NRA and GOP Utopia: Dismantle Government and Take Law into Your Hands thru 'Stand Your Ground Laws'

[fightthegoodfightnow]

Interesting editorial column in the Washington Post today about how the dismantling of government by the GOP makes 'Stand Your Ground Laws' more about the private sector rather than government maintaining the peace and where where citizens are encouraged to take the law into their own hands if they feel threatened.

Agree or Disagree ......


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-rights-etch-a-sketch-imperative/2012/03/23/gIQAIgReaS_story.html

Key paragraphs:

"Last week the nation also focused seriously on the “Stand Your Ground” laws that the National Rifle Association has pushed through in state after state. These statutes came to wide attention because of the tragic killing of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed black teenager.

George Zimmerman, the man who pulled the trigger, was not under serious investigation until there was a national outcry because under the Florida law, a citizen has a right to use “force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”

These laws perfectly reflect the NRA’s utopia. No longer will we count on law enforcement to preserve the peace. Instead, we will build a society where all citizens are armed and encouraged to take the law into their own hands. If you feel threatened, just shoot."

[TheWraith]

1. Pretty much everything here is wrong.

Starting with the fact that not only are such laws standard in every part of the country, including places like New York, California, Massachusetts, etcetera.

Continuing through the fact that the police have no legal liability to protect your individual life, and never have, so the claim that this is dismantling said protection is silly.

And the continued linking of the very standard and fairly limited self defense laws in Florida with a case that clearly violated just about every one of them gets tiresome. It's like saying that medical marijuana laws allow for heroin smuggling. Anyone who knows shit about the subject knows it's not true, but some people believe it anyway.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

3. Is that the GOP Talking

You write 'the fact that the police have no legal liability to protect your individual life, and never have, so the claim that this is dismantling said protection is silly.'

Of course they have no legal liability......they do have a moral responsibility. What's silly is the notion that the police are not there to protect citizens. It's just ...well....silly.

And the police are not dismantling the goverment.....the GOP is with 'stand your ground laws' that transfer law enforcement from law enforcement to private citizens who are not always trained.

[sarisataka]

8. Police have no responsibility to protect individuals (reference)

Police have no legal duty to respond and prevent crime or protect the victim. There have BEEN OVER 10 various supreme and state court cases the individual has never won. Notably, the Supreme Court STATED about the responsibility of police for the security of your family and loved ones is "You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole."

"It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection."

Sources:

7/15/05 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04-278 TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT BEST FRIEND OF HER DECEASED MINOR CHILDREN, REBECCA GONZALES, KATHERYN GONZALES, AND LESLIE GONZALES
On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to individual police protection even in the presence of a restraining order. Mrs. Gonzales' husband with a track record of violence, stabbing Mrs. Gonzales to death, Mrs. Gonzales' family could not get the Supreme Court to change their unanimous decision for one's individual protection. YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN FOLKS AND GOVERNMENT BODIES ARE REFUSING TO PASS THE Safety Ordinance.

(1) Richard W. Stevens. 1999. Dial 911 and Die. Hartford, Wisconsin: Mazel Freedom Press.
(2) Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995).
(3) Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982).
(4) DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989).
(5) Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998).
(6) Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981).
"...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)

(7) "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of NY which now denies all responsibility to her."
Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958).

(8) "Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public."
Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)

New York Times, Washington DC
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone By LINDA GREENHOUSE Published: June 28, 2005
The ruling applies even for a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1976377/posts

Please take special note of (6), (7) and (8).

[fightthegoodfightnow]

10. Wrong Interpretation....again

Of course they have no legal liability......they do have a moral responsibility. What's silly is the notion that the police are not there to protect citizens. It's just ...well....silly.

[eqfan592]

12. The idea that a citizen must rely...

...entirely and only on a moral responsibility of another for their personal protection and safety is just...well...silly.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

14. Nonsense

Never said that.

[eqfan592]

28. Said? No.

Implied? Well...

[fightthegoodfightnow]

29. Never Said or Implied

.

[eqfan592]

55. Gonna have to agree to disagree on that point. ;) (nt)

[Tuesday Afternoon]

88. I took it as very much implied, too.

[sarisataka]

18. A moral responsibility...

is not legally binding. If you call 911 and nobody shows up, tough cookies.
An individual officer who sees you being victimized may feel a moral obligation and come to your aid, 99.999999% will. The department as a whole, no. You would be a statistic on a report.

You almost have it though. The police are there to potect citizens i.e. society, the collective group. There are not there to protect you the individual. By mopping up your body and attempting to find your killer, they are fulfilling their duty to society.

You get to find the answer to every religious debate.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

35. Don't Disagree

...but the notion they are not there to protect the collective good is nonsense.

.

[Atypical Liberal]

38. Moral or otherwise, they are almost never there when you need them.

I think it's ridiculous that you are arguing over the "moral" responsibility of the police to protect you.

The fact is, police are almost never present during the commission of crimes. They almost always show up after the fact to record evidence, talk to witnesses, and aid in the prosecution of justice.

If you are going to live your life under the assumption that in your hour of need the police will be there to protect you, you are almost certainly going to be disappointed.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

42. Too bad.

Not my experience.

I know the cops who walk my street and they have always worked with us and neighborhood watches to prevent crime prior.

They send community alerts, notify us of reported criminal activity and do an excellent job.

[sarisataka]

54. They do a good job,

protecting society for the most part. Most failures are due to short sighted policies. I never claimed they were not required to do any protection, just not to any one individual.

The trouble is when it reaches the individual level. I worry about the thug in my face, not the city crime rate at that point.
You have basically 3 options for yourself:

1- Hope. Not bad actually as most people will not experience a violent crime. If that fails, you can follow the advice of Deputy Mayor Quander of Washington D.C.:

“It is much better, in my opinion, to be scared, to be frightened, and even if you have to be, to be injured, but to walk away and survive. You’ll heal, and you can replace whatever was taken away.”

Assuming you live.

2- Hire a bodyguard. They are contractually obligated to protect you.

3- Take responsibility for your own safety. Yes stay out of dangerous situations, yes avoid conflict as much as possible, yes call the police. When all of that fails use you own skills and resources, if you are trained in hand to hand fighting, fight; if you have a defensive tool use it. There is no guarantee it will work or that you will even survive but you will know you did everything in your power to protect yourself and loved ones.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

59. Option 1

....has served me well ....three very specific times.....and it wasn't hope...it was being smart....resisting an attack is just not always worth it....gun or no gun.

Locked in a freezer while boss pulled gun in safe on robber standing over him. Boss didn't live. I didn't resist. I lived.

Held up at gun point on my job as a cashier in high school decades ago. I gave money. Years after I quit, another cashier at same pulled gun in same situation at same place of employment ....didn't survive.

Third time clubbed over the head in a fag bashing....hospitalized for a week....not technically a gun crime...and yes...I was very aware of my surroundings and definitely agree.....saw my attacker but did not feel threatened. Attacker in coat and tie and all.

Lucky....sure....but not stupid. And you are right about all three options. My life...my story...

[sarisataka]

64. You have my condolences...

bad luck and good wishes that you remain lucky. I think you deserve a peaceful rest of your life.

resisting an attack is just not always worth it....gun or no gun.

Also totally agree. If someone at the ATM wants my money, it is only paper- I have family and friends who would help out.
Work has insurance- heading there now. Somebody wants the register I will offer them fries

Outside of the military I have never pointed a gun at anyone and am at peace if I never have to again. I do like to have a 'last resort' should I ever be so unlucky.

Stay smart and safe

[fightthegoodfightnow]

69. Thanks very much...and the same best wishes to you.

I hope no one ever has to be put in those situations and I'm very appreciative and lucky.

I don't blame those who made a different decision including my former boss now dead 40 years ago. No one should be in that situation.

[PavePusher]

80. Circumstances vary wildly.

Your experiences are not indicative, predictive or extrapolatable to everyone else.

Sometimes resistance is neccesary, useful or just a good option to have.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

82. Never Said It Was Anyone's Experience Other Than Mine

.....and sometimes such resistance can get you killed for what is arguably nothing ...as was my experience.

[GreenStormCloud]

136. Why didn't the police protect you?

After all, you are insisting that it is their moral obligation to protect you,

[Atypical Liberal]

58. How many times have you been the victim of crime?

How many times have you been the victim of crime where the police were on hand to stop it?

I bet not many times.

I know the cops who walk my street and they have always worked with us and neighborhood watches to prevent crime prior.

They send community alerts, notify us of reported criminal activity and do an excellent job.

That's great! As they say, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

But you'll never prevent 100% of crime.

Every year there are over a million violent crimes in the United States where no police officer was there to stop it.

So it's really just a simple fact: If you are a victim of a crime, you will almost never have someone else there to save you. 1.2 million people every year can tell you that.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

60. Wrong

See post 59

[Atypical Liberal]

151. And in all three cases no police were there to protect you.

In all the cases you cited, no police were there to protect you.

In some cases, people tried to resist, and failed, while you submitted.

That's fine, you can't fault people for taking the course of action that seems best to their survival at the time of crisis.

But don't make the case that everyone should left with no choice but to submit to their attacker.

[PavePusher]

79. "To bad. Not my experience."

Your utter contempt for those not protected by the police is noted.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

81. Contempt?

Only in your mind.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

90. I stand with PavePusher on this

your condescending tone in this thread has been duly noted.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

92. Contempt for those not protected by police?

....well....since I am one of those people (read post where I disclosed I was attacked) and the police didn't protect me, your post is illogical.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

94. while you seem to have sympathy for your own plight your empathy for other's situations, I am having

a hard time seeing, however I will look again.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

97. Sympathy?

Ok...you work it through your own mind....

I have stated that I don't blame others who have made a different decision to resist by responding to violent crime by using a gun....even if they died as a result. For my part, I'm at peace with my decision.

My empathy and sympathies lie with them and their families for whom I have thought of for decades.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

99. peace on you.

peace to us all.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

101. oh dear ...

oh yeah....there you go again ....ME ME ME...it is all about YOU. got it.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

106. Seriously

...what's the problem?

Lucky for you that your posts regarding guns (if that is what they are) have nothing to do with your experience with.........guns.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

109. you know me so well...

NOT.

[rl6214]

156. And the police didn't protect you

so every one of your posts in this thread saying the police have a moral obligation to protect is illogical.

[PavePusher]

134. If that was not your message, you need to edit your post.

Urgently.

[rl6214]

155. "I know the cops who walk my street"

Walk your street? Do you live in downtown NY? Cops don't walk a beat anymore. I live in the city in El Paso, TX, just across the border from the violence capital of the world, Juarez Mexico. I can see Mexico from my back yard. We are lucky if the cops drive down our street once a month. Cops are not there when crimes are committed.

"they have always worked with us and neighborhood watches to prevent crime prior."

Are you the neighborhood watch captain?

[PavePusher]

78. Which doesn't mean shit to the person being beaten to death in an alley. n/t

[fightthegoodfightnow]

111. See post 59

Ironically, I disagree.

See post 59.

I was one of those people.

[Glassunion]

143. You were beaten to death in an alley? Wow!

I congratulate you on your recovery!

[PavePusher]

144. You owe me about a quarter cup of coffee and some windex....

[AH1Apache]

145. She turned him into Newt Gingrich?

Poor bastard.

[sarisataka]

148. Not cool

Do we get to poke fun at all victims of crime...

or just those that have an opinion different than ours?

[Glassunion]

149. False dichotomy.

"Do we get to poke fun at all victims of crime..." - Nope
"or just those that have an opinion different than ours?" - Nope

We do however get to poke fun of those who did not read a post and claimed to be the member of a group who has never ever never had even one living member in all the history of civilization.

I would absolutely have made the same statement if anyone else had claimed to have been beaten to death in an alley.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

185. Only in your head

.

[Glassunion]

200. Follow the path...

Post 78: Which doesn't mean shit to the person being beaten to death in an alley. n/t

You replied: Ironically, I disagree. See post 59. I was one of those people.

If you can't see the funny you are blind. Or you just think I'm a complete ass hole for making fun.

I had my skull broken(among other things) by a random act of violence. I learned from it and I healed. Now I joke about it. Sorry if my humor is off putting. But I will never shed another tear over what happened. I will only laugh.

[spin]

37. What is considered a good response time for the police ...

In major cities it might be measured in minutes, in rural areas possibly hours.

Yes, they do their best to protect citizens but rarely arrive in time to actually stop an attack on a citizen by a criminal who wishes to inflict serious injury or to kill. All too often they arrive after the situation is over and cordon off the area with crime scene tape and conduct an investigation and file reports.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

91. ^^^^^^^^^^^so TRUE^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Oneka]

150. Indeed.

My
Mother in law was shot while on the phone
With a 911 operator, she died of her injuries during surgery less than an hour later. My wife who was also there ended up on the phone with the 911 people,was also shot, though the police were on scene by then. In this case the police were unable
to prevent either one from being shot.

[spin]

171. I'm sorry to hear about your loss. (n/t)

[krispos42]

77. "Castle Doctrine" is in a lot of states, but not Stand Your Ground

New York gives you Castle Doctrine, for example, but not Stand Your Ground. If you shoot an intruder in your house, you're pretty clear (in theory), but not so if you're walking on the street.

Some states have a presumption of innocence for self-defense. If conditions a, b, and c are met, then the state can't criminally prosecute you.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

102. Distinction is a good one

...I think.

[krispos42]

116. The terms get tossed around a lot

From what I've read poking around the internet during the Martin/Zimmerman discussion, there used to be duty-to-retreat even in defense of your home, but that has been changed in 44 states to be "stand your ground" within the limits of your home.

However, there's a couple of catches. 1) The family of the guy you kill can still sue you in civil court. 2) Justifiable homicide is a defense that requires you to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law you were in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. You have to admit you killed him, then make the case for an exception. "Yeah, I killed him, BUT..." And if you can't prove the "BUT...", then you just admitted in court that you just killed somebody.


Some states have self-defense laws (and this might be the difference between "no duty to retreat" and "castle doctrine"; I'm not entirely sure) that render you immune from civil lawsuits filed by the relatives of the person you killed. Also, some states have a sort of checklist about the self-defense shooting, and if the defender meets the checklist, then the prosecution can't file criminal charges either.

If you live there, and the intruder forced his way into your home, and maybe a couple of more conditions are met... then the presumption is that it was justified self-defense and the prosecutor's hands are tied.


Stand-Your-Ground laws take this concept from the home and extend this to any place you can lawfully be, such as a sidewalk or parking lot or city park or shopping mall.


I THINK I have this straight now.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

121. Thanks for input and clarification.

.

[krispos42]

130. Don't take it for gospel

More of a guide.


Here's the text of the Florida law if you're interested.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html

[spin]

173. A problem can arise when there are only two people in a self defense incident ...

and one ends up dead.

If the shooter was in his own home and the other individual had no obvious connection to the shooter, it's fairly easy to rule legitimate self defense under castle doctrine or stand your ground.

However, if the incident occurred on the street and there were no witnesses it's hard to determine exactly what happened. In such cases it would be reasonable for the police to carefully look at the backgrounds of the two individuals. If the dead individual had a long rap sheet that included violence and the shooter had a concealed carry license and a clean record, once again it would be reasonable for the police to assume legitimate self defense.

Of course both individuals could have a clean record. This could pose a real conundrum. We have a presumption of innocence under our legal system and if there is no evidence or reason to suspect that the shooter is lying, he might well get away with murder as dead people can't testify. But the shooter might just be telling the truth. Perhaps he should be arrested and prosecuted in such cases but with no evidence, it would be hard for a jury to convict him. Is it worth the time and expense? Juries are often fickle and if they find the shooter guilty, he will appeal the decision causing even more expense both to the state and the shooter. It could prove to be a real mess and possibly an innocent man might end up behind bars.

In my opinion, especially after reading about the incident in Sanford Florida, I feel that any investigation of a self defense shooting should be require a review by a high authority than the local police. Perhaps the States Attorney's Office could perform this function.

[ObamaFTW2012]

172. Stop!

You're making sense! Before you know it, the OP won't have any sort of argument, and it will be all YOUR fault, you insensitive bastard!

[tularetom]

2. Disagree mostly

It has been established in many court cases that the police have no obligation to protect you. And it has been a fact in many cash strapped or sparsely populated areas that police patrols are effectively non existent.

A lot of us currently cannot count on law enforcement to preserve the peace. That doesn't mean we want to go out and stalk an unarmed kid. The law isn't to blame for the actions of Zimmerman, nor is it to be blamed for the sloppy and unprofessional handling of the case by the Sanford police.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

5. Right

....blame the cops but they have no responsibility according to you.

[GreenStormCloud]

7. According to numerous court cases they don't have a responsibility to protect you.

There are simply too few police to protect everybody, all the time. When the cops aren't around, you are on your own.

Self-defense is not "talking the law into your own hands". The law recognizes your right to defend yourself if you have to.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

9. Wrong Interpretation

Of course they have no legal liability......they do have a moral responsibility. What's silly is the notion that the police are not there to protect citizens. It's just ...well....silly.

There is a significant difference.

[eqfan592]

13. Repeating the same crap over and over...

...doesn't make it any less crap.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

16. Crap?

Well, at least I 'm respectful of others enough not to say they write crap......disagree or not. Just not necessary.

[eqfan592]

30. Your false outrage is noted.

And you've called other's ideas, several times in this very thread, "silly." And you did so in a very condescending manner. So honestly, I'm showing you as much respect for your ideas as you've shown for others here.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

32. Whatever

If you can't discern between 'silly' and 'crap', I doubt the conversation is worth the effort.

[eqfan592]

57. If you honestly think there IS a huge distinction between the two...

...then yes, I agree, the conversation is not worth the effort.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

62. Vulgarity diminishes you..not me.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

96. oh lord

[fightthegoodfightnow]

100. Responding to a post not directed at you.....

But heh.......civility is just so rare these days...

[Tuesday Afternoon]

103. laughing, darling, laughing on a PUBLIC message board. you understand that much, right?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

107. I'm Not your Darling

Anything about GUNS?

Or shall we spend a half an hour trading insults.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

110. the Second Ammendment is one of the Cornerstones of Our Constitution.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

112. Well... look at that

...a gun post.

I agree but I also suspect we disagree on interpretation.

At least this is progress.......a post about guns.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

115. well. look at that --- your usual condescending attitude

back to ---lack of progress noted and further regression on your part. way to go, darling.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

117. I hold no personal malice toward you

Too bad you don't want to talk about guns.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

119. too bad your OP is flamebait and belongs over at FR.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

123. Guns

I see you decided to go the route of personal attacks rather than talk about the issues.

Good luck with that.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

128. E.J. Dionne Jr. can kiss my ass.

"....and that most certainly includes the legions of timid Democrats who have been cowed by the NRA."


fuck him and his article.

[rl6214]

157. "anything about guns"?

Seriously? Most of your posts in this thread have nothing to do with guns, they are just...well...silly crap

[GreenStormCloud]

22. Since when is morality a function of the law?

In this very thread we have different views on what is and is not moral, yet you expect the police to abide by your moral code and not by mine. The law is what counts. The job of the cops is to protect the general public by catching those who have committed crimes. Individuasl are protected only to the extent that they are part of the general public.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

24. Right...

...because rape and murder have no moral foundation in the law......

[GreenStormCloud]

27. Try going into court and arguing morality instead of law. N/T

[fightthegoodfightnow]

31. It's Done Every Day

Hear closing arguments at virtually any capitol criminal case.

[GreenStormCloud]

39. And LAW is always the trump.

There are dozens of court decisions that absolve the police of any duty to protect you, unless you have been taken into custody. Would you like me to list some of the legal references?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

40. Go Back and Read the Entire Thread

I'm aware of the court rulings.

Doesn't diminish what I wrote.

Google 'to protect and serve' images. See how many many police departments are doing what you say they don't do.

[GreenStormCloud]

44. Nice motto. But they still don't have a duty to protect YOU.

Nor can they protect you. They is why they don't have a legal duty to protect you. The law would be requiring them to do the impossible if it required them to protect every citizen all the time. I carry a gun for when cops aren't around.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

46. Never Said What You Seem to Attribute to Me

.

[X_Digger]

48. If it's painted on their car door, it *must* be true.. lol. n/t

[fightthegoodfightnow]

50. So It's NOT a part of their job?

Which is it?

[X_Digger]

53. Please take your fingers out of my mouth..

Please quote me saying it's not part of their job.

*taps foot*

That's right, you can't.

But you offer a decal on a car as proof?!?!

LOL!!!

[fightthegoodfightnow]

114. Childish response

Let me know when you want to talk about guns and police protection.

[X_Digger]

127. You think decals on a car are proof of.. something? And I'm childish?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

179. Right

....because the police always lie about what they do in the world of la la land.

[X_Digger]

187. Did you ever ask a cop what their main responsibility is? n/t

[fightthegoodfightnow]

189. Got It

NOTICE HOW GUN AVOCATES FOLLOW GOP MANTRA THAT ONLY THEY CAN DO WHAT THE GOVT CAN'T OR SHOULDN'T DO.....protect and serve.

[X_Digger]

194. Kindly keep your fingers out of my mouth, please.

Please quote me saying anything comparable to your rant.

I'll wait.

[rl6214]

161. "Let me know when you want to talk about guns and police protection."

Your rational was beaten down so it's back to your BS line

[rl6214]

160. Google 'duty to protect and serve Supreme Court ruling'

See if there really is a duty to protect and serve.

Anything about guns?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

180. Yawn

Go ahead and delude yourself into thinking that police are there to do anything other than protect and serve.

Gun advocates follow the GOP MANTRA that only they can do what the government can't: protect and serve.

[rl6214]

199. Yawn, exactly, you've got nothing.

Ask my friend the cop here in El Paso, TX, right across the border from the most violent city in the world, Juarez, Mexico. He works the gang task force and he says he has no duty to protect and serve. Ask my friend the detective here in El Paso, he will tell you his job is to investigate the crime AFTER it has been committed and to find and bring to justice the criminal. Ask my brother in law, sheriffs deputy in El Paso who is in charge of investigating violent crimes in El paso county. That includes murders, rapes, other sexual assaults, attacks, hate crimes and the like. He will tell you he investigates crimes AFTER the fact, not to stop them from happening.

He delude yourself into thinking the cops will be there to protect you when you need it.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

201. Right

Government can't possibly be as effective in serving and protecting the public good as well as a NRA member and registered Republican standing his ground.....doing for the private sector what only the private sector can do.

As for your brother in law, I have no doubt he investigates when folks are murder.

I also know a core value is to PRESERVE life...

http://www.elpasotexas.gov/police/mission.asp

[rl6214]

159. Anything about guns?

[rl6214]

158. Anything about guns?

[PavePusher]

85. So, by virtue of their failure to protect, the police are immoral and failed their responsibilities.

That's the logical conclusion of your hypothesis.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

86. Only in Your Mind

.

[X_Digger]

19. Their main responsibility is to investigate crime *after the fact*.

Therefore there's no contradiction in the statements.

There just aren't enough of them to actually protect you when you need them. (Nevermind the legal liability which you admit doesn't exist.)

[fightthegoodfightnow]

23. Really

....have you told the DC police who.....Investigating groups prior to lawful public demonstrations?

....how about the NY police department (motto 'protect and serve') who have one of the largest anti-terrorism divisions in the country investigating people and groups suspected of terrorism before a crime is committed?

...and what about the hundreds (perhaps thousand) of cameras in my city monitoring citizens prior to a crime being committed?

[X_Digger]

36. *snort*

Yeah, you don't want to be holding up NYPD as a bastion of good anything:

http://www.villagevoice.com/2012-03-07/news/the-nypd-tapes-confirmed/

http://www.nyclu.org/stopandfrisk

[div class='excerpt']...and what about the hundreds (perhaps thousand) of cameras in my city monitoring citizens prior to a crime being committed?

Even with all those cameras, DC is *still* in the top 10 cities for murder and violent crime, with a murder rate of 21.9 per 100,000, compared to a national average of 4.8 per 100,000.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl08.xls

Not doing a very good job, are they?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

41. Nice Try

Your point was they investigate AFTER a crime.

My point is there is much they do preventative BEFORE a crime being committed to protect and serve.

Notice how you didn't address the point.

[X_Digger]

43. Reading comprehension problem?

[div class='excerpt']Their main responsibility is to investigate crime *after the fact*.

Ask a cop, any cop, what their main responsibility is.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

45. Oh...

....so they DO protect and serve PRIOR to a crime.....got it.

[X_Digger]

47. So did you ask? Well? Do tell..

Nice straw man, there. Where did I say that they did NOT work before a crime?

Do I need to make the font size bigger?

[div class='excerpt'][font size = +1]Their main responsibility is to investigate crime *after the fact*.[/font]

[fightthegoodfightnow]

49. Mistook your post for another poster perhaps

Apologies.....and leave you to contradict and challenge the other posters who disagree with you.

Not holding my breathe.

[X_Digger]

52. Did you ask a cop what their main duty is? No?

Hint: the answer will be some variation of 'catch bad guys'.

Traffic cops? Catch people who've broken the law.

Vice? Catch people who've broken the law.

Homicide? Catch people who've broken the law.

Narcotics? Catch people who've broken the law.

....


Yeah, feel free to back away from this one, you stuck your foot in it.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

108. Brer Rabbit continues with other foot --

well, you know the rest of the story, right.

[rl6214]

163. I thought you said the monitor before a crime is committed

Yup, here it is:

"and what about the hundreds (perhaps thousand) of cameras in my city monitoring citizens prior to a crime being committed? "

So they monitor before a crime is committed, watch the crime being committed then come in and investigate after the crime is committed.

Where does the protect part come in there?

[X_Digger]

170. It's that whole Tom Cruise thang..

[fightthegoodfightnow]

176. Exactly

So tell me what exactly are they looking at?

Who do you suspect they call when they see a crime committed?
Could it be their fellow employees?

It's not to 'investigate' but to catch!

[rl6214]

195. You just keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better

The fact is the criminal committing the crime is caught AFTER the crime, not during the crime to stop it.

"It's not to 'investigate' but to catch!"

What do you do after you investigate? You attempt to catch.

[PavePusher]

87. And that has eliminated murder (or any crime)....

in those cities, yes?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

89. Not to the Point

X argued that police are not proactively trying to prevent crime before it happens. Point is sometimes they are.

I didn't argue effectiveness. I merely disputed the notion that they are not engaged in such activities....that is to PREVENT crime prior to it happening.

[rl6214]

162. "monitoring citizens prior to a crime being committed? "

That's right, monitorying, not protecting.

You make this so easy.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

178. Oh good grief

....I'm sure no one is being protected......NOT.

[sarisataka]

21. The police had no duty...

To protect Martin, or Zimmerman for that matter,

They are failing in their duty to protect society by claiming they have to accept the word of a shooter that it was self defense and not properly investigating to ascertain the truth of Zimmerman's version of events.

The law specifically allows that.

[PavePusher]

83. No, not blaming. Stop with the twisting.

Simply a recognition of reality. Police, being merely human, and not numerous enough to ensure protection of everyone at all times, are unable to bend the laws of physics.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

84. Nor is Everyone With a Lawful Gun Safe

.....as has been MY experience.

[PavePusher]

131. Dodge.

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/artfuldodger.htm

[rrneck]

4. Did the cops learn to

jump through the fabric of time when I wasn't looking?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

104. Minority Report or very like it.

[rrneck]

120. Cool!

Maybe before long those cool Department of Future crime graphics technology will filter down to the private sector. I can't wait for the phone upgrades!

[Tuesday Afternoon]

129. There will be an app for that, I'm sure

[GreenStormCloud]

6. Self-defense is not based on mere feelings.

The "reasonable man" standard is used. The facts must be such as would lead a reasonable man to believe that he is in immenint and grave danger of losing his life or suffering serious bodily harm.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

11. Reasonable Man.....

....with no witnesses.

Nice

[eqfan592]

15. Thank you for underscoring...

...who the real holders of paranoia are in this debate.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

17. Paranoia?

Got any foundation?

Are you suggesting gun advocates are paranoid about the government taking their guns?

[eqfan592]

33. I'm talking about your reaction to the idea of a "reasonable man."

And the foundation is your post.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

34. Paranoid about what?

.

[GreenStormCloud]

25. But a lot of forensic evidence. N/T

[beevul]

135. Unless you're suggesting that the "reasonable man" standard shouldn't be applied w/o a witness...

Unless you're suggesting that the "reasonable man" standard shouldn't be applied w/o a witness, I'm not sure what your point is.

Are you suggesting that?

[jeepnstein]

139. Being down on your back...

and getting your face pounded in is a pretty good indicator you are about to suffer grave bodily image. Bare hands are a deadly weapon when they're applied to someone's skull. Happens all the time. A good street fighter can throw a punch that you have to experience to really appreciate.

One punch? The kid would have got away with that. But when he jumped on the victim for a beating after he was down, well, that is a whole different situation. When you're down on your back and know you're about to be rendered unconscious, then things take on a different light.

[ileus]

20. Yeah they've had pretty good luck dismantling government.

If they do as good with passing gun laws the 2A is gone in another few years...

[fightthegoodfightnow]

26. On the Contrary

...the article suggests just the opposite.

[Hoyt]

51. There's a lot of truth in that. It's going to be ugly if we have a national disaster with all the

armed yahoos that believe you shoot who you gotta shoot before they shoot you.

[ellisonz]

56. Blood is running in the street...

...it's just coming from the wrong skin color.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

65. Do hate the cops so much

Do you not share the same values?

Are you and your gun advocates really that much more effective?

[Clames]

70. I have a lot of friends who are LEO's.

Didn't anyone ever tell you about making assumptions? Apparently not. Also, my military training greatly exceeds anything an average cop receives so in my case I would be far more effective protecting myself.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

73. Same Holds true for You

.

[Hoyt]

74. I would hope you wouldn't approach an unlikely situation with a military type barrage of bullets.

[ellisonz]

75. Search and destroy. n/t

[fightthegoodfightnow]

76. Hope You Just Don't Support them by Just giving them Chalk

There are lots of ways to support the police.

Start with not blaming them or the victims.

[PavePusher]

132. He wasn't blaming anyone.

You are dodging. Again.

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/artfuldodger.htm

[Hoyt]

68. Now there is an ad appealing to the fears of the gun culture. What a load.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

98. why is this NOT any more disruptive than the other?

wonder who Alerted.......

[fightthegoodfightnow]

61. Katrina comes to mind......

.

[Hoyt]

66. Exactly. Makes me think those fleeing NOrleans to Gretna might have been worse off if they made it.

[Clames]

67. Something you have no experience with...

...I'm sure. Though local law enforcement did illegally seize firearms from civilians. At least until they were sued into returning them then slapped with judgement that makes such actions impossible in the future.

[Hoyt]

71. Smart move I'd say in that case.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

93. ah, yes...Illegal actions are smart moves.

black is white and day is night.

[X_Digger]

95. Every time I think you've dropped as low as a person can..

.. you lower the bar again.

Any other property that the government should seize without just compensation?

I should start a tally.. you've shown utter disregard for the first, second, fourth, fifth, ninth, and fourteenth amendments (off the top of my head.)

[Hoyt]

105. I think someone needs to be in charge in a disaster.

But not the goofs who armed up.

[X_Digger]

125. Keep adding to the tally, Hoyt.

I thought of a few more concepts you seem to miss on a regular basis..

'due process'
'judicial review'
'probable cause'
'presumption of innocence'

[fightthegoodfightnow]

202. RIGHT BECAUSE STAND YOUR GROUND LAWS ARE ALL ABOUT THOSE THINGS

RIGHT BECAUSE STAND YOUR GROUND LAWS ARE ALL ABOUT THOSE THINGS


RIGHT BECAUSE STAND YOUR GROUND LAWS ARE ALL ABOUT THOSE THINGS


RIGHT BECAUSE STAND YOUR GROUND LAWS ARE ALL ABOUT THOSE THINGS

[X_Digger]

205. *ahem* -- would you like to join the conversation?

We have these things called threaded discussions. If you see a post that you would like to make a point about, please click 'reply to this post' and enter your comments relevant to that post in the box in the center.

Then feel free to hit 'Post my reply'.

Mindless regurgitation of copy/paste, however? Doesn't actually add to the conversation.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

206. Comical...really comical

You state ' Ithought of a few more concepts you seem to miss on a regular basis..

'due process'
'judicial review'
'probable cause'
'presumption of innocence'

SERIOUSLY 'STAND YOUR GROUND' LAWS ARE ABOUT ANYTHING BUT!!!!!!!

[X_Digger]

207. The conversation had diverged into Post-Katrina NOLA, and Hoyt's acceptance..

.. of confiscation without just compensation (or due process, or probable cause.)

But you feel free to jump in when you have something germane to say.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

208. Right ....the conversation diverged

....from the original post.

(you should know who started the thread.)

[X_Digger]

209. So.. anything topical to this subthread?

Feel free to jump right in...

[fightthegoodfightnow]

212. Anything Relevant to the Original Post

Feel free to jump right in.

[X_Digger]

213. Perhaps you don't understand the concept of a threaded discussion?

Imagine a large room with many people talking at once. Some conversations are directly related to the main topic, some branch off.

Feel free to self-delete the OP if you don't like where the conversation is going.

[PavePusher]

133. The people who were supposed to be in charge.....

ran away, because they were cowardly fuck-wad shits.

You'll note that was much of the city government and far too many emergency personnel.

Far to many of those who stayed, lost control of themselves and made the situation worse.

Some stayed on post and tried, deperately, to maintain some coherence in the midst of chaos.

In the case of Katrina, the "goofs who armed up" were cops who wore uniforms and became Gestapo in a time of disaster.

You are not doing your cause any good with this argument.

[Hoyt]

138. Better than a bunch of right wing "militia" types.

[AH1Apache]

142. Your so called RW militia types

didn't shoot and kill unarmed civilians at the Danzinger Bridge that day, it was the cops, you know, the ones that are supposed to keep law and order.

[Hoyt]

146. At the mayor and other Gretna officials' orders.

A lot more folks would have been killed if the citizenry were armed up. At least the police were convicted, but the fuckers who ordered the bridge blocking weren't. In any event, I don't think a bunch of armed citizens would have helped.

[AH1Apache]

147. You have absolutely no fucking proof

Last edited Tue Mar 27, 2012, 10:57 PM - Edit history (1)

that alot more people would have been killed if the citizenry were armed.
And the mayor and other Gretna officials, whoever the hell they are, did not order the cops to kill those unarmed citizens.

[Hoyt]

152. Yes I do. If those people escaping NOrleans had gone into the racist town of Gretna, they would

have been shot by the racists in town. I know that for a fact. The first time one of those poor souls who were trying to escape put their foot in some half-educated, racist yahoo's yard, shots would have rung out.

[rl6214]

166. You have hit rock bottom and started digging.

Just when I think you can't get much lower.

[Hoyt]

168. "Low" is calling for citizens to arm up and shoot each other.

[rl6214]

174. And of course you can show us where ANYONE said that, right?

we'll all wait.

[AH1Apache]

169. Uh huh, suuuuuuuuuuuure Hoyt

Like I'm going to believe a fucking thing you say after all your ridiculous statements you've made, like lawful gun owners should be detained by citizens to be checked out by police for their CHL, or how you have been confronted by racist gun owners not once, but several times and bested them, methinks you tell to many "stories" to be believeable at this point.
But I still get a good laugh when I read most of your posts because I know that you and people like you are the best thing that has happened to the RKBA movement.

[rl6214]

165. "146. At the mayor and other Gretna officials' orders."

So it's ok to murder someone as long as the officials say it's oK?

Didn't Hitler say it was OK to murder Jews during WW2? I guess that was A OK?

[Hoyt]

167. Don't be stupid. I'm saying the racist town leaders are MOST responsible.

But, you and a bunch of guys with guns would have just made things a whole lot worse. And, if there were a bunch of right wingers with guns, we all know who they would have shot.

Does that clear things up for you?

In any event, they should have sent Gen Honore in much earlier.

[rl6214]

175. Don't be backing up now and changing what you said...this is what was said:

AH1Apache (59 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

142. Your so called RW militia types

didn't shoot and kill unarmed civilians at the Danzinger Bridge that day, it was the cops, you know, the ones that are supposed to keep law and order.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And this is what you replied:

Response to AH1Apache (Reply #142)
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 10:14 AM
Hoyt (5,764 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail IgnoreSo

146. At the mayor and other Gretna officials' orders.

So you said it was A OK to shoot unarmed civilians at the danzinger bridges if it was "At the mayor and other Gretna officials' orders"

So Stalin ordered dissidents to be killed, Hitler ordered jews, gypsies and other unwanted people to be killed, Saddam Husseun ordered tribes that weren't his to be killed so I guess those are all OK since the leaders ordered them to do it.

So don't YOU be stupid, if you are going to say something, stick with it, don't backpedal from what you are saying just because you are caught saying something stupid.

[Hoyt]

177. Are you denying the backward people in Gretna would have shot fleeing people?

I didn't say anything was OK. Nor, do I think a bunch of gun nuts would have helped anything -- especially the typical Tbag gun nut who believes the people trapped in NOrleans were responsible for their situation and were all criminals.

[AH1Apache]

182. Geeeeeeeeeez Hoyt

you just keep digging that hole deeper and deeper. I call BULLSHIT that the people in Gretna would have shot fleeing people and if you have any self respect for yourself you'll apologize to the people of Gretna.
Who here EVER said that the people trapped in NO were responsible for their situation and were all criminals? Show us just one post saying that.
You don't know shit about gun owners so knock off the gun nut bullshit.

[Hoyt]

188. Nope, leaders told the police to keep them from crossing the bridge though they were dehydrated and

starving. I know the majority of gun owners are right wingers. And to keep the few liberal ones here carrying guns in public (and more than a few making money off guns), we have to allow despicable people to do the same.

[AH1Apache]

190. I call bullshit

If that were true there would have been a HUGE outcry and I followed the disaster in NO very closely so unless you have links to quotes by the city leaders, all you have is nothing.
Show me the stats that show very few liberals carry guns, every one of my friends, who are as liberal as they get, carry guns, so again, I call bullshit.

[AH1Apache]

191. BTW

Were you at that meeting where the city leaders told the cops to keep them from crossing the bridge and if they tried to, to shoot them? If you weren't there, how the hell do you know?

[Hoyt]

192. I know right wingers all over this country were enjoying watching people dying in NO. And I know

about Gretna. But, no one is ever going to convince you that there are racist there and that bigots are big gun supporters, as most racists are. So enjoy your guns tonight.

[AH1Apache]

193. So you have no proof

Last edited Tue Mar 27, 2012, 11:08 PM - Edit history (1)

just your usual unsubstantiated comments. Got it.

[rl6214]

198. That's all he's got, just his normal BS shitck

He is good for a laugh but it does get old.

[rl6214]

197. Two of your bigotted shtick comments in one post, you should have tried for the trifecta

"I know the majority of gun owners are right wingers. And to keep the few liberal ones here carrying guns in public (and more than a few making money off guns), "

[rl6214]

196. You are making an ASSumption about something you know nothing about

That paintbrush you have must be hard to carry it's so big.

The "backward people in Gretna"...what a bigotted comment.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

204. Sure......

.....because BOTH sides had guns

[rl6214]

164. Ah yes, organizing a protest via the internet

Police better come in a confiscate your computer, or are you going to just give it up?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

113. You mean like imminent domaine?

.

[X_Digger]

122. "without just compensation" -- ring a bell? You'll notice those words in post #95. n/t

[fightthegoodfightnow]

124. Sure

..in DC we pay you to turn in guns too.

[X_Digger]

126. Eminent domain has nothing to do with buy-backs.

Which is kind of a misnomer, because they weren't yours to begin with, so you can't buy them 'back'.

[AH1Apache]

141. Yeah

just like the smart move of the cops on the Danzinger Bridge, huh

[fightthegoodfightnow]

72. ..and some gun owners illegally took life and property.

PS.....I had several friends who lost homes and my employer's property was looted. Don't tell me what you don't know.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

118. who gives a shit about the GOP? I damn well don't.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

137. How in the world can SYG be conflated to mean pursuing a person?

Last edited Tue Mar 27, 2012, 04:23 PM - Edit history (1)

Isn't this what the correct question should be in the Martin/Zimmerman case?

Isn't this how we should frame the discussion?

[rrneck]

154. Bingo. +a whole bunch. nt

[fightthegoodfightnow]

184. Who was pursuing who?

.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

186. does it even matter?

SYG has nothing to do with pursuing anyone.

[oneshooter]

140. So tell me what would be your"utopia", and how would you go about forming it?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

183. Be more worried about what a gun can do than what I say

.

[oneshooter]

210. Nice dodge. I really could care less about what you say.

I asked a civil question and you reply with that rude backward stinking pile of crap.

We all know now who believes in a "civil discourse" about firearms law.

And it damn sure ain't you.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[fightthegoodfightnow]

211. No dodge

Utopia is not my reality or yours. If you want to talk about your utopia go to another board unless guns are a part of it.

My statement was not intended to be rude or a 'pile of crap' (which I think is far more rude than anything I said.)

[rl6214]

153. Talk about conspiracy theories

[fightthegoodfightnow]

181. NOTICE HOW GUN AVOCATES FOLLOW GOP MANTRA THAT ONLY THEY CAN DO WHAT THE GOVT CAN'T OR SHOULDN'T

do......protect and serve.

[gejohnston]

203. no I don't notice that

they do maintain order serve all of the people better than they did in the old days. That said:
I like my socialized medicine (and it is socialized, not single payer)
I like USPS. I think it should be reorganized back to pre Nixon days. While we are at it, we should repeal the 1927 Miller Act, which does nothing for public safety but is a little corporate welfare for UPS. Besides, it was passed by a Republican congress and signed by Warren Harding. That alone should warrant repeal.
I like the Air Force. Yeah, I liked the Army for a couple of years. The other branches too.
I like NASA
I like DCM
DARPA coming up with the internet is pretty cool.
I like the enforcement agencies (even ATF) when they do their jobs correctly. (Can we agree that ATF does a better job than the IRS did?)
I like how FWS protects my gun club from developers (Florida has too many McMansions as it is and golf courses as it is).
I like the National Park Service

Florida state government on the other hand, but some of that is Rick Scott's fault.

[Glassunion]

214. I disagree

[fightthegoodfightnow]

217. Ok

Tell me why.

[Glassunion]

226. I don't follow that mantra.

[PavePusher]

215. Perhaps you could be more specific.

Or not...

[fightthegoodfightnow]

222. Ok

Many gun advocates believe the sole responsibility to protect and defend oneself should rest with the individual, which is in concert with GOP ideology when it comes to the role of government.

While the courts have ruled the state is not liable for public safety (unless with their consent in rare situations of gross negligence), stand your ground laws shift the primary responsibility from the state to the individual in concert with GOP strategy to change the role of government and gun manufacturers goals to sell more guns (capitalism at any expense with little regard for social responsibility). While the individual is arguably the person most responsible for protecting personal property on private property....stand your ground laws shift that same responsibility in the public sphere. In addition, they jeopardize fundamental civil rights including impeding due process, the principle of a trial by your peers, innocent until proven guilty and a host of other issues (impaired judgment of shooter, inconsistent training, etc).

Rebuttal away while being respectful of those you disagree with.

[PavePusher]

229. "sole responsibility"? Cite, please.

Primary responsibility, obviously. Unless there will be a police officer at my side 24/365? And you are willing to help pay for that, yes?

"stand your ground laws shift the primary responsibility from the state to the individual". There is no "shift", the primary responsibility is always with the individual. Unless you can explain how someone else can be held "primarily responsible" from the other side of town... by a court which says they aren't.

If a criminal attacks me, due process has already been violated. Self-defense is not a violation of due process, it is a natural, obvious action, and entirely supported by specific legal constructions.

Rebuttal, complete.

[Atypical Liberal]

220. We don't say ONLY we can do it, just that the GOVT should not be the ONLY one that can do it.

NOTICE HOW GUN AVOCATES FOLLOW GOP MANTRA THAT ONLY THEY CAN DO WHAT THE GOVT CAN'T OR SHOULDN'T do......protect and serve.

For my part, I have no problem with agents of the state having the power to protect and serve.

But I also realize that they are almost never present when a crime is taking place.

Thus the people deserve to also have the means and right to protect themselves.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

223. Ok

I don't disagree, but stand your ground laws unnecessrily shift the law to circumvent basic civil rights including not being guilty without a trial, being able to defend oneself against accuser, consistent professional training not impaired by drugs or alcohol, and a host of other things that enhance our criminal justice system of fair play.

[Atypical Liberal]

228. There is only one problem with stand your ground.

At face value, stand your ground is a great idea. It says that people who are victims of violent crime, or who reasonably believe they are about to be victims of violent crime, don't have to run away from their attackers.

The only problem with stand your ground arises when you have two people who both can reasonably believe they are about to be attacked by each other.

This seems to be what happened with the Zimmerman/Martin case.

This is a tragic scenario, but probably very rare.

[PavePusher]

230. Your claims seem quite hollow.

Self-defense has never been considered by the courts to circumvent anything. And "consistent professional training" has never been a prerequisite to self-defense, or a bar to it.

[gejohnston]

232. you have it backwards

in SYG, the state has the burden to prove it was murder and not self defense. In duty to retreat, the burden of proof is on the individual to prove it was self defense and not murder.

[CreekDog]

216. i was thinking it's just a way to encourage people to buy guns

not merely have the right to a gun, but to get people to buy more of them.

this is more lobbying on behalf of gun manufacturers than owners.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

218. Perhaps

....maybe....but it doesn't explain why so many gun advocates on this board think that way.

[CreekDog]

219. because many of them don't think like you and I do

i don't mean just on guns.

i mean on race, government, civil rights, etc.

not all, but many.

you follow me?

[gejohnston]

221. are you accusing fellow

DUers of being closet reactionaries, racists, authoritarians etc.?

[CreekDog]

224. no, i didn't say that

[fightthegoodfightnow]

225. GeJohnson

....will attribute and infer much you didn't say to you by using questions with little foundation.

[gejohnston]

227. by reading between the lines

it really sounded like it. To be perfectly honest.

[PavePusher]

231. No, we just have impure thoughts.

"They don't think like you and me". The insinuation is obvious.

[CreekDog]

233. not if you're a progressive on a broad range of issues

but some here post complaints about Democrats from the right in this forum, and are rarely seen in DU's other forums except to post from the right on issues of civil rights, race, and against Democrats and Obama. some posters will turn any post in GD and other forums into a post about guns and gun advocacy.

not all, but some.

[gejohnston]

234. Why didn't you say so,

My bad, for accusing you of having a broad brush. Personally, I prefer good old fashioned liberal if someone has to use a label.

[CreekDog]

235. i never singled out people, i singled out a pattern

that some posters seem to fit.

and i have never even seen you post before, so i wasn't talking about you. again, i was talking about a pattern among some posters, not all participants in the group.

the thing is, to me, is that in some cases, when I see no hint of progressivism, when I see posts that seem to follow the right wing zeitgeist on any issue, following on almost as soon as it is disseminated via right wing blogs...

i can't help but wonder if some posters are more at home in that milieu. i have also wondered, if in some cases, the NRA with its vast wealth is supporting some disruption at DU, aimed at subtly putting right wing messages into threads of liberals on a myriad of issues.

but the simple fact is, i can only wonder, because for the most part, i just don't know and can't prove anything about anybody.

[gejohnston]

236. Cool I will say

there are some conservative Dems. Especially the union guys who went to Ronnie because they were too young to know life before FDR. Assholes like Bush Jr. and Walker changed that. As the Republicans become more reactionary, they come back.
Some of the folks are old school rural pro union Dems from a different generation. Hang around here long enough, you can tell difference. The right wingers I came across so far are really obvious. I'm old enough to remember JFK's NRA, before Wayne and Ted, when you could have an NRA and Sierra Club sticker and no one would find it ironic.