Wow, Wow, Wow.....No Gun Zones, Gun Registration, Background Checks and now Micro-stamping again!

[gejohnston]

74. you don't bother to read provided links do you?

Careful fella, you might lose your Gungeon membership for this

Oh I don't know. the nonvalid arguments and non-arguements come from your side.

Why should you give way to "some sociopath"? First off, that seems like a pretty ego-driven argument to me. Maybe I'm just perceiving it badly, but it does seem like your argument there is "Why should I be the one to back off?" The answer I would give to that is that no matter how much it pokes your ego to back off, your ego isn't worth a human life. if some derp-eyed motherfucker is losing his shit and it's just you and him, back off. If he's committed to coming after you, hey, his own fault for what happens next, right?

Not ego driven at all. We are not talking about mutual combat, ego doesn't have anything to do with it. I used the word sociopath for a specific reason. Is the life of a sociopath worth the same, in a civilized society, as someone who does feel empathy and values life?

Of course there ARE situations where backing off just isn't possible, or is itself unreasonable - say your derp-eyed motherfucker is menacing a pack of kids and you're the only capable person around? You don't say "Good luck kids!" you address the problem. However these are more often situational considerations rather than subjects that need complete changes to the laws on the books.

That is not even a logical argument. SYG gives you the choice, DTR requires you to retreat even if it is not reasonable to you, the one there. In DTR, someone else tries to make that determination based on knowledge they don't have.

It gets a little surreal when a state like Florida has SYG laws on the books... but nonlethal use of a firearm for self-defense is still a criminal act. illicit discharge, or unlawful brandishing? Yeah that makes sense.

Not the case. Brandishing threat without reason. Warning shots are illegal, and stupid for a number of reasons.

Also, in the immortal rhetoric of your fellow gungeoneers; show me someone who believes any form of self-defense is unreasonable. Please. Back up the statement, 'cause that sounds like BS.

perfect example
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=462071&mesg_id=462962 Guy shoots only after being shot. Some of them in this one, and the original OP on the subject, accusing the defender as a ego driven vigilante for not handing over his wallet.

With regards to burden of proof; no. The burden of proof has always been on the prosecutor. Always. You just fired off another of those talking points that just sounds so good when you hear it, but when you think about it... Just no. That's flat out NOT how our system works. The Prosecutor has to prove that the defendant did not attempt a reasonable retreat, it's never been up to the defendant to prove that they did - of course they can present their testimony and evidence to demonstrate such, but the burden of proof has always fallen on the prosecution.

You never bothered to read the links. Antis don't seem to bother to read provided links. In DTR, the burden of proof is on you to show that you acted reasonably and did not commit a crime.

And yes, actually, some of those sevenfold increases in not guilty verdicts probably are people getting away with murder (so to speak; murder being a legal term and yadda yadda) After all people are found not guilty when self-defense isn't even on the table. I don't think I need to mention the OJ trial in any detail, right? 'course not.

What the fuck does OJ have anything to do with it? I saw the reasonable doubt, anyone with a brain that followed it could see the reasonable doubt. Even if the jury thought he did it, there was more than enough reasonable doubt.

You're then falling back on your false assumption that the burden of proof is falling on the defendant... This seems to be the crux of your argument and it's just not true. SYG laws aren't removing any burden from defendants; they're simply adding more to prosecutors. Which again, is fine if your goal is to see an increase in legal homicide.

One more time, rather than simply provide the links you don't bother to read. SYG does remove it from you, and keep it on the State.

In the criminal law, the duty to retreat is a specific component which sometimes appears in the defense of self-defense, and which must be addressed if the defendant is to prove that his or her conduct was justified. In those jurisdictions where the requirement exists, the burden of proof is on the defense to show that the defendant was acting reasonably. This is often taken to mean that the defendant had first avoided conflict and secondly, had taken reasonable steps to retreat and so demonstrated an intention not to fight before eventually using force.