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.
What is obvious is that most people who don't support them have no idea what they're talking about but vapidly believe everything the media tells them.
No she wouldn't, you clearly don't understand SYG laws. Claiming you "felt threatened" isn't enough, there has to actually be a threat of some kind as well. Jogging down the street would not be considered a threat by any reasonable person, which is the benchmark for all SYG and self defense laws.
No there doesn't. This has been disproved multiple times by actual cases where people have gotten off on a SYG defense when the "victim" was shot while retreating/fleeing.
Before you mouth off about people not understanding the law, look into how it's being applied and what kinds of cases people are walking away from.
Because law enforcement can't get there in time. (99% of the time)
"Everyday citizens" = law-abiding citizens
"Cops" = everyday, law-abiding, citizens with some training
What does that have to do w/ anything?
So you'd be okay w/ cops using lethal force b/c they felt "threatened"? By the very nature of a cops' job, they are always feeling threatened. Using your logic (by extension of supporting SYG), anytime a cop approaches anything less than a subdued/docile suspect, they should have free reign to shoot to kill.
It is a VERY good law. It saves lives. Mostly in the AA community, btw.
How does ignoring an opportunity to leave a situation w/o killing someone save more lives than killing someone?
By definition of SYG, the thing that differentiates it from standard self-defense laws is that you CHOOSE to not leave. If you can't leave a situation, and have to resort to killing someone, then that falls under standard self-defense, making SYG redundant.
So how is that a good law? And how is a law that gives people a lower threshold than give cops to use lethal force, people that are actually trained to know when a situation actually requires it, a good law?
What happened to the narrative that the entire country has changed and wants more government control on firearms and their use?.... Seems to be proving to be a fallacy....
So you'd be okay w/ cops using lethal force b/c they felt "threatened"? By the very nature of a cops' job, they are always feeling threatened. Using your logic (by extension of supporting SYG), anytime a cop approaches anything less than a subdued/docile suspect, they should have free reign to shoot to kill.
No, I expect cops to be the most level-headed among us (though it doesn't always turn out that way).
SYG does NOT include 'free reign' --- I don't understand what you're thinking?
No, I expect cops to be the most level-headed among us (though it doesn't always turn out that way).
SYG does NOT include 'free reign' --- I don't understand what you're thinking?
It doesn't matter if it's "free reign." The standard that you're supporting that let's untrained citizens kill, is SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER than the standard we use for cops. That's absurd.
You're arguing b/c citizens don't know wtf they're doing, they should be allowed to escalate a situation to using lethal force, whereas we'd expect a cop not to...
This is why people call gun nuts, "gun nuts." Insane, illogical thinking like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gunlover
because we don't want to be robbed, raped, or murdered, its OK living in Chicago you don't understand not being a victim.
Or in other words
Quote:
Originally Posted by gunlover
I don't know my ***** from my elbow, so I can't actually defend SYG on its principle
I don't support them and I'm not an Obama worshiper wingnut either.
We already have self defense laws (you know the same on Zimmerman used) and I just don't feel there is a need for SYG laws. People are always going to be afraid of someone else and maybe for no particular reason.
I remember once a girl said she thought my sister and I were going to beat her up because we were taking a jog down the street in her direction. With SYG, she could have shot us and been "well within her rights" since she "felt threatened."
Self defense is enough and there is no need for SYG laws.
It is obvious that people who support them are afraid of everyone and everything and fall for the media trap that everyone and everything is out to get you.
It has to be deemed a "reasonable" threat, meaning you have to legitimately fear for your life by common standards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieB.Good
Why on Earth are people supporting a law that gives everyday citizens more leeway to use lethal force than we give cops?
In my opinion the reins should be tightened on scumbag cops.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieB.Good
Do you really believe that?
Yes, SYG laws are good laws, to spite all the abuse. The law itself isn't flawed, but the way in which it is sometimes applied is.
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.
(99% of the time) 
