SCOTUS says self-defense is a personal responsibility, and if attacked by a criminal I will:

[jody]

Poll question: SCOTUS says self-defense is a personal responsibility, and if attacked by a criminal I will:

Below is background material for the poll question.

FBI says "statistics show that two out of three Americans will become crime victims at least once in their lifetime."

SCOTUS in DeShaney and in Gonzales says government is not responsible for protecting individuals against criminals, i.e. self-defense is a personal responsibility.

DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (No. 87-154) 489 U.S. 189 (1989) “As a general matter, then, we conclude that a State's failure to protect an individual against private violence simply does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause.”

Castle Rock V. Gonzales (04-278) 545 U.S. 748 (2005) “We conclude, therefore, that respondent did not, for purposes of the Due Process Clause, have a property interest in police enforcement of the restraining order against her husband.”

To avoid confusion, the definition of “arms” used in poll answers is that stated by SCOTUS.

D.C. v. Heller on page 7. “Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, . . . and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, . . . the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding”. {i.e. arms include instruments other than guns.}

POLL QUESTION: SCOTUS says self-defense is a personal responsibility, and if attacked by a criminal I will:

[FLAprogressive]

1. The Brady Bunch: When seconds count, police are only minutes away!

[Posteritatis]

3. Hee. (nt)

[jody]

39. "When seconds count, police are only minutes away!" and sometimes hours. n/t

[Sebastian Doyle]

2. NUKE THE BASTIRDS !1!1!!!!!111!

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: !!!!11!!!!!11

[Political Heretic]

4. I will attack them with FRICKEN LAZER BEAMS attached to me head!

[PDJane]

5. I sometimes think it's a good thing

That I have had a nasty temper, by times.

[kpominville]

6. According to that last ruling we are all entitled

to posess nuclear arms.

The second amendment guarentees my right to have an ICBM.
Doesn't it?

[jody]

8. What took so long, 6 posts before someone brought up nuclear arms as a red herring. n/t

[LooseWilly]

9. Sure, why not?

Run off tho the store and pick one up first chance you get.

Of course, it's a real bitch to claim self defense use of a nuke... "Really, the entire city was coming after me... screaming for brains!! That's exactly how it happened officers..."

[Two Americas]

10. yes

Of course. Private citizens have a right to own nuclear arms - they can even make them and sell them, and the government will buy them. You have every right to open a historic tank museum, too, and own as many tanks as you like.

By the way, rights are not entitlements or privileges granted by the government. The Constitution limits the power of government, it does not grant privileges from the government to the citizens.

Pretty basic concept there.


...

[TahitiNut]

47. Funny how folks forget that private corporations have ALL "arms" that are made, huh?

As some rush headlong to outlaw individual possession of the latest "scary thing" and recognize the corruption of corporate autocracies, they forget that those corporations have every killing device known to man.

The failure to realize that the Constitution is only about the boundaries and limits placed on government is a very common one. I don't know how much mental horsepower it takes to comprehend that human rights PRECEDE and are SUPERIOR to the Constitution and, in fact, are the very basis upon which the Constitution has any legitimacy whatsoever, but it's pretty low. Deux cheveaux skulls? I guess.

[Two Americas]

54. "...to secure these rights..."

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

I am not a gun person myself, but I am bitterly clinging to the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.


...

[jody]

65. Agree and PA (1776) followed by VT (1777) acknowledged those rights in their constitutions.

Constitution of Pennsylvania - September 28, 1776, "A DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OR STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA"

Constitution of Vermont - July 8, 1777, "A DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE STATE OF VERMONT"

[varkam]

7. Self-defense is a tricky thing.

You don't want to use more force than is necessary to defend yourself - otherwise you'll be facing criminal charges yourself. I'm also pretty sure that, at least in some states, there is a duty to retreat. IOW, if a "criminal" is coming at you from down the street, and you're in a car, you can't pop a cap in their ass and claim self-defense when you could have just as easily driven away.

And re that FBI stat: It might be true that 2/3 people will be the victims of crime at some point - but I think that number also includes property and economic crime. I'm pretty sure it's still against the law to shoot someone who is trying to steal your identity.

[jody]

11. I believe the folowing list is correct re stand-your-ground laws.

States with a Stand-your-ground Law, No duty to retreat anywhere.
• Alabama
• Arizona
• Florida
• Georgia
• Indiana
• Kentucky
• Louisiana
• Oklahoma
• South Carolina
• Texas
• Tennessee
• Utah
• Washington

States with a Castle Law, No duty to retreat if in the home.
• Alaska
• California
• Colorado
• Connecticut
• Hawaii
• Kansas
• Maine
• Maryland
• Massachusetts
• Michigan
• Mississippi
• Missouri
• Ohio
• Oregon
• New Jersey
• North Carolina
• Rhode Island
• West Virginia
• Wyoming
• New Hampshire
• Utah
• Wisconsin

[varkam]

14. Ah, much appreciated. I believe that, even in states w/o the duty to retreat...

you can't be disproportionate in the amount of force that you use (i.e. if you aren't attacked with deadly force, then you can't respond with deadly force - though I think that only applies if you're not in your dwelling). In addition, once the fight is "over" and the other side has clearly signaled a "surrender" (either by fleeing or by laying on the ground and...well...bleeding) you have to stop (and I'm pretty sure that even applies in your own dwelling).

Like I said, it's a tricky thing.

[ThomWV]

12. My Beretta, on the other hand, is more or less foolproof.

[varkam]

15. ?

[Terry in Austin]

22. Heh heh -- he said "foolproof"

Anybody?

:popcorn:

[michreject]

69. duty to retreat has been changed over the past couple of years

to a "Stand your ground" law.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. Do what was taught to me in bayonet/hand to hand training in boot camp.

In 1961, MCRD.

The instructor, after teaching us all those really cool tough guy tactics, said: "If you get that close, run like a stripy assed zebra."

[Fumesucker]

18. "If you get that close, run like a stripy assed zebra."

I heard basically the same line in the same place, 1969..

I always thought it was excellent advice. :)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. I still consider it good advice.

And, some I regret not following in a couple of barfights which turned out to be Pyrrhic victories considering the damage I sustained "defending my honor".

[Terry in Austin]

21. Perfect -- thanks!

:toast:

[Cid_B]

74. Had a german teacher once...

reminiscing about his basic training days. Drill says something along the lines of "Privates, in the case that your bayonet becomes fixed inside your enemy it is possible to fire off a round to withdraw your bayonet"

At this point PVT Teacher says something to the effect of "Drill Sergeant, If I have any bullets left you can be assured I wont be using the bayonet"

In hindsight, I call BS on this but still amuses me.

[ZombieHorde]

16. I am not a River Dancer.

[Terry in Austin]

17. Missing options

- you're attacked by somebody other than a criminal
- the other guy sees you packing, figures you're a criminal, and decides to defend himself
- the criminal is a better shot than you are, and you get blown away
- the criminal doesn't attack you, but just hands you an extortion note
- you read the note and decide to blow him away on general principles
- you decide that that rich guy is a criminal and you defend yourself by relieving him of his wallet

etc.

[xocet]

20. 10..9..8..7...!

...Passively utilize the personal mini-Nuke for which I have a Concealed Carry Permit. Ten seconds later, it is good-bye to the surrounding square mile or two.

Who cares, anyway? I will have taken out the "criminal" and served up some good old-fashioned justice and NRA propaganda to boot! What is a little collateral damage on the side?

Three cheers for the NRA, plentiful guns, plentiful ammo, and concealed carry! It makes everyone safer - even the dead!

[L0oniX]

24. It's obvious that our military doesn't mind the collateral deaths of the innocent.

[jody]

34. Disagree, it's the president and congress who don't "mind the collateral deaths of the innocent."

Only someone grossly ignorant of the simple fact that our President is a civilian elected by We the People is the Commander in Chief of all military forces.

Moreover, only Congress has the authority under our Constitution for such things as the following that you ignore:

QUOTE
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
END QUOTE

I wonder why young men and women would display selfless patriotism and place their lives in harms way to obey the orders of a Commander in Chief like Obama when some of his supporters demean and disparage their service.
:puke:

[ieoeja]

23. Where is "Defend myself and use weapons if NECESSARY"?

There is a subset of lawful Americans who have a serious lust to kill. All they need is the legal excuse. I don't use the term "gun nut" myself very often. But if I do, it is for this subset.

[Indy Lurker]

27. There's a difference

between "use arms" and "discharge arms"

If you point a gun and yell, don't come any closer, you are "using arms"

If the criminal continues to close and gets to 15 ft away and you shoot him you are "discharging arms"

(for the sake of argument, you are at home, and have no where to run, and your in fear of death or great bodily harm.)

[ieoeja]

29. You are right. I should have included "paranoids who don't want to" under the "gun nuts" definition

While there are certainly a lot of law-abiding people out there lusting after the opportunity to kill someone legally, I have to admit that the paranoids who have to reach for a gun every time they see a stranger on their property should qualify as "gun nuts" as well.

They aren't evil like the first group. But they are nucking futs.

Just last week my brother and one of my uncles was writing about not fearing to walk around their farms without a gun. I spent half my childhood walking those farms alone and unarmed. I still do when I get a chance. Once a year I camp there for a week at a time alone and unarmed. But now it has magically become infested with wild animals.

Well, it *is* infested with wild animals. But no more and no worse than when I grew up. And NOBODY walked the woods armed in those days unless they were hunting.

[jody]

70. The operative parts are "Defend myself and use arms" with the "if possible" acknowledging that it

may not always be possible to "use arms".

In retrospect I could have omitted the "if possible".

I don't see how the acknowledgment "if possible" changes the operative part of the answer or poll results but our different interpretations IMO are why poll statistics can be misconstrued.

Thanks for the exchange, :hi:

[ieoeja]

72. Yeah, I often have an internal debate when answering polls.

Do I answer the poll as worded? Or do I answer the poll as it will be interpreted? Particularly where political issues are concerned since the poll questions are frequently written to elicit a desired result rather than to get at the truth.

In this instance I just took advantage of an opening to illustrate my unhappiness with societal changes I have seen where I grew up as a result of the gun debate. As stated in my followup reply above, growing up nobody thought walking around the farm required carrying a weapon to be safe. My dad would sometimes carry one just in case he ran into a varmint. But he certainly didn't think he needed one for his safety. But now I have my brother and uncle discussing what is the minimum firearm required to walk safely around their farms.

I am as pro-gun as they come. But I am more concerned with the paranoia generated by pro-gun activists than with anti-gun activists attempts.

[On the Road]

25. I Believe There is Another Category

between "refuse to use arms" and "use arms if possible."

It would be "use arms as a last resort."

I have no problem with self-defense, but I feel much safer without a gun. I have spent a lot of time in poor urban neighborhoods, and most situations can be defused without violence.

[Posteritatis]

31. A nearby lamp or tree branch count as 'arms' under this poll (nt)

[depakid]

26. Basically note that you- like many others live in irrational fear

which is very closely realated to why your country tortured people and overwhelmingly supported a strategically counterproductive war.

It's why you've built the largest and most expensive prison system- and have little problems using it to lock away your children for life!

It's why you have bizarre zero tolerance rules

Because you live in this sort of pathological and often cowardly state- you don't care who you put at risk- or what the consequences are. Not other members of society- nor even for your families.

[Scout]

32. they have the "i'm all right jack" syndrome....

i'm all right, so fuck everybody else.

[jody]

38. You don't know me so why make such a stupid diagnose as "live in irrational fear"? Who do you

expect will protect you and yours because self-defense is a personal responsibility ?

[doctor jazz]

43. He has a brace of attack dingoes

:eyes:

[Irreverend IX]

40. If I have fire insurance and keep an extinguisher in the house...

Does that make me irrationally fearful? My likelihood of having to use those things is pretty low. And it's amusing for Australians, who are cheerfully allowing their government unlimited Internet surveillance due to moral panic over child porn, to talk about cowardice.

[depakid]

50. That you even equate the two illustrates the nature of the pathology

Fire extinguishers and smoke alarms don't increase the risk of a fires! Guns on the other hand....

As to the internet non-sense, that's a bogus pet project by a hack communication minister- it's roundly laughed at, and has no chance whatsoever of becoming government policy.

If you'd actually read about it- and understoood the matter- instead of reacting off the cuff, you'd know that. But then, reacting irrationally is EXACTLY my point here....

[GA_ArmyVet]

46. I agree with you for the most part,

I carry a weapon everyday (it is part of the job) but I would say 99.99 percent of all situations can be handle or resolved non-volently. But with that said, I do not want to be involved in the .01 percent that cant be, and not have a way to defend myself.
I have been trained in crisis negotiation and have used it in crisis situations, which were resolved with no one dying, but I was just a prepared to shoot the person who was threatening everyone.

I think the premise that just being prepared to defend yourself or others around makes you a gun nut, is wrong.
I agree that this society is too violent, I too wish everyone got along, but I personally refuse to roll over and allow the overgrown bullies, the hyper violent drug gangs, and take what they want and force me to live at their whim.

You want to end the violence then start teaching kids that there is no tolerance for assualting others, put violent criminals away forever. When the violence ends and we live in our "star trek" like utopia, then I will consider being unprepared to defend myself and trust everyone else not to do me or my family harm.

[Jack_DeLeon]

28. I would use arms, legs, hands, feet, teeth, and nails if need be...

but preferably my head and/or a good weapon would prevent that need.

[old mark]

30. I have carried a gun every day for nearly 15 years, and intend

to continue till I am no longer capable of doing it.


mark

[Scout]

33. bullshit poll

self-defense or not, and what kind of defense or not, are entirely situationally dependent.

where are you? how many attackers? is it someone in your home, and do you have a way out? do you have your children with you or near you? if you got away, can you outrun them? is there anywhere to run to? can you disable them without killing them? are you walking? are you in your car? is it daytime, nighttime, are there any other people around?

nah, fuck all that, i'll just be a paranoid, carry a gun with me, and shoot anyone who makes me feel threatened for any reason.

[jody]

36. Disagree but several of the posts are over qualified to be classified as bullshit. n/t

[anigbrowl]

41. +1

I'm not anti-gun particularly. but most of the avidly pro-gun people I've talked to have never actually used a weapon, had one used on them, or been in a life or death situation where someone was trying actually kill them. I have. I thought this poll was going to have a serious question attached but it's just another push poll.

Gun fans, feel free to exercise your second amendment rights all you want, but deal with the fact that we've had a string of multiple homicides in the last month leaving >50 people dead (including 7 cops), and the convenience factor and wide availability of guns has something to do with that. You'll get a much warmer receptions when you come up with some practical ideas on how to prevent that, and by practical I don't mean 'arm everybody all the time'.

[Occam Bandage]

35. Calmly and deliberately give them whatever they want. nt

[jody]

37. Even if what they want is your Life? If you really would do that, then your courage is right there

alongside suicide bombers who are impossible to deter.

[Occam Bandage]

44. The odds of a random yet preventable murder are so much lower

than the odds of a robbery/mugging that it's scarcely worth mentioning.

[jody]

45. I still admire you courage in letting a criminal kill you rather than resist. Of course that's easy

to say but harder to do if a criminal is fixing to kill you.

I admire your commitment to your pacifist code.

[Occam Bandage]

49. The odds of a criminal randomly attempting to murder me are much lower

than the odds of a criminal simply robbing me. Fighting a robber would simply increase my odds of death. I don't see any reason to do that.

[jody]

51. A rational person would acknowledge the probability of a criminal attempting to kill you is nonzero

therefore, I respect your commitment to die for your belief. :thumbsup:

[Occam Bandage]

55. And I do, but since your OP did not specify

"an attacker meaning to kill you," I will respond in a manner that maximizes my chances of staying alive.

[jody]

56. You said in #44 "odds of a random yet preventable murder are so much lower". Since the probability

of murder is nonzero as you acknowledge, your subsequent posts suggest you are willing to die rather than defend yourself.

Have a great evening. :hi:

[Statistical]

64. Including your body?

[librechik]

42. Hey--haven't they heard that President Bush's job is to protect me?

Next time I get mugged, I'm calling Junior.

[ddeclue]

48. FALSE PREMISE - SCOTUS DOES NOT SAY THAT...

You putting words into their mouths.

They simply say that a failure to protect a citizen from a criminal attack does not violate due process of law.

Huge overreach to fit your square peg into a round hole.

:eyes:

[jody]

52. Please cite specific SCOTUS cases that prove your assertion to counter the facts I presented. n/t

[ddeclue]

57. I'm just reading the actual language of your own post.

You apparently have comprehension issues.

:eyes:

[jody]

61. Please read the cases I cited. They support my conclusion. n/t

[varkam]

59. Their point seems to be legit.

I didn't examine too closely the case you cited, but this is from the DeShaney opinion:

Nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors. The Due Process Clause is phrased as a limitation on a state's power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security. It forbids a state itself to deprive individuals of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, but its language cannot fairly be extended to impose an affirmative obligation on the state to ensure that those interests do not come to harm through other means. Like its counterpart in the Fifth Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to prevent government from abusing its power, or employing it as an instrument of oppression.

...

In the substantive due process analysis, it is a state's affirmative act of restraining the individual's freedom to act on his own behalf -- through incarceration, institutionalization, or other similar restraint of personal liberty -- which is the deprivation of liberty triggering the protections of the Due Process Clause, not its failure to act to protect his liberty interests against harms inflicted by other means.

In other words, the Court's holding in DeShaney seems much narrower than you were interpreting it to mean as it was with respect to the Due Process clause which is interpreted as a restraint on governmental interference. Seeing as how Castle Rock also rests on Due Process concerns, it seems that, again, what we're looking at is restraint on state actors and not on affirmative duties imposed by the Due Process clause.

[jody]

60. If govt. is obligated to protect an individual, then she/he can sue govt. for failure to protect.

That's precisely what the two cases I cited are about and as you quoted, "Nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors."

If "a state {is not required} to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors", then responsibility is on the individual.

[varkam]

62. Not quite.

If "a state {is not required} to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors", then responsibility is on the individual.

They're not saying that a state is not required to protect its citizens (which may or may not be true, but it is immaterial to the issues in the cases that you cited). What they are saying is that the Due Process Clause does not impose an affirmative duty on the government. They are not saying that there is no affirmative duty on the government to protect citizens - they are merely saying that the due process clause does not impose that duty on the government. That is not the same as what you're taking it to say.

[jody]

63. You: "They are not saying that there is no affirmative duty on the government to protect citizens"

but you quoted "its language cannot fairly be extended to impose an affirmative obligation on the state to ensure that those interests do not come to harm through other means."

I don't understand, SCOTUS clearly says there is no "affirmative obligation" but you assert "They are not saying that there is no affirmative duty".

Do you contend that the word "duty" that you use is in no way related to "obligation" that SCOTUS uses?

Obligation: “1: a promise, acknowledgment, or agreement (as a contract) that binds one to a specific performance (as payment)”

Duty: “1: tasks, service, or functions that arise from one's position”

[varkam]

75. Okay.

I'll try to be a bit more clear. What the Court is saying is that the Due Process Clause does not impose an affirmative duty or obligation (those words mean the same thing to me). The Court is not saying that there is no such duty to be found anywhere in either the federal Constitution or in statutes that Congress has passed. The issue that was brought before the Court was whether the Due Process Clause imposes such a duty or obligation, not whether such a duty or obligation is to be found anywhere at all.

All the Court is saying is that the Due Process Clause does not impose such a duty because the Due Process Clause is a restraint on government interference. There is more to the Constitution and to governmental obligations than just the Due Process Clause.

[jody]

76. OK, please cite an enumerated right that obligates govt. to protect an individual. If one exists,

then attorneys for DeShaney and Gonzales were derelict in not using that argument in Federal courts, particularly the attorneys for Gonzales because they had DeShaney as precedent.

I haven't seen any discussion of the two cases that suggested other rights in the Constitution obligated government to protect an individual.

I await your proof as I'm sure do attorneys for numerous victims in recent murder/suicides cases.

If as you assert, government is obligated to protect individuals, then heirs to the estates of the victims will collect millions from government.

[varkam]

77. What?

All I did was point out that you were misconstruing the cases you cited, and now I have a research project? No thanks. Besides, you're the one making the claim, and so you bear the burden of proving it. You don't get to shift that burden until you've made a sufficient claim - which you haven't done yet (in light of how you misconstrued what the Court said in the cases that you cited).

I haven't seen any discussion of the two cases that suggested other rights in the Constitution obligated government to protect an individual.

Seeing as how that's not what they were discussing, it's not really surprising.

I await your proof as I'm sure do attorneys for numerous victims in recent murder/suicides cases.

Like I said above, you haven't met your burden - it's not up to me to prove anything.

If as you assert, government is obligated to protect individuals, then heirs to the estates of the victims will collect millions from government.

I made no such assertion. I mere pointed out that the cases that you cited aren't saying what you take them to say.

[jody]

78. Have a good day and good bye. n/t

[alarimer]

53. Run.

I think getting away is the highest priority. Fuck my "personal responsibility". Running away is a rational choice, maybe the most rational choice.

Trying to defend yourself is likely to provoke them. So I would either run or give in to whatever they wanted or simply run away if possible.

[MrSlayer]

58. Who the hell is refusing to defend themselves?

I'm amazed that anyone would just submit. At least try to make it difficult for the rapist, mugger or whatever. Or if you can't do that, run away. Don't just accept it.

[guitar man]

66. I'll use arms if necessary

If I'm in my home, there are door alarms, a large and loyal dog and finally a 12 gage pump shotgun. If the alarm doesn't scare them off and they manage to get past the dog, I will shoot and kill them if they are in my home with the intent to do harm to my family.

[marmar]

67. Oh boy.....

:eyes:

[michreject]

68. Defend myself and use arms if possible.

Actually it would be probable as I carry a gun every where I go. I have a Keltec P3AT in my pocket while at home as well.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

71. Nearly always, the best way to avoid being injured/killed by a criminal is to cooperate.

There are exceptions, sadly, but they're massively outnumbered.

Certainly, if someone tried to mug me, I'd just give them my wallet and walk away.

[virginia mountainman]

73. I will use every means at hand to defend myself and loved ones if attacked.

Included the use of defensive firearms...

As such, I carry a .45 automatic pistol where ever we go (that is not a gun free/victim zone)

Yea I have a carry permit