as lunachick says, that "you can kill anyone now - just say that you felt threatened or whatever and w[ere] simply doing what you had to do." That it was the brain-child of the NRA should tell you something. To the extent it's at all different from existing law, it makes life MORE dangerous, not safer. The common law concerning self-defence is that, IF you can retreat safely, you should do so. You are allowed to stand your ground IF you cannot safely disengage. You are not allowed to escalate force. You cannot meet non-deadly force with deadly force. Courts and juries already handle these questions all the time, day in and day out. This statute is completely unnecessary; it is simply political pandering which will be taken as a license by gun-nuts.
#402 |
Hey maddog, could you give me your definition of "gun nut" please?
Here's how I see it: If someone were to approach me in a threatening manner, and I was alone, I'd do what I had to to get away. Every situation would be different: Am I being approached by a person with a gun, a knife, a club, their fists, and I would react differently to each.
I do NOT think that this law makes "life MORE dangerous." Think about it...your common street thug has to think twice about who to approach and harass because he has no idea who is carrying a weapon or how they will react.
I don't think your argument for how courts and juries handle things is satisfactory. Courts and juries have been doing a miserable job keeping violent offenders where they belong. If more responsible people carried weapons, there would be less violent crime. Give the common thug something to think about. Is this seemingly "good" potential victim packing? The fact that it's a possibility should give them pause.