Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is true but the way some of the SYG Laws are written, it leaves alot of areas for it to be abused. I have absolutely no probelm with the Castle Law which states that you have the right to protect your family and home with lethal force.
So do you also support people legally carrying concealed handguns for self defense purposes if they've gone through all the training and background checks?
You also used the Trayvon Martin case as an example of why SYG laws were wrong but the Trayvon Martin case had nothing to do with SYG, it was a very basic self defense case involving a physical assault and the person being assaulted using deadly force to defend their life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lavadora
I'm more inclined to believe it was the result of an insane justice system that had no other alternative than to side with an insane law, rather than believe it was the result of a true honest-to-goodness textbook case of self-defense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMoreYouKnow
A justice system that had no other alternative than to side with which insane law?
Self defense is a very basic, fundamental right of any human being regardless of state or country, wouldn't you agree?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lavadora
Absolutely, just so long as it's outside of the cowardly SYG Law.
Because you obviously haven't been paying attention or are deliberately refusing to understand the point, the Martin/Zimmerman case had absolutely nothing to do with SYG laws. Zero, zilch, nada. It was a simple case of self-defense, in which one person attacked another and the person who was attacked used necessary force in order to defend himself. Had Zimmerman not been armed (which seems to be your true issue with U.S. laws), one of two things would have happened. One, he would have been viciously beaten, possibly to death. Two, he would have managed to break free, severely injuring and possibly killing Martin in the process. Quite frankly, the fact the he had a gun has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he defended himself. It only becomes an issue for people who have been convinced by themselves or others that firearms are inherently evil and that the ownership of firearms transfers that evil to the owner.
From reading your posts in this thread, Lavadora, I'd say your true issue isn't with SYG. Your true issue seems to be with the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. You find it offensive that U.S. citizens are allowed to have the means to defend themselves in the case that they are attacked. Which is fine, but if you're going to launch an attack on the U.S. citizens' right to keep and bear arms you should do it openly, not in a thread that has little to do with the topic.
The right to self-defense gives people the right to use whatever force is necessary to defend themselves.
SYG gives people the right to use whatever force is necessary to defend themselves without forcing them into retreat mode first. Neither addresses the use of firearms as a defense, except in that part that says "whatever force is necessary." If you happen to be carrying a baseball bat and use that bat to beat someone to death when they are threatening you, it's still covered under both self-defense and SYG - as long as you can prove that beating them to death was necessary in order to abate the threat. Same for a knife, a knitting needle, or your hands and feet. The difference is that with the SYG laws, you aren't forced into wasting time trying to find a way to escape a possibly inescapable situation before you are allowed to act.
So do you also support people legally carrying concealed handguns for self defense purposes if they've gone through all the training and background checks?
The SYG laws are merely an extension of Castle Doctrine which allows the same force used to defend yourself and your family from a threat in your home to be used against a threat outside of your home. How can you possibly find fault with one but be fine with the other?
So do you also support people legally carrying concealed handguns for self defense purposes if they've gone through all the training and background checks?
The SYG laws are merely an extension of Castle Doctrine which allows the same force used to defend yourself and your family from a threat in your home to be used against a threat outside of your home. How can you possibly find fault with one but be fine with the other?
I think because the Castle Law is more clear cut and leave very little wiggle room for abuse. The SYG Laws vary from state to state and in many cases can be verified only by the word of whoever is left standing
You're not making any sense... If a person is legally carrying a self defense firearm and they are physically attacked you're ok with a person defending their own life as long as it doesn't fall under a SYG law?
How exactly is defending your own life cowardly?
How about someone who is legally carrying a gun, but instigates a fight and kills someone and then trys to invoke the SYG Law? To me that would be a rather cowardly thing to do.
I think because the Castle Law is more clear cut and leave very little wiggle room for abuse. The SYG Laws vary from state to state and in many cases can be verified only by the word of whoever is left standing
The same thing could be said for castle laws though. What stops someone from inviting someone they dislike over to their home and shooting them claiming castle law as their defense?
How about someone who is legally carrying a gun, but instigates a fight and kills someone and then trys to invoke the SYG Law? To me that would be a rather cowardly thing to do.
I guess you could call that cowardly, I don't know that I've ever heard of a case of that happening though so I haven't given it much thought. I asked about the term "cowardly" since it was being thrown around a lot to describe people who choose to defend their own lives, I've never understood how using whatever force is needed to save your own life is cowardly in any way.
I think because the Castle Law is more clear cut and leave very little wiggle room for abuse. The SYG Laws vary from state to state and in many cases can be verified only by the word of whoever is left standing
The Castle Law could also be abused. That isn't justification for repeal, though.
Funny! I never felt I needed the government's permission to stand my ground and protect me and mine. It's just plain common sense. The alternatives are to run or give in. Neither are acceptable options in my book. I've never been a Kumbaya-singin' kinda guy!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
