Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Kleck actually making some sense on lenient gun laws [View all]Straw Man
(6,951 posts)116. Still spouting something else, I see.
Obey the criminal, 80 year old guy vs. 20 year old thug. Is that all you have?
If the 80 year old or anyone can't remove himself from the situation, then he can use whatever force necessary. We all know and agree on that.
If the 80 year old or anyone can't remove himself from the situation, then he can use whatever force necessary. We all know and agree on that.
Except that you didn't "know and agree" on it. You made a blanket statement about what you consider "commensurate force," and you failed to take any extenuating circumstances into account until they were shoved into your face. Your propaganda failed the light-of-day test.
I'm not talking about justifiable defense. I'm talking about legalized homicide, which is what your precious SYG law allows. Get with the program Straw Man.
Now you are. Before, you were prating about "commensurate force" as if you were the Marquess of Fucking Queensbury. If your program is all about mealy-mouthed buzzwords like "legalized homicide," I would just as soon not be with it, Starboard.
"Your precious SYG law"? Please look at the text of the relevant sections of the law and explain to me how in your view they would have justified what Zimmerman did -- or at least what everybody is assuming that he did.
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the others imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
History.s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.
776.08 Forcible felony.Forcible felony means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.
History.s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 4, ch. 75-298; s. 289, ch. 79-400; s. 5, ch. 93-212; s. 10, ch. 95-195.
History.s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 4, ch. 75-298; s. 289, ch. 79-400; s. 5, ch. 93-212; s. 10, ch. 95-195.
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
History.s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
History.s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
118 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
When have I ever used that as a justification?!? Stop trying to put your fingers in my mouth, eh?
X_Digger
Mar 2012
#16
And, once again, how are you going to remove guns from the criminals. Full list please!
Logical
Mar 2012
#65
It's not the first incident of cognitive dissonance with this particular poster.
X_Digger
Mar 2012
#100
This post should be placed at the top of the main Gun Group page, in a nice frame or something. n/t
NewMoonTherian
Mar 2012
#8
It's obvious Kleck's not much of a criminologist- after all, he says things ST doesn't like.
friendly_iconoclast
Mar 2012
#40
Honestly, if he'd said 500,000 I'd think the same. Kleck's survey is a joke.
Starboard Tack
Mar 2012
#79
"That's like doing a survey in an insane asylum and asking if anyone's seen Jesus of late."
Simo 1939_1940
Mar 2012
#90
IIRC again, most of the pro-restrictionists base their claims upon studies...
PavePusher
Mar 2012
#93
Let the record show that this member is willing to libel a liberal Democrat.
Simo 1939_1940
Mar 2012
#87
So by virtue of the fact that you're not disclosing where you "corrected" your libelous
Simo 1939_1940
Mar 2012
#99