I Object To The NRA Giving Criminals A License To Murder! (petition)

[babsbunny]

http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/FSA/signUp.jsp?key=2175&t=License%20to%20Murder%20Standard.dwt

“I object to the NRA giving criminals a License to Murder.”
Like burglers in the night, the NRA is sneaking into legislatures across the nation and passing laws that allow the gun guys to shoot anyone that they feel is threatening them-- and to be guaranteed immunity from civil penalties even if they shoot an innocent bystander.

We call it a "License to Murder."

Why?.......................

[ProudDad]

1. Cause it is?

:shrug:

Thanks for the tip. I signed the poll.

[Mojorabbit]

2. I personally like

legal protection for defending myself in my own home. Shrug.

[Common Sense Party]

3. Me, too (though I don't have a gun yet)

I personally like the 2nd Amendment--it's not just for Republicans any more!

[IA_Seth]

13. Lol..

I agree. I try to stay out of the 'gungeon' for the most part, but I am a gun-owning liberal and there are plenty more like me.

[jody]

4. This is utter BS. SCOTUS has said government is not obligated to protect an individual unless she/he

is in custody.

Self-defense is a personal problem and a natural, inherent, inalienable right as Pennsylvania said in "A DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OR STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA", 28 Sept. 1776.

Handguns are the most effective, efficient tool for self-defense and no law-abiding citizen should have to cower in fear before a criminal.

If you choose to surrender to a criminal, do so but don't try to impose your position on others.

The 2004 Democratic Party Platform says, ""We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do."

See http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf

[ProudDad]

6. I'd put money on my local criminals

vs. you in a gunfight...

but...

Imagine a society that doesn't need or WANT guns.

I can and am willing to remain unarmed to do my part.

I used to have guns. I know how to use them -- rather well, in fact.

I even had a chance to "use one" during a home invasion incident many years ago. I chose to allow the people to take a few things rather pull a piece and wound or kill any of them. I got rid of the god damn guns and haven't regretted it since. I also found that without the attitude, I haven't needed one either.

I have no problem with rural folk having long guns for hunting and such. I have minimal problems with folks having short guns LOCKED UP at a shooting club if that gets you off.

I have maximal problems with so many fucking guns polluting our public and private space...especially the insane concealed carry laws that the NRA loves to push. I also have maximal problems with the total liability release laws that the OP was referring to.

[jody]

8. Stay unarmed if you wish but don't try to impose your choice on others. n/t

[qdemn7]

10. Insane CCW Laws??

Explain why they are they insane? Simply because you say so? And how are guns "polluting" our space?

It's simple:

Don't like porn? Don't buy it. Don't tell me I can't simply because you have personal moral objections.

Don't like eating of meat? Don't eat it. Don't tell me I can't simply because you have personal moral objections.

Don't like abortion? Don't have one. Don't tell me a woman she can't simply because you have personal moral objections.

Don't want to own a gun? Don't buy one. Don't tell me I can't simply because you have personal moral objections.

And I live in Texas and I'm damned glad our State Legislators passed a Castle Doctrine Bill and the Governor signed it. It's terrific.

I don't like Religious Fundies of any stripe cramming their morality down my throat. I don't like anti-gun Fundies cramming their morality down my throat. You choose not to use deadly force, that's your choice. Let me have my own. Aren't Progressives supposed to be pro-choice?

[Paladin]

14. Completely Unpersuasive

The next time somebody uses a fuck movie, a t-bone steak, or a fetus to turn a school or an office building into a slaughterhouse, I'll pay attention to you.

And if you want us to believe the laughable notion that being pro-choice on guns is somehow progressive, get Ted Nugent, Dick Cheney, Zell Miller, Tom DeLay, Ann Coulter, Wayne LaPierre, Michele Malkin, and every other far right-wing, Democrat-hating jerk to give up their support of the position. Then we'll talk.....

[derby378]

15. To be progressive is to support human freedom and dignity

You can't use emotional arguments or "guilt by association" to dodge the fundamental premise that easily. If some progressives believe that responsible ownership of firearms advances human freedom and dignity, we have to find our own ways of dealing with that concept.

[Paladin]

19. Want To Deal With The Concept? Knock Yourself Out.

Just don't expect real Democrats to buy into a gun policy that is fatally tainted by decades of the far right wing's embraces. And spare us the notion that said policy "advances human freedom and dignity," OK? You're known by the company you keep, and the company you've chosen to hang out with wouldn't know human freedom and dignity if they bit them on their asses.....

[derby378]

22. Again, you have proven my point...

"Guilt by association." No matter how much you want to lump me in with the Ted Nugents and Tom DeLays of the world, you cannot change the fact that I've got my own path, and I'm gonna follow that path as far as I'm able.

Besides, you should see the company I keep before making snap judgments. A lot of decent, hard-working Democratic activists in that bunch.

[Paladin]

33. Yeah, You're A Real Model Of Independent Thought

n/t

[qdemn7]

35. The Company You Keep?

Well now that includes the ALCU too. Oooh, the eeeevul NRA and the ACLU in bed together. What do you have to say now , Paladin? :rofl:

Unusual Allies in a Legal Battle Over Texas Drivers’ Gun Rights

In a report issued in February, the Texas affiliate of the National Rifle Association joined the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas and the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition “to spotlight unlawful, unnecessary governmental encroachment on average law-abiding citizens.”

The report, “Above the Law: How Texas prosecutors are placing their own judgment over that of the Legislature and the law of the land,” found that district and county attorneys had instructed police officers to “unnecessarily” interrogate drivers and arrest them or take their weapons, “even if they are legally carrying the gun.”

“It’s all the self-interest of the job,” said Scott Henson, a civil liberties advocate and blogger who wrote the report. Mr. Henson contends that police officers are opposed to citizens’ carrying guns and that prosecutors depend on gun charges to strengthen weak cases and prompt plea bargains.

[Paladin]

40. As If You Gun Radicals Are Reliable ACLU Fans

If the ACLU is mentioned down in the Gun Dungeon, it normally devolves into a spittle-flecked hate fest, worthy of Free Republic. All because the ACLU has an interpretation of the Second Amendment which differs from our resident Gun Huggers. So the ACLU linked up with the NRA on an issue? Big deal---the ACLU supported a Nazi hate march in Skokie, Illinois years ago, and once saw fit to assist Oliver North. Most real Democrats are ACLU supporters; it's the right wing that puts out a steady supply of anti-ACLU venom, and that's the side on which people with your agenda are nearly always found.....

[qdemn7]

38. I'm Not Their Master and Neither Are You

I don't tell them what to do, anymore than you do. They're all adults, they can and do make their own choices in life. Besides even if THEY changed their position, you probably wouldn't listen anyway.

And promoting LIBERTY and FREEDOM is progressive.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

26. That line of argument is foolish, I think.

Other people having access to pornography or eating meat doesn't put me at risk. Other people having access to guns does.

A better analogy is with things like bull bars on cars (if I'm getting the term right), which - here in the UK, at any rate - which, here in the UK at any rate, are illegal.

Sadly, I don't think the Democrats should support decent levels of gun control - it wouldn't get them anywhere, and it would cost them too much - but it's one of the reasons I'm... proud is the wrong word, because it was none of my doing, but very grateful indeed that I'm British and not American.

[michreject]

12. If there were NO crime

I'd still want my guns. I like shooting them. I shoot competitively.

[SteppingRazor]

21. Actually, I'd put my money on a regular gun owner over a criminal...

Gun owners go to firing ranges and practice using their weapons. Criminals just stick them in their waistbands until the day they need them.

[ProudDad]

23. You keep believing that myth

You have no idea the difference between shooting at targets and pulling a piece on another human being.

It's a whole different ball game, I know, back when I believed in being "armed" I pulled a weapon on some people and was prepared to kill if necessary. It was a sickening feeling.

That's when I found out I was a human being and not a psychopath.

I got rid of the guns.

You ARE known by the company you keep.

[qdemn7]

30. A Psychopath?

So does that mean you believe anyone who kills is a psychopath? Police who kill in the line of duty? Soldiers who kill in the line of duty?

[SteppingRazor]

31. Two things about that.

1) You don't have to be a psychopath to defend the people you love — even with deadly force, if necessary

2) Even if that were true, how do you know I'm not a psychopath? :P

[ProudDad]

57. I don't know that you're not a psycopath

that's why I'd prefer you were unarmed...:crazy:

[MadHound]

53. Not to pick nits or anything, but the most effective self defense weapon

Is a twelve guage shotgun, either double barrel or pump model, loaded with double ought. This fact has been born out by statistics, the police and NRA:shrug: Just thought I'd let you know.

[scrinmaster]

56. Not really. A double barreled shotgun holds two shells,

a pump shotgun three to eight. A semi-automatic rifle is much better for home defense. But you can't conceal carry either of them, which is why you use a handgun.

[Mugu]

5. I went to the site and looked around.

Those people are delusional. The NRA is sneaking into legislatures across the nation and passing laws? And since when does the NRA advocate allowing criminals the right to carry around handguns?

It's the same song and dance every time that this issue or concealed carry is brought up. It's going to be the wild west with blood flowing in the streets. But it never happens. Their arguments have been discredited repeatedly, but they bring them back at every opportunity.

These are the type of people that want to outlaw Dihydrogen monoxide.

No thank you.

Regards, Mugu

[Redneck Socialist]

7. Care to explain why I should have to retreat in the face of a violent attack?

Me, I'm ok with defending myself.

[loyalsister]

9. Should you have to retreat

in the case of mild threat?
These laws are being written so that you have no duty to retreat even when the threat is only of having your stuff stolen and you can.
They are redefining violence and threat to make it easy for gun owners to kill people. If you don't believe it read the damn laws.

[qdemn7]

11. How do you Know..

Criminal are ONLY trying to steal your stuff?

[loyalsister]

17. Why would they want to kill you?

In your average burglery what are you to them, really? If they get caught it is more of a problem for them if you are dead.

[SteppingRazor]

20. Not necessarily true. Dead people aren't witnesses.

I agree with jody et. al. upthread. We have a right to self-defense. If someone invades my home, whether to take my property or to harm me or my family, I'm gonna shoot'em. :shrug:

[ProudDad]

24. I got an idea

get some of your other gun lovin' buddies and do like bush -- get "them" where they live before they "get" you...

You could call it a "preemptive strike on the bad guys." Yeah, that's it...

Yeah, that'll work... :evilgrin:

[Sparkly]

29. heh

You've got a point. What constitutes "self defense" in this law? As I understand it, the prosecution would have to prove a negative (that the person firing the gun was not acting in self defense). Is feeling threatened -- believing one is threatened and in need of self-defense -- sufficient under this law?

[slackmaster]

47. Depends on which state, which bill or law you are talking about

California's self-defense law makes it clear that a "bare fear" is insufficient justification.

[Mojorabbit]

32. A good friend of mine

was shot dead by people who broke into his house to rob them. He was not armed. I'll keep my guns, thank you very much.

[treelogger]

37. Don't assume that burglars are rational

You are sort of assuming that burglars are rational people, who make business decisions. I'm not doubting that this type of burgler does exist. But the common burglar is anything but rational. Typically, they are severely on drugs; they are burglaring to get some quick income to turn into drugs. You can not assume that they will make sane decisions about killing people. You have to assume that they are armed.

Here's a little story that happened to a colleague. Not in a place like Texas or such, which by the tenor of many posts in this thread is running with blood, but in the oh-so-liberal San Francisco bay area. My friend goes shopping really late, and is loading the groceries into the trunk of her car. The keys are in the open trunk lid. Two young females walk up to her, and point a gun at her. She panics and drops to the floor. The females take the key, slam the trunk shut, get in the car, and try to drive it away. So far it is a completely generic car jacking.

Now comes the funny part. The two carjackers don't know how to drive a stick shift. They have a really hard time getting the car to move. Giving my friend time to run around the car, and stand in front of it (really really dumb thing to do). Just then, the females get it into gear, and start zooming off, very much out of control. My friend is thrown onto the hood (this is a Mazda Miata), and is literally hanging on to the windscreen wipers. They make a radical turn, which throws my friend off the car, she hits a curb, and breaks her arm. The two females drive another few hundred yards on the sidewalk, utterly out of control, until they slam full speed into a wall, setting off the airbags, and completely disabling both of them. Firefighters, ambulance, police arrive, and all parties are hauled away (nobody terribly injured, but the car is trash, and everyone is beat up).

Turns out the two females are meth addicts. They spent the night on a rampage. They break into one (unoccupied) house, and find some money. They go on foot to a local gas station, where they buy some meth (no idea how that worked, maybe they had arranged a meeting with their dealer there), which they consume immediately (there is security camera footage of them sitting on a curb in a corner). Once they are loaded up with it, they feel invincible, and because they are out of money again, they decide to rob the gas station. They simply walk in and demand money. The attendant has a gun in the drawer, which he opens, and tries to point the gun at them (this is perfectly legal, in California you can have a gun in your residence or your place of business). Unfortunately, the attendant seems to have absolutely no training in use of a gun, beginning with the fact that it was not loaded. The two women simply grab the gun from his hands, take the money from the cash drawer, and leave on foot. Emboldened by their success, they walk around, and come upon the supermarket parking lot, and the rest of the story you saw above.

What do we learn from this? First, if you want to have a gun for self-defense, you need to be VERY VERY seriously trained in how to use it (which begins by having it loaded when it needs to be loaded, and having it unloaded when it needs to be unloaded). Second, don't assume that everyone is a rational human being who is making tradeoffs. These two females were simply totally out of control. It is quite lucky that nobody died in this chain of events (beginning with themselves, they were very close to commiting assisted suicide several times in the above events).

Now ask yourself the following two questions. (1) Would the gas station attendant have been justified in shooting (and thereby killing) the two of them when they robbed his store? Please take into account that he could not have been sure that the two of them were unarmed, and take into account that knife wounds are much more dangerous than gunshot wounds (I learned an interesting statistic in a self-defense shooting class tought by a retired police instructor: 80% of all officers stabbed by a knife in the torso die; 25% of all officers with gunshot wounds die; at close distance, I would much prefer my attacker to have a gun than a knife). Take into account that many robberies leave dead people behind. But also take into account that often (but by no means always) a robbery can easily be ended by handing over a sufficient amount of money (but it is not sufficient, there is grave danger that the robber will kill you if he doesn't like the offering).

(2) Assume that my friend had been armed (which is legally nearly impossible in most parts of California, as no concealed weapons permits are issued, unless you are a US senator, or a famous actor). Would she had been justified in defending herself against the two females who attacked her with a gun? Take into account that my friend had no way to immediately verify that the gun the women were carrying was unloaded, nor that they probably had absolutely no experience with guns, and would have been unable to use it anyhow. A different question is whether drawing your own gun is a sensible defense if a gun is already pointed at you; her instinctive reaction (to crumple onto the floor) might have actually been the best thing to do in this situation, but it might also not have been, I'm not an expert on self-defense.

[slackmaster]

45. The "average burglar" won't enter an occupied building

They're scared shitless of two things: Dogs, and armed homeowners.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

27. A recent case here in the UK

Involved a farmer who shot a (teenaged) intruder in the back as he was running away, killing him. He was, in my view correctly, sentenced for murder.

The current law already allows the use of considerable force in self defence or defence of one's property.

[slackmaster]

46. Shooting someone while running away would still be murder in the USA

Except perhaps in Texas, and there only at night.

We are permitted to use deadly force only when there is a threat. When the threat has passed, deadly force is no longer justified.

[Redneck Socialist]

34. These laws don't "...make it easy for gun owners to kill people."

"These laws are being written so that you have no duty to retreat even when the threat is only of having your stuff stolen and you can.
They are redefining violence and threat to make it easy for gun owners to kill people. If you don't believe it read the damn laws."

I have read these laws, most recently the one proposed in my own state. Your description of them is in no way accurate.

All they do is remove the duty to retreat in the face of a threat if you "reasonably" believe you are threatened, in most cases with deadly force, though the particulars vary from state to state.

Here is some reading for you in case you're curious.

The bill that was vetoed by the NH governor: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2006/SB0318.html

The law that it would have amended: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2006/SB0318.html

Happy reading. :hi:

[baldguy]

16. The NRA is a lobbying organization for weapons manufacturers.

jus' needs to be said

[treelogger]

36. Incorrect. The gun manufacturers have their own lobbying organization.

The NRA is funded mostly by individual members. The gun manufacturers have their own lobbying organization, as do gun dealers. This is clearly visible when their interests diverge. There have been bills in the CA legislature where the so-called "pro-gun" organizations are split, with some supporting the bill, others opposing it. Typically happens on bills that make the sale of used guns much more difficult; gun manufacturers and dealers usually support those bills (to drive people to buy more new guns), while the NRA tends to oppose them (because their individual members are negatively affected).

Furthermore, why is it a problem that the gun manufacturers (or dealers) have a lobbying organization? After all, their money comes from their profits. And their profits come from their sales. Which in turn is money that individual gun buyers (people like me) give to them, in exchange for guns. I have no problem with Ruger, S&W, Springfield, Savage, Remington, Colt, Armalite etc. lobbying through some organization; they earned their money fair and square (by selling me a product that was good enough or a good enough value to justify buying it). Although to be honest, most my guns are imported models, and the really expensive ones are very old and used.

If you have a problem with the gun manufacturers lobbying, it is in your hands to fix that: Stop giving them money. In the meantime, the residents of the US are voting with their wallets.

[Paladin]

41. The NRA Is A Right-Wing Political Lobbying Organization

And for any of you who harbor the smallest notion that the NRA is Democrat-friendly, I strongly suggest that you Google "NRA Comic Book" and take a good hard look at the results.

Jus' needs to be said....

[treelogger]

49. The NRA is more complex than you think

You said "And for any of you who harbor the smallest notion that the NRA is Democrat-friendly, I strongly suggest that you Google "NRA Comic Book" and take a good hard look at the results."

Do you know how many democratic candidates for the California state legislature the NRA has endorsed? You would be surprised to find that the number is signifiant. It is admittedly not large, but very much not zero.

I posted the same thing a while ago. There are many parts to the NRA. There is one part that does legislative lobbying, and works with regulatory agencies (ATF, state DoJs). These tend to be attorneys, and they tend to be completely non-partisan - they'll work with whoever is in power. Then there are state NRA organisations. Ours here in California is reasonably non-partisan, and supports and endorses many republicans, and a few democrats, and runs the local volunteer organisations (where quite a few volunteers are democratic). Then there is the national NRA, which has become a fund-raising organisation, and during election times operates as if it were an arm of the republican party.

Last I checked, the NRA had about 4 million members. It is hard to imagine that there isn't a reasonable number of democrats among those too. Matter-of-fact, I would bet that there are a handful of democratic congresspeople who are NRA members too.

Simply claiming "the NRA is a right-wing ... organisation" is so simplified as to become nonsense.

[Paladin]

50. That Filthy Little "Comic Book".....

....tells me all I need to know about the NRA's real opinion of Democrats. Their occasional endorsement of Democratic candidates is mere window dressing.

And spare me the "more complex than you think" tap dance, OK? The comic book confirmed a lot of suspicions I had about the NRA, and removed whatever complexities there might have been.....

[treelogger]

51. I you want to be simple-minded ...

... and base all of your judgement of the NRA on one simple factoid, and want to deliberately ignore non-simple facts, then go right ahead. But don't expect me to find your judgement well-founded.

I could say the following: "All I need to know about the democrats is one talk given by Senator Feinstein on the topic of guns, and that talk was full of distortions and lies". If I did that, I would immediately have to discard everything about the democrats. Making judgements that way is not very useful.

[Paladin]

55. Well, Let's See, Now....

Your heading doesn't make any sense as written (I imagine you meant to type the word "If" rather than "I").

"Judgment" is the correct spelling, not "judgement."

And it's "Democrats" with an upper-case "D," not "democrats."

Getting called "simple-minded" by you just doesn't sting very much.....

[ProudDad]

58. The NRA

is the lobbying organization for pinheads with tiny penises.

[treelogger]

59. Penis substitute

Old joke: Someone is accused of having a gun simply as a penis substitute.

His answer: Sure, if my penis were long enough that I could reach out 30 yards and instantaneously disable you with it, I wouldn't need a gun.

P.S. I'm not quite sure what rule requires spelling Democrats with a capital "D". I understand names like Clinton, proper nouns like Vatican and France, weekdays and months like Tuesday March 10th, titles like Senator Foghorn, honorifics like Doctor Strangelove, gods like Allah and Vishnu, religions like Judaism, trade marks like Kleenex. I don't see a rule for political parties. Anyone have a Chicago manual handy? Mine has been in a cardboard box since finishing my degree.

[mtnsnake]

18. I wish MrB was around for this. nt

[Sparkly]

28. Me, too!! nt

[slackmaster]

44. Your post is a steaming pantload

;-)

[Hangingon]

25. I feel safer defending my home with the passage of the

"Castle Doctrine". There are a lot of prosecutors that are out to add a notch to their record. The defense costs are ruinous.

[slackmaster]

43. You already have it in Texas in your home, as we do in California

Current law in both states protects you if you use deadly force to stop someone who has entered forcefully.

[Hangingon]

48. Yes we had it

We also had some DAs that would indict and cost you a fortune in legal costs. These are the same guys who paid no heed to the lege's cllarification of the "travel" exemption and told their officers to arrest and let the jury decide. It recently cost a guy a night in jail, $1800 in legal costs, time lost from the job and a new gun because he got a ticket while transporting a new gun home. It is getting harder to elect honest DAs.

[hollowdweller]

39. No way in hell I'd sign that

Im tired of giving up my rights. Any time we can get a few more I'm up for it.

Now if you want me to sign a petition for banning permanent replacement workers in a labor dispute, or to allow for criminal penalties against an employer who retaliates against workers right to unionize, or if you want me to sign one that urges stronger privacy rights for employees and the internet I'm all for it, but forget signing self defensea away, it's un american and un democratic!

PS I have NEVER voted for a republican in the 30 years I've been able to vote!

[slackmaster]

42. Alarmist nonsense - ETA California's justifiable homicide laws for reference

This is pure horseshit; just a way to raise money and get panicky, misinformed people on mailing lists.

Here is how we have it set up in California - Castle Doctrine in your home or place of business, no duty to retreat, etc. Some states are adopting laws to extend the scope of immunity to apply to places other than your home, e.g. your car. And every state except Alaska and Vermont require a permit in order to carry a concealed firearm.

197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in
any of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a
felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,
2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person,
against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or
surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends
and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter
the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any
person therein; or,
3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a
wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such
person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to
commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent
danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the
person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant
or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have
endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was
committed; or,
4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and
means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in
lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving
the peace.

198. A bare fear of the commission of any of the offenses mentioned
in subdivisions 2 and 3 of Section 197, to prevent which homicide
may be lawfully committed, is not sufficient to justify it. But the
circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable
person, and the party killing must have acted under the influence of
such fears alone.

198.5. Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or
great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to
have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great
bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that
force is used against another person, not a member of the family or
household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and
forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or
had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.

As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant
or substantial physical injury.

199. The homicide appearing to be justifiable or excusable, the
person indicted must, upon his trial, be fully acquitted and
discharged.

Seems pretty reasonable to me.

Link to California Penal Code: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=pen&codebody=&hits=20

[benEzra]

52. Looks like it's time for a primer on self-defense law again...

I think that to understand stand-your-ground and Castle Doctrine laws in context (and to cut through the BS), a primer on self-defense law is in order.

The general criteria that must be met for a homicide to be ruled justifiable are very similar in every state. The best phrasing I have found so far is in Steve Johnson, Concealed Carry Handgun Training, North Carolina Justice Academy, 1995, pp. 3-4, but these criteria would apply in every state, and definitely apply in Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, and other stand-your-ground states. (Note that like Florida, my state of North Carolina is also a Castle Doctrine state.)

(1) Justified Self-Defense

A citizen is legally justified in using deadly force against another if and only if:

(a) The citizen actually believes deadly force is necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault, AND

(b) The facts and circumstances prompting that belief would cause a person of ordinary firmness to believe deadly force WAS necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault, AND

(c) The citizen using deadly force was not an instigator or aggressor who voluntarily provoked, entered, or continued the conflict leading to deadly force, AND

(d) Force used was not excessive -- greater than reasonably needed to overcome the threat posed by a hostile aggressor."

(Emphasis added.)

Note that ALL FOUR conditions must generally be met in order for a shooting to be ruled justifiable (there is an exception for someone kicking your door in, but we'll get to that in a minute). A handful of states used to add a FIFTH criterion to the list above, that of running away from the imminent lethal threat before turning to defend yourself (and hoping the attacker doesn't kill you while your back is turned). Florida was one of those states, and eliminated it with the new law; most states have never had such a provision to start with.

OK, the really important part. Where the OP, and a number of posters on this thread, got spun is the deliberate distortion of the phrase "reasonably believes" in self-defense statutes. Reasonable belief does *NOT* mean merely "feeling threatened"; the phrase is a legal term, and its definition in the context of self-defense law is that in paragraph (b) above--i.e., that "the facts and circumstances prompting that belief would cause a person of ordinary firmness to believe deadly force WAS necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault." Merely "feeling threatened" isn't reasonable belief; the belief has to be objectively rational, i.e. there is in fact a guy standing in front of you holding what appears to be a knife in a threatening posture.

Also, it is important to understand that a claim of self-defense is not an automatic exemption to the laws against homicide. Rather, it is what is known as an "affirmative defense"; unlike the regular innocent-until-proven-guilty standard applied to a criminal act, the onus in a self-defense shooting is on the shooter to demonstrate that the shooting WAS indeed justifiable self-defense. In other words, in a self-defense case, the standard is "guilty unless shown innocent," and if the shooting is questionable, it is much more likely to swing against the person claiming self-defense than it is to swing in their favor.

There are a few other conditions that may constitute justifiable self-defense; for example, there is a provision in U.S. legal tradition called the Castle Doctrine that says that if someone is making an illegal forced entry into your home (whether by door or window, whatever), you are authorized to use whatever force is necessary to stop them and it would ordinarily be ruled justified; the presumption is that if the guy is kicking your door down, he's not there to sell magazine subscriptions. A majority of states explicitly spell out the Castle Doctrine in their laws, I believe, but the principle is there in every state, even Massachusetts. Florida, and most other states, also allow the use of lethal force to stop a "forcible felony," i.e. rape, aggravated assault, armed robbery, etc. Texas used to also allow lethal force in defense of property in some circumstances, which probably dates back to frontier days when stealing your horse or your food would cause you to die of exposure or starvation); they may still, but it is my understanding that in general, shooting in defense of property in Texas can get you in big trouble.

OK, back to the new Florida law. The Florida law's primary effect was to eliminate the "duty to run away" provision, which was very subjective and had been abused by overzealous prosecutors; as I mentioned, most states don't have them, and a truly questionable scenario (you could have walked away in complete safety, but didn't) would fail points (a) and (c) anyway. The new also law reaffirmed the Castle Doctrine as it applies to your home, and also extended it to your car, so that if somebody actually tries to carjack you, you can use force to stop them as if they were breaking into your home (a response to South Florida carjackings which I think is reasonable). Finally, the new law states that if somebody attacks you and you use force in self-defense, and your use of force is ruled justifiable, the attacker cannot turn around and sue you for the injuries you caused him (yes, that happens).

Now, Georgia and other states didn't have duty to retreat provisions anyway, so the changes there seem to be mostly just clarification. I actually posted the Georgia statutes a while back, before the "stand your ground" law was passed and after it was passed, and the new law didn't legalize anything that wasn't already legal.

And in ANY state, if you shoot somebody just because you "feel threatened," you will go to prison for manslaughter to second-degree murder, depending on the mitigating circumstances, regardless of any Bradyite BS to the contrary.

[treelogger]

54. Thank you for pointing out the civil case

You wrote: "<... if> your use of force is ruled justifiable, the attacker cannot turn around and sue you for the injuries you caused him (yes, that happens)"

That just doesn't "just happen occasionally", it is pretty much guaranteed to happen. Even in the most obvious cases of justifiable force, the victim (or his heirs) are very likely to start a civil case.

I personally know of two cases where this happened. The first one was a police officer, member of the SWAT and high-risk entry team, who was called to an armed standoff, and when the assailant started shooting at random people passing by, this officer shot and killed and assailant (who first managed to get a few more shots off, including one into the face of this officer, who was not seriously injured, but permanently scarred). The officer claims that even for a battle-hardened police officer, the psychological trauma of having killed a person is extremely terrifying; he was on medical/psychological leave for months afterwards. The heirs of the assailant sued the officer personally (and his department) for $10M for wrongful death; the lawsuit ended up taking many more months, and eventually was completely thrown out (not even settled). One aspect that was particularly tough on the officer was that if the civil suit succeeded, he would be penniless for the rest of his life.

Second case was at a shooting range. A shooter came in, with an AR-15 rifle (those can be perfectly legal). Unbeknownst to everyone that shooter had serious psychological problems, and had planned to commit "assisted suicide" and go with a bang (meaning create a blood bath). Fortunately, the range officer was armed, and was able to seperate the assailant from his hostages, and was able to shoot the assailant so as to disable and injure him (he had correctly aimed at the torso, as the only way to stop a person in such a situation is to shoot to kill, but the first shot went off in the wrong direction, luckily hitting the assailant in the arm so as to make the assailant not a threat, an extremely lucky coincidence). The assailant was convicted of a variety of crimes, and sentenced to an extremely long prison sentence (something like 18 years ifmy memory is correct). In spite of that, the assailant filed civil suit against the shooting range, for personal injury. The range's liability insurance company insisted on an out-of-court settlement, and offered the assailant a token amount (I think it was a few K$), in exchange for a binding agreement to not sue again. The range officer was very upset about that settlement, because he correctly pointed out that paying anything to the assailant is akin to admitting guilt, but the insurance company can make the rules, and from a financial point of view, the settlement was sensible (much cheaper than a trial).

What this all means: If you get attacked in such a fashion that you have to use deadly force to defend yourself, expect your life to be extremely miserable, for a long time. Expect to spend a few days in jail. Expect to spend months and months in court. Expect to pay a large amount of money to defend yourself in court. But at least you are alive. As the old saying goes: "better to be judged by 12 than to be carried by 6".