States signing on to deadly force law

[banana republican]

A campaign by gun rights advocates to make it easier to use deadly force in self-defense is rapidly winning support across the country, as state after state makes it legal for people who feel their lives are in danger to shoot down an attacker — whether in a car-jacking or just on the street.

<snip>

The campaign is simply about self-defense, said Oklahoma state Rep. Kevin Calvey, a Republican and author of the law in his state. "Law-abiding citizens aren't going to take it anymore," he said.

"It's going to give the crooks second thoughts about carjackings and things like that. They're going to get a face full of lead," Calvey said. He introduced the bill at the request of the local National Rifle Association, and it passed with overwhelmingly support: The House agreed 83-4, the Senate 39-5.


***************************************

Can I shoot a republican can I; oh please can I; please; please; please????


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060524/ap_on_re_us/deadly_force

[anotherdrew]

1. has there ever been a car-jacking in Oklahoma? n/t

[rfranklin]

8. This is a way to get everyone to buy a gun...

which is what the NRA is all about. It is basically a trade group promoting gun sales. All the other stuff is just cover.

[jody]

12. I don't like the NRA's political machinations but what proof do you have

that the NRA "is basically a trade group promoting gun sales"?

[Nicole]

10. Of course there have

There was one this month in Tulsa. The lady spent 10 days in the hospital recovering from injuries sustained when she jumped from the moving vehicle.


This wasn't the first carjacking in Oklahoma. An Oklahoma City teacher was shot to death during a carjacking 20 years or so ago. Needless to say there have been others between now & then.

[Kutjara]

2. Of course you can.

Deadly force laws typically allow you to shoot anyone you feel is placing your life in danger. I would argue that Repugs are putting all our lives in danger on a daily basis. Therefore, it's perfectly permissible to blow the psychos away.

[banana republican]

4. Thanks, uhh someone knocking at my door

FBI;qw9-85=1quwjt;CIA <[9rjgkjbHOMELAND SECUvlaRHEJTNFV;LBKJEWMT'KJBV[br />

[primavera]

14. Woo hoo!

Wow, I never thought I'd find anything I liked about guns, but this casts an entirely new light on the matter! I may become a convert yet. :woohoo:

[MountainLaurel]

33. Oh no you don't!

I don't want Miss Molly accidentally shooting herself, or Dylan or Cali, because a gun looked like a nice chew toy.

[Selatius]

3. This sounds more like offense, not defense

Most muggings and carjackings do not offer the victim the luxury of forewarning. As a result, there is almost no time to pull out a gun and start shooting. Besides, your wallet or your car is not worth risking your life. What happens if a person shoots another because he mistook a person hurrying home from work for a person rushing towards him to rob him? Is it manslaughter or murder?

Personally, I don't care if a person buys a gun as long as he isn't a nutjob and has proven competent in living with and handling guns, but I fear this could only encourage victims in carjackings and muggings to do rash things that don't need to be done in dangerous situations.

[KansDem]

5. Of course it "defense!"

Most muggings and carjackings do not offer the victim the luxury of forewarning. As a result, there is almost no time to pull out a gun and start shooting.

There's pleeeeenty of time, as long as you're wearing your peacemaker..........and it's tied down.

:sarcasm:

[Meldread]

6. As a gay man...

I have to support laws like this. There was a case not to long ago in Pennsylvania where a young gay male was assaulted by a gang of kids, they attacked him, pushed him down on the sidewalk, and fearing for his life he pulled out a pocket knife. He ended up killing one of them, injuring another, and the other kids ran off when the first one fell. His life was undoubtedly saved by using deadly force. How many other gay bashings that have lead to murder could have been prevented in the same manor?

LGBT people can't depend on the law to stand by us. Hate Crime laws are few and far between, let alone equal rights in marriage or employment. We are constantly under threat and assault by homophobes. Would Matthew Shepard be alive today had he been armed? "Armed gays don't get bashed." That's the motto of the Pink Pistols, and one that I support.

People have the fundamental right to protect themselves and their property.

[rfranklin]

7. If thugs think that you have a gun, they will just shoot you first...

if they feel that your gayness justifies attacking you. Or whack you over the head before you can get your gun out.

[Meldread]

9. Maybe... but most likely not.

The stereotype is that gay people are weak and won't defend themselves. Most gay bashing (but not all) starts with intimidation tactics, typically a group of people surround a lone gay male call him names, and try and scare the shit out of him. It's followed by a beating. Of course, this isn't always the case - sometimes a gay bashing can just happen spontaneously such as someone walking into a gay bar and open firing with a gun, or finding a lone gay person on the street and beating them with a baseball bat.

In the first case the gay person has time to react and shoot at least one or two of them. In the second, he might be shot but hopefully he'll also shoot and kill the person who is open firing on the crowd. In the third you might be knocked on the ground, but if you are not unconscious you still have the ability to reach for a gun or some other weapon and use it.

A weapon and the right to use deadly force certainly will not save every gay person in every situation, but in some situations it will make a difference - and that is what counts.

[michreject]

35. I don't think so

Thugs would wait for a target that they knew was unarmed.

The Castle doctrine law is not about shooting someone for the hell of it. It protects you from being sued by the thugs family if the prosecutor rules it a justifiable, defensive shoot.

[Minnesota Libra]

44. rfranklin, Thugs will shoot if they have a gun whether you do or not......

.....by you having a gun you just even the odds a little bit.:think: I'm all for a law that allows me to defend myself against thugs.:applause: If I'm not attacked I'll have no reason to use force on anyone.:shrug:

[Doctor Venmkan]

15. And was the victim then sued by the injured perps...

...or the relatives of the one he killed? THIS is why I support these laws. It's bad enough to get victimized the first time on the streets, but without the protection these laws offer, you ALSO get victimized in court when the aggressor SUES you for DEFENDING YOUR LIFE! :(

[Meldread]

16. Yep, it reminds me...

...of a court case where a burglar was going to rob someone's home, and he ended up falling through their roof. He sued them because they had a bad roof and he got hurt, and he WON - the guy who was going to burglarize their home WON!

I am just glad that the case I mentioned, the one in Pennsylvania was thrown out of court. The judge said it was self defense and the kid was released from lock up. It was nice to see that the justice system actually works, at least sometimes.

I can understand why people would side against such laws, but in the world in which we live such laws are unfortunately necessary. It's a situation that most sane and rational people never want to be in, but unfortunately its one that anyone could find themselves. What do you do if someone is threatening your family with a gun, and you manage to get access to a weapon? Do you stand there and let them threaten to kill your family or do you use the weapon you have to attack the criminal? For me, there is no option, there is not even a shred of doubt or question in my mind.

[primavera]

18. Trade one problem for another

"...but in the world in which we live such laws are unfortunately necessary."

Okay, so some undefined number of people escape assault by preemptively using deadly force against their perceived attackers. In exchange, some undefined number of people who were just coming up to ask for a light or directions to the subway station get killed by nervous, oversensitive gunslingers who subjectively and incorrectly perceived themselves to be in peril. Those are some costly eggs you're willing to break to make that omelette.

[solinvictus]

19. Exactly...

The GLBT community knows this all too well from firsthand experience. If you're threatened with overwhelming force, you must have the means to resist or deter the attack. The most effective and available means is a firearm. Additionally, you're correct about the police: you can not count on police protection for your personal safety.

[jody]

11. Success for those who know self-defense is a personal problem.

SCOTUS has said government is not obligated to protect an individual unless she/he is in custody.

Handguns are the most effective/efficient tool for self defense as recognized by LEO and criminals who use them in their work.

That's why we Democrats say in our platform "We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do." See http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf

Laws approving deadly force for self-defense place victims on an equal level with criminals if law-abiding citizens choose to defend themselves.

[DiscussTheTruth]

13. Could be a positive sign.

Honestly lets look outside the box. Maybe the reason for acceptance of this is people are concerned about the government.

This gives more leverage for the people and less for law enforcement and the feds. I would like to see this currently happen in every state as this would likely scare the administration. They would have to ask, "Why are the American people arming themselves?"

[Bridget Burke]

26. You want people to arm themselves AGAINST the government?

I don't think that's the plan here.

Bush became Governor of my state by pushing a "concealed carry" law--opposed by law enforcement. Republicans love to convince everybody that the Democrats are going to take away their guns.

Let's hear it for responsible gun owners who know & respect their weapons. The nervous nellies who buy handguns to "protect" themselves are too often the ones whose weapons are "found" by their kids.

[DiscussTheTruth]

41. True

I agree. It's hard to say. We can only see that people are concerned for some reason and I am reading into why.

I was raised around guns and do believe Americans should keep a few weapons in the basement under lock and key. I don't agree with the shoot first ask questions after. But also remember if a situtation does happen it still has to go to court. Just because the law says one thing doesn't mean the jury won't find them guilty of murder if that was the intent.

[brentspeak]

17. What is the point of this law?

It's rare that someone is unfairly prosecuted for using deadly force in self-defense. What's this law going to do? Make it legal to kill people when no hard evidence is available that lives are in danger?

[Big_Mike]

20. As I see this, this is to eliminate the lawsuit following the successful

defense of your life. As mentioned in the thread above, if you defend yourself successfully, there are cases where you are then sued in civil court for damages. As I understand what is being passed, this eliminates that particular threat. I am, however, not a lawyer, and am only going by what I understand is being passed.

[Alfalfa Wolf]

21. I remember a news report a few years ago...

...of a person who shot and killed someone in self defense outside a bar. The person was faced with an imminent deadly threat, but had to be found guilty of manslaughter because it was illegal to carry a firearm onto a premises that serves alcohol.

[slackmaster]

31. Very similar to something that happened to a friend of mine

My friend, who had a prior felony drug conviction, was carrying a gun illegally. He used it to shoot and kill a man who had been beating my friend's best friend with a bar stool.

He was convicted of being a felon in possession of a gun, for which he got five years, and another four for manslaughter. He served six and now travels all over the world working for Cirque de Soleil.

I've always believed the shooting was morally justified, but that's based on what I've heard about the incident rather than what the jury at his trial heard.

[slackmaster]

30. Like most laws, it's being promoted mostly for political reasons

A little cold water for this debate:

It won't really make much difference in actual situations where people are faced with a shoot/no-shoot decision. That always comes down to one's personal moral code, emotional state, and the specifics of the danger one is facing. Those situations are rare; even most people who carry guns all the time (e.g. police officers) never face that decision.

The laws sound good, at least on the surface, to people who believe that individuals rather than government bear the primary responsibility for their own safety. It's a backlash against the "government is here to protect you" mentality of authoritarians both left and right.

[leesa]

22. This is an utter disaster in the making. I hope we don't have to feel for

all the innocent people gunned down here in the Wild Wild West Comedy Show. This is what America wants, then don't come crying if your kids, wife, husband get caught in the crossfire.

[Thickasabrick]

23. I'm not familiar with the intricacies of these laws, but from what

I do know, it makes me wonder if anyone could just kill someone and then claim they "felt" threatened.....whether they were really threatened or not. It seems like an incredible "slippery slope" and a winning defense for any would be murderers.

[struggle4progress]

24. Statistics, Gun Control Issues, and Safety

Firearms Deaths by Mode of Death for Children <15 Years of Age
Top 10 Countries - Rate per 100,000


.. The issue of "home defense" or protection against intruders may well be misrepresented. Of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998). Over 50% of all households in the U.S. admit to having firearms (Nelson et al, 1987). It would appear that, rather than beign used for defense, most of these weapons inflict injuries on the owners and their families ..

http://medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

[solinvictus]

25. Some additional information is needed...

how many of these kids were killed either due to criminal activities? Considering the prevalence of street gangs, it's a fallacy to consider a 14 year old gang member in the same light as a child killed due to an accident or negligence.

[slackmaster]

32. Big piece missing from that study

It says nothing about how many times guns were simply displayed or brandished in self-defense, without a shot being fired.

[bunyip]

34. Bowling for Columbine

by Micheal Moore demonstrates that Canada is as gun-friendly as the US. I'm sure I don't need to explain Israel's position. Canada has more guns than people, Israel dramatically more.

Yet deaths through incompetence and criminal violence in Canada and Israel are so much lower than the US per capita. The question should be 'why are Americans so weapon-illiterate as to accidentally kill themselves or leave weapons unsecured'? And 'why are Americans so afraid of Americans'?

And then 'what can be done to change this'?

Here in Australia, drug gangs have fully-automatic assault rifles with thermal-imaging scopes, but an honest citizen generally needs to navigate a blizzard of paperwork, interviews and also own a farm just to buy a single-shot .22 rifle.

You don't want to end up like us, trust me.

[iverglas]

39. no no no no no no no

Canada has more guns than people

No. We don't. This isn't just a myth, this is a bizarre myth.

I watched Columbine again recently, largely because of what I keep hearing Moore is supposed to have said about firearms and Canada. He doesn't seem to have said it.

Canada has a population of about 32 million, and somewhere around 1/4 that many firearms. Fewer than 1/4 of households in Canada have firearms (about half the US rate).

But the big difference? Canada does not have HANDGUNS floating freely around. Access to handguns is relatively strictly controlled. Handguns are available only for certain purposes, and have long been registered.

Canadians own firearms for sport, hunting and rural purposes (predator and vermin control). Not for toting around in their pants or slipping under their pillow, for fear of bogeymen. Firearms ownership in Canada is not casual as it is in the US. Canadians are also required to have licences in order to acquire firearms, and to register their firearms -- and to store them safely and securely. And inappropriate firearms use is dramatically lower. Cause and effect? Of course not!!!


Here in Australia, ... an honest citizen generally needs to navigate a blizzard of paperwork, interviews and also own a farm just to buy a single-shot .22 rifle.

I'd love to end up like you. Unfortunately, we have just managed to elect a right-wing government that is going to try to shut down the firearms registry and dog knows what else. Oh yeah, introduce mandatory minimum sentences (normally regarded as unconstitutional in Canada, so we'll see) for firearms offences, and build a bunch more prisons. I kid you not. That'll scare all those thugs with guns, kinda how like the mandatory minimum sentence for murder (one of the few that have passed constitutional scrutiny) does. Mmm hmmmm.

[Zynx]

42. One has to explain why Canada has more guns per capita than Brazil

with Brazil having 17 million guns and a lower(MUCH LOWER) murder rate. It isn't guns that cause a high homicide rate, but other causes.

[slackmaster]

47. Canada has a lot less crime in general than Brazil

Partly because many Canadians are rural, but more importantly IMO that Canada's social support systems, education, health care and so on keep people out of the kind of desperate poverty one finds in Brazil.

[Zynx]

50. Aha! You just hit on the real issue. Poverty.

Poverty leads to crime. There is no doubt about it. If one wants to reduce the crime rate in the US, solve the social injustice issues.

[iverglas]

51. give it up

Partly because many Canadians are rural

Canada is one of the most urbanized nations on earth. We really do not all live in igloos. Brazil is far more "rural" than Canada, which is roughly as urban as the US.

Canadian firearms owners are more "rural" than in either the US or Brazil, I'd wager. And once again, the difference? Handguns. Rare in Canada. Fashion accessory of choice in the US and Brazil.


The bizarre myths just get up my nose.

[PerceptionManagement]

27. Lets start shooting Republicans who threaten our Air, Water, Children

AND OUR HEALTH CARE!

[noonwitch]

28. I don't have any problem with self defense

I am more concerned with people's perceptions of what is a dangerous situation. If some bastard was raping me and my neighbor blew his head off to protect me, well, I would be pretty grateful. Or, if someone breaks into my house, I'm home, and I hit him with my baseball bat and kill him, well, I'd hope that would be considered self defense, too. I don't have a gun, but the same would apply if I did and I shot him or cut his throat with my dagger (although that would be reserved for up close and personal attacks). When I think about it, really, blowing his head off is likely a more merciful death than either of the methods I do have available to me.

But I don't like to think this way, so I'll leave it at that.

The concern I have is about the Bernard Goetz's of this world, who will misinterpret a situation and think deadly force is needed when it isn't.

[alarimer]

29. Is this really necessary?

You already have the right to defend yourself with deadly force if needed. This is simply a sop to gun nuts and vigilantes. On the other hand, if some Republican assholes comes knocking on my door, can I shoot him if he's annoying me???

[benEzra]

36. Only if they attempt to break in

Only if they stage a home invasion, attempt to carjack you, or attempt to kill/maim you in a place you have a legal right to be.

Otherwise, no, you're out of luck... :D

[alarimer]

37. Damn! I was hoping to bag me one

oh well. Now I'll just have to slam the door in their face.

[iverglas]

38. oh lordy, it's spreading

Out of the gun dungeon, into the fresh air ...

I urge anyone who is actually interested in this issue to read some of what's on offer down in the dungeon. Why, I started a thread about it myself just this week:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=125237&mesg_id=125237

The Florida legislation in particular is *not*, repeat NOT, what it is often represented as being.

It doesn't just allow the use of deadly force -- it allows the use of deadly force

- by people who are PRESUMED BY LAW to be in fear of their lives in their homes (for instance), and who do not need to present anything at all to show that they had any REAL, let alone reasonable, fear for their lives (as the common law and most statute laws in common-law jurisdictions have required for centuries);

- against people who are PRESUMED to have the intention of committing a forcible felony if they are BELIEVED to have forcibly entered a dwelling.

Has no one down there heard of the little thing called DUE PROCESS? Harry/iet Homeowner gets to PRESUME that someone in his/her house is there to commit a forcible felony (which, by the way, includes burglary) -- and to INTENTIONALLY off that person without ever having to explain to anyone WHY s/he did it??

The law actually creates facts out of whole cloth: that someone in a particular situation was going to commit a forcible felony, and that the other person in the situation was in fear for his/her life.

As the economist joke has it, why don't we just PRESUME a can opener while we're at it? Why not PRESUME that the burglar is Jimmy Hoffa? Just think of all the fun things we could presume if we put our minds to it!

And some of them wouldn't even involve people ending up dead FOR NO REASON.

Ah, that inalienable right to life, what a swell thing it is. Too bad it isn't recognized in Florida.

[pooja]

40. Florida issue

I think the major driving force behind this law is the situation that occurs once one has exercised his/ her right in defense of his/ her home/ property. The police immediately take you into custody, and then it is up to the courts to decide whether or not to prosecute. Also, has a lot to do with being sued to. If it is your "right" to defend yourself/ property, then the criminal can't sue you because they became injured by you. Its one of those laws that doesn't make sense if read without reason. The intent was to make it easier for a "man" to defend his home.

The newer one of concern is a law allowing employees to bring concealed weapons to their workplace. Can anyone spell POSTAL!!!

[Thickasabrick]

45. Exactly - this is a murderers's dream come true. How many

old white bigots (and I'm assuming there are still plenty), would fear for their lives if they just saw a black man walking in their neighborhoods? This law basically gives every bigot out there justification for murdering people.

[slackmaster]

49. Time will tell

The concern seems somewhat reasonable, but it hasn't happened yet.

[sweetheart]

43. Put everyone in prison

then we'll be safe from everyone except the guards.

Naah, why use prison, just kill them, like the army
kills iraqi civilians, with deadly-force impunity. Heck,
it sure saves a lotta money on trials when the prison
cells are so full and desperately needed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1283288&mesg_id=1283288

I am sickened at what the country has become.
How degenerate.

[jdeetz1019]

46. Welcome to the Wild West folks!!

This is going to throw us back to the days that it was OK to shoot someone for looking at you corss eyed. Someone please explain to me how you prove someone was "feeling threatened".

[slackmaster]

48. Dire predictions for this and for liberalized concealed-carry laws

Have not yet materialized, despite the fact that they have been in place for some time in many places.

I recommend that anyone who feels that concern should enroll in or at least audit a training course in use of deadly force. It doesn't have to be firearms - Edged weapons or an empty-hand martial arts class will teach you the same things about the reality of what happens when you actually employ deadly force.

The standard taught at the Front Sight Institute in Pahrump, Nevada where I took an edged weapons course is something like this:

Ask yourself whether the situation you are facing is worth dying for. If the answer is anything other than a solid Yes, then you probably should not use deadly force.

[sweetheart]

52. Explosive vests

MAD is another strategy, that if every shoooter out there
realized that their was a bio-vest on their victem, and that by
killing them, they would release a toxin that would ultimately
kill themselves and everyone they knew... fair.

Good thing such vests are standard issue protective gear at K-Mart... and
that personal-bioweapons and chemical weapons are approved for perosnal use
as long as the death-radius is less than 100 meters and the maximum kills
remain less than a standard civilian-use 2000 pound B-52 munition.

Perhaps the proliferation of micro-nuclear devices will make the future
of assassination less appealing for the shooters. How exciting the evolution
of weapons ordnance and how darwin meant the more evolved weapons societies to
conquor all the heathens without any casualties... how very white, that.