Is the "Stand Your Ground Law" becoming a license to kill?

What "threatening manner" are you referring to? Walking toward a house where you just rang the bell, when you see someone come towards you with what you believe might be some HELP?

If you consider someone walking towards you to be "threatening," especially if it is an elderly man and he is obviously not armed.. .and you KNOW he just ran your bell, do you REALLY think you would find him "threatening?

If it is the case. . .and you really don't want to kill anyone, I suggest you leave your gun home, because sooner or later someone will appear "threatening" to you!

 

You would think that someone would want to try and be more careful either way , I couldn't imagine taking another's life unless me or my kids were threatened. I would never go and force a confrontation to happen.

 

I've killed two people in the line of service to my country and I wish to God it had never came to that even though doing so in both cases saved other lives.

 

The problem in THIS COUNTRY with the concept of "reasonable fear," is that it has been demonstrated over and over that it is no longer "REASONABLE," but and obsession with "defending oneself" against ANYTHING with the most deadly force. . .BEFORE one consider whether or not it is "reasonable.

Now. . .Are you saying that, in this case, this guy who GOT OUT of his home with his gun, KNOWING that the ELDERLY man in his yard had RAN THE BELL, and that his girl friend was on the phone with the police had any REASONABLE FEAR OF DEATH OR DEADLY INJURY?

 

Yeah . . . because everyone who've ever defended themselves have been rabid nutcases. Sheesh!

 

Oh, now it was obvious he was elderly, and obvious he was unarmed. Someone who rings my doorbell at 3AM who isn't either A: Accidentally at the wrong house, or B: In distress and in need of help, is going to be suspicious. When that person fails to leave after a reasonable amount of time, it becomes even more suspicious. When they start walking around the yard, that takes it to a whole other level.

Sorry, I have a job where it's not unusual for me to walk around with a lot of cash on me, I'm not going to allow myself to be a sitting duck.

 

I'd suggest exactly the opposite.

If you WANT to kill someone, you shouldn't have a gun.

 

I am afraid that, based on your comment, you may be another "gun accident" in the making.

Can you explain to me what arm could have been done, EVEN IF IT WAS A CRIMINAL WITH CRIMINAL INTENTIONS, to wait for the police to arrive. . .since the guy and his girl friend were in NO RISK inside their home. . .and IF it had been a criminal with a gun and the intention of MURDERING the 34 year old guy. . .wouldn't it have been REALLY DUMB to get out and start talking. . . and put himself right in FRONT of the "potential murderer with a gun?"

Do you really think that, IF that guy had thought the old man had a gun he would have gone out and "asked him to stop coming forward?"

>>>MOD EDIT: INSULT<<<

- - - Updated - - -

I do not believe that ANYONE should have a gun. . .GUNS's ONLY purpose is to kill!

IF you don't want to kill someone. . .you do not need a gun!

As several of those "incidents" have demonstrated now, people with guns KILL, even without good reasons. . .and even (at least that's what they state afterwards) without "intending" to do it!

 

There is a world of difference between wanting to kill a person and being willing to do so in the most extreme situations. MOST gun owners are in the latter not the former group.

 

There's nothing wrong with the SYG laws per se, but there is something wrong with how it's enforced. In this case, SYG means you stand you ground, NOT approach the potential criminal outside your house. If the man tried to forcibly enter the house, or if the door was unlocked and the man entered the house without permission, then SYG applies. Otherwise you call the police and wait. There was never any imminent danger. This man should be charged with murder.

It's incidents like these that shine a bad light on SYG and gun owners in general. As a "gun nut" I want these stupid people prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Also, I'd ask that some of you stop painting gun owners with a broad brush based on isolated incidents, or risk looking as intelligent as the shooter who also made incorrect assumptions.

 

And I'm afraid based on this comment, that you are so ignorant on the issue of guns and safely using them that it would be best if you refrain from commenting on the subject.

Did you not see where I stated that, under the exact same circumstances, I would not have gone outside?

Actually, yes. Just like a 3am phone call, a 3am doorbell ring gets paid attention to, because if it's not a wrong number (or home), there's a chance it's very important because civilized people don't call or visit at that hour. Ringing the bell would be a GREAT way to find out if someone is home or not.

Fortunately, such an idea is not legal.

I have a friend who, but for the fact that he had a gun, would be dead today. And so would his wife, after having been brutally raped. And he didn't even fire a shot, brandishing it was all it took.

 

Anecdotes do not stand to statistical data that shows that legally owned guns rare more often used to kill someone in your own family, wound someone in your own family (through accident or murder) or commit suicide than they are to defend oneself from ACTUAL attacks.

But, obviously we will never agree on this. . .so keep your gun, enjoy the false sense of safety it seems to give you.

I will be very happy to keep my own sense of safety without EVER owning a gun in my life!

 

Then perhaps America is not for you. We have the right to own guns. Deal with it.

 

I would actually argue that MOST guns do neither. They don't kill or protect.

I have over one hundred weapons. They mostly just sit in my safe room.

 

I am dealing with it. . .I leave guns to those who "can't feel safe" without it!

But. . .if my expressing my opinion is something you resent and you find shouldn't be permitted. . .perhaps America is not for YOU. We have the right to free speech. . .Deal with it.

 

It's not a false sense. OTOH, I train more than most LEO's.

 

I hope. . .for your own sake. . that you are right.

And I hope that you do not end up CONFIRMING the statistics that . . .more often than not, a gun in someway turns on you, those you love, or innocent people.

The fact is that I do NOT need to own a gun. . . and therefore I do not need to train with a gun, to feel safe. And 63 years of non-aggression have had a tendency to reinforce my sense of security WITHOUT a gun!

 

Man, there are an estimated 300 MILLION guns in the United States. How many shootings are there a year? The CONFIRMED stastistics are that most guns aren't even fird at all.

Oh by the way, I'm a 22 year National Guard veteran who served in 2 wars, and graduated from Ranger school. I am HIGHLY qualified in gun ownership.

 

Here is a little more to the story...
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...imers-shot-dead-wandering-residents-property/

 

Not really here's a report that pretty much defies your anti gun logic (oxymoron). I know you'll poo poo it because of the article source but read the report from the link contained therein if you want to be educated.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...ssional-Research-Service-More-Guns-Less-Crime

 

I have no issue whatsoever with you voicing your opinion Sadine tinged with anger as it usually is. If you need to rant have at it.

People have the rights to own guns in America. So your opinion on the matter is moot. Which is my point and yes you have to deal with it..

I will also point to you that this country has 89 guns per 100 people. Its truly sad that you write off that many of your fellow Americans because you think they all only own a gun because they cant "feel safe without one".

 

It does not matter one bit whether he got out of his house or not. It is completely understandable and legal to go out of your house. You do realize that the following scenario is possible: he got out of his house to check on who is out there, then the old man assaulted him outside, then he began to feel an immediate threat and so he shot him. Such scenario means that he is still completely innocent and did nothing wrong (even tough it may have been wiser to stay inside).

This same faulty logic got thrown around in Zimmermann case (he followed Travyon so that somehow invalidates self-defense and blah blah blah), and it is just as wrong now as it was wrong then.

Now, I doubt he will get off the hook but if they do convince him, then the fact that he got out of his house to initiate the whole thing will not be a major factor. Who threw the first punch, the presence and pattern of injuries, that will be important.

 

No, the opinion of people who are in favor of gun control is NOT moot. . . As their voice reminds the NRA and gun crazy people that it is NOT a natural right to own a gun, and that our forefathers never intended for everyone of us to become a brain dead vigilante or a fear driven zombie.

By the way. . . You do realize that that statistic of 89 guns per 100 people in the US includes the hands of infants and toddlers. . . And so it should, as just a few days ago a 3 year old shot another toddler "by accident" in his parents trailer!

And to all those who own a gun merely as a "collectible," I would suggest that they don't need amno, and that collecting stamps, toy trains, or any wiggets would be a lot less dangerous to both their family and society as a whole.

 

There they go again with the "blaming the victim!"

Did you even read or listen to what happened. . . As per the shooter himself?

Did you even read that the shooter is a 34 year old with a gun, and the victim a 72 year old man with advanced alzheimer, lost in the cold of the night, who was seeking HELP by RINGING the bell at the only house in that dark neighborhood hat had a light on?

Could you please, at the least, INFORM yourself of the facts that are KNOWN and that are not disputed by anyone, even the shooter, before clapping your jaw in defense of ANY A. . H. . . .with a gun?

That kind of ignorant comment just demonstrates that too many people with guns are NOT "responsible" owners, but "accidents" waiting to happen!

 

You collect what you want ill collect what I want. 300 million guns and how many shootings? The overall percentage is quite low even though every shooting is a tragedy.