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.
Hope everyone is enjoying their Labor Day Monday! I am...by drinking some cold beer, frying catfish, and having nothing better to do but start a new poll!
This one is likely to be a little controversial, but hopefully interesting on how most of the "Texas Regulars", as well as "newbies" and recent residents to Texas feel about it.
That is, how do y'all feel about the so-called "Stand Your Ground" law?
Since the Travon Martin case, there has been a lot of controversy about it. Some feel it is tantamount to legalizing murder. Others believe it is only what should have been in effect all along in order that law-abiding citizens are not, by default, put on the defensive.
Let me hasten to add I am not a lawyer, so my brief summary of it, below, is just my own reading of it. Anybody else can take a look at the Texas Penal Code and see it for themselves and come to their own conclusions. But to proceed...
The overall intent -- again, MHO -- was to eliminate the former portion of Texas law which qualified that before a person could use deadly force to prevent the imminent commission of certain crimes against the person (examples: aggravated assault, armed robbery, kidnapping, forcible rape, etc) then it could be considered a factor for prosecution purposes if, before using the force, the potential victim did not "retreat" -- according to what a "reasonable person" (direct words from the old statute) would have done before using the said deadly force.
Now, break here. Even under the old code, Texas law was, relatively speaking, much more sympathetic to the innocent party than the criminal. Hell, in some states (mostly in the today called "blue-states) one almost had to run out the back door of their own home before being justified in protecting yourself! Oh man...
However, with that said, Texas law was still a bit "up in the air". That is, again, it qualified and a failure to "retreat" by "reasonable standards" could land a person in trouble. Problem was, what a "reasonable person" would have done was very much relative and subjective according to what the arresting officer, the prosecutor, and a jury (if it came to that) would consider "reasonable".
In any event, the replacement was designed to eliminate that ambiguity. It was made clear that a person had the right to use deadly force against an assailant to prevent the "imminent commission" of the crimes so listed and if they had the same reasonable cause to believe they were being confronted/subject to another's unlawful use of force which could result in death or serious bodily injury.
But the main change was, that "failure to retreat" could no longer be used as a consideration as to whether prosecution was warranted.
Personally, my opinion is I am all for the "Stand Your Ground" change. It doesn't mean at all that one cannot retreat according to their own judgment/discretion of the situation; heck, in some cases that might even be the smart thing to do. It just means there is no legal obligation to do so if one is in a public place where they have every right to be!
It is about time the criminal element among us become afraid of what WE might do to them!
Anyway, gimme a minute to post the poll before replying! LOL
Poll: How Do You Feel About "Stand Your Ground" Laws?
Greetings Fellow Texans!
Hope everyone is enjoying their Labor Day Monday! I am...by drinking some cold beer, frying catfish, and having nothing better to do but start a new poll!
This one is likely to be a little controversial, but hopefully interesting on how most of the "Texas Regulars", as well as "newbies" and recent residents to Texas feel about it.
That is, how do y'all feel about the so-called "Stand Your Ground" law?
Since the Travon Martin case, there has been a lot of controversy about it. Some feel it is tantamount to legalizing murder. Others believe it is only what should have been in effect all along in order that law-abiding citizens are not, by default, put on the defensive.
Let me hasten to add I am not a lawyer, so my brief summary of it, below, is just my own reading of it. Anybody else can take a look at the Texas Penal Code and see it for themselves and come to their own conclusions. But to proceed...
The overall intent -- again, MHO -- was to eliminate the former portion of Texas law which qualified that before a person could use deadly force to prevent the imminent commission of certain crimes against the person (examples: aggravated assault, armed robbery, kidnapping, forcible rape, etc) then it could be considered a factor for prosecution purposes if, before using the force, the potential victim did not "retreat" -- according to what a "reasonable person" (direct words from the old statute) would have done before using the said deadly force.
Now, break here. Even under the old code, Texas law was, relatively speaking, much more sympathetic to the innocent party than the criminal. Hell, in some states (mostly in the today called "blue-states) one almost had to run out the back door of their own home before being justified in protecting yourself! Oh man...
However, with that said, Texas law was still a bit "up in the air". That is, again, it qualified and a failure to "retreat" by "reasonable standards" could land a person in trouble. Problem was, what a "reasonable person" would have done was very much relative and subjective according to what the arresting officer, the prosecutor, and a jury (if it came to that) would consider "reasonable".
In any event, the replacement was designed to eliminate that ambiguity. It was made clear that a person had the right to use deadly force against an assailant to prevent the "imminent commission" of the crimes so listed and if they had the same reasonable cause to believe they were being confronted/subject to another's unlawful use of force which could result in death or serious bodily injury.
But the main change was, that "failure to retreat" could no longer be used as a consideration as to whether prosecution was warranted.
Personally, my opinion is I am all for the "Stand Your Ground" change. It doesn't mean at all that one cannot retreat according to their own judgment/discretion of the situation; heck, in some cases that might even be the smart thing to do. It just means there is no legal obligation to do so if one is in a public place where they have every right to be!
It is about time the criminal element among us become afraid of what WE might do to them!
Anyway, gimme a minute to post the poll before replying! LOL
Stand your ground regardless even if you have to bury the body
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
Greetings Fellow Texans!
Hope everyone is enjoying their Labor Day Monday! I am...by drinking some cold beer, frying catfish, and having nothing better to do but start a new poll!
This one is likely to be a little controversial, but hopefully interesting on how most of the "Texas Regulars", as well as "newbies" and recent residents to Texas feel about it.
That is, how do y'all feel about the so-called "Stand Your Ground" law?
Since the Travon Martin case, there has been a lot of controversy about it. Some feel it is tantamount to legalizing murder. Others believe it is only what should have been in effect all along in order that law-abiding citizens are not, by default, put on the defensive.
Let me hasten to add I am not a lawyer, so my brief summary of it, below, is just my own reading of it. Anybody else can take a look at the Texas Penal Code and see it for themselves and come to their own conclusions. But to proceed...
The overall intent -- again, MHO -- was to eliminate the former portion of Texas law which qualified that before a person could use deadly force to prevent the imminent commission of certain crimes against the person (examples: aggravated assault, armed robbery, kidnapping, forcible rape, etc) then it could be considered a factor for prosecution purposes if, before using the force, the potential victim did not "retreat" -- according to what a "reasonable person" (direct words from the old statute) would have done before using the said deadly force.
Now, break here. Even under the old code, Texas law was, relatively speaking, much more sympathetic to the innocent party than the criminal. Hell, in some states (mostly in the today called "blue-states) one almost had to run out the back door of their own home before being justified in protecting yourself! Oh man...
However, with that said, Texas law was still a bit "up in the air". That is, again, it qualified and a failure to "retreat" by "reasonable standards" could land a person in trouble. Problem was, what a "reasonable person" would have done was very much relative and subjective according to what the arresting officer, the prosecutor, and a jury (if it came to that) would consider "reasonable".
In any event, the replacement was designed to eliminate that ambiguity. It was made clear that a person had the right to use deadly force against an assailant to prevent the "imminent commission" of the crimes so listed and if they had the same reasonable cause to believe they were being confronted/subject to another's unlawful use of force which could result in death or serious bodily injury.
But the main change was, that "failure to retreat" could no longer be used as a consideration as to whether prosecution was warranted.
Personally, my opinion is I am all for the "Stand Your Ground" change. It doesn't mean at all that one cannot retreat according to their own judgment/discretion of the situation; heck, in some cases that might even be the smart thing to do. It just means there is no legal obligation to do so if one is in a public place where they have every right to be!
It is about time the criminal element among us become afraid of what WE might do to them!
Anyway, gimme a minute to post the poll before replying! LOL
In life, you do what you have to do. When they tell you that you can't do what you have to do, you give them a bow before proceeding to do that which you can't help but doing. So, you stand your ground like any animal would do and like the animal you are. If that is illegal, then you bury the body after shooting it.
This is an interesting poll. I'm not really sure the purpose of those laws since self defense is clearly already a part of most state laws anyway. Anecdotally, my mom and I were robbed at gunpoint when I was seven years old (Christmas Eve, at that). The robber held a gun to my head and threatened to "blow it off" if my mom didn't give him money. She gave him her rent money and we moved in with my grandmother for several months while my mom recouped her confidence, finances and I dealt with nightmares. Not for one instant have I wished death on the guy who robbed us in all the years that have passed. If anything, I hope the guy has found peace for himself, and a better way to live. A human life is a very important thing. I happen to value it more than most other things. I would like to think that others do too but sometimes I don't know. You can act all tough on the internet, like you'd "shoot first and ask questions later" or whatever, but I think most people are actually more circumspect than that.
I am not fond of the retreat option. In the heat of the moment it's hard to judge how many options are available to you. It is basically fight or flight and everything comes down to instincts. It is not fair to scrutinize victims' actions when their life was in jeopardy. If an aggressor lost his life then so be it.
This is an interesting poll. I'm not really sure the purpose of those laws since self defense is clearly already a part of most state laws anyway. Anecdotally, my mom and I were robbed at gunpoint when I was seven years old (Christmas Eve, at that). The robber held a gun to my head and threatened to "blow it off" if my mom didn't give him money. She gave him her rent money and we moved in with my grandmother for several months while my mom recouped her confidence, finances and I dealt with nightmares. Not for one instant have I wished death on the guy who robbed us in all the years that have passed. If anything, I hope the guy has found peace for himself, and a better way to live. A human life is a very important thing. I happen to value it more than most other things. I would like to think that others do too but sometimes I don't know. You can act all tough on the internet, like you'd "shoot first and ask questions later" or whatever, but I think most people are actually more circumspect than that.
With our current rehabilitation rates for criminals it is unlikely that he changed his lifestyle choices. And if he did it was probably after a series of more aggression upon innocent victims. I value all human life as well but I value the life of those who are not preying on others more.
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.
Poll: How Do You Feel About "Stand Your Ground" Laws?
