Might Makes Wrong

[spin]

44. You state ...

Shoot first laws remove the legal premise that has been at the core of Castle Doctrine and Self-defense laws for centuries - the duty to retreat if possible, the requirement to try to avoid lethal violence.

I disagree.

"Stand your ground" governs U.S. federal case law in which right of self-defense is asserted against a charge of criminal homicide. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Beard v. U.S. (158 U.S. 550 (1895)) that a man who was "on his premises" when he came under attack and "...did not provoke the assault, and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm...was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground."[2][3]

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. declared in Brown v. United States (256 U.S. 335, 343 (16 May 1921)), a case that upheld the "no duty to retreat" maxim, that "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife".[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

Obviously there is some legal precedent for not requiring a duty to retreat when attacked by an individual who intends to seriously harm or kill and has the capacity to do so in our nation' legal history.

I will agree that proactive law enforcement is largely responsible for the decrease in violent crime in this nation. Improvements in technology including better forensics, the advent of cell phones and cell phone cameras and the use of street cameras are also important factors but there are many other reasons.

Still the spread of Castle Doctrine Laws, "stand your ground" laws and "shall issue" concealed carry has not caused violence to skyrocket as was predicted by the media. In recent years firearm sales have set records but still violent crime has decreased. More guns may not equal less crime but more guns does not mean more crime.

I will also agree that there has been an effort by firearm manufacturers to increase profits by stressing that a firearm is an excellent tool for self defense. They may have exaggerated the danger but it still is true that a firearm in experienced hands is an excellent tool to stop a violent attack and is superior in many cases to less lethal methods such as pepper spray or martial arts in some extremely serious incidents. For example a woman may well be able to avoid a rape if she is armed with a handgun or a homeowner may save his family from home invaders. While not frequent such incidents do occur as our civilization has not advanced to the point where all people are "civilized."

Manufacturers often portray their products in a manner that increase sales. For example it is obvious that there is little reason to manufacture a car that can double the speed limit in most states but if you watch TV commercials you will see numerous examples of a car shown preforming in a manner that would lead to a very expensive fine in most cities or interstate highways. While I personally like a vehicle that does offer performance and handling I try to obey the speed limits.

Your article states:

The conservatives would have us believe we have to give up safety, we have to give up spending on law enforcement and first responders, further to enrich the wealthy. They posit that unemployment is a greater problem than crime, and in doing so they enrich the gun manufacturers and empower the NRA who are the manufacturers puppets. They would rather put money in the pockets of the rich, who have NOT been creating jobs with that additional money, because they incorrectly believe we have to choose between enriching the wealthy, and spending money on public sector jobs.

The underlying premise of that choice is that we can all DO the role of protection just fine without bothering with the courts - so the right also under funds THEM. And we can do it without law enforcement as well, by taking the law into our own hands, not only in our homes, but in public places.
http://penigma.blogspot.com/2012/10/might-makes-wrong.html

While I am not a conservative I feel that it is unfair to accuse all conservatives as wishing to gut law enforcement spending or to not properly fund the courts. I along with most people who strongly support gun rights (RKBA) are strong supporters of efforts to improve law enforcement and strong punishment for those who violate gun laws. The majority of those I know who own firearms are extremely conservative but some like me are liberal Democrats. Those of us who enjoy the shooting sports and even carry a legal firearm on a regular basis wish to see those who misuse weapons caught and punished. We realize that armed criminals and those with serious mental issues who use firearms for mass murder make all responsible firearm owners look bad. I should also point out that many of my friends who own and enjoy shooting are retired cops or currently serve and protect our society.

Your article states:

The notion that violence, including lethal violence, against anyone who is seen as 'other' and therefore threatening must be condoned extends to race as well by the right. In the case of George Zimmerman, every time he saw a young black man, he assumed he was a criminal. It may very well be that Zimmerman did not harbor antagonism towards black women, or black children; but he clearly did so towards black teens who were male, or black men. That set of assumptions about a group of people, the automatic and deeply held belief they are criminals, reflected in Zimmerman's prior 911 calls, and his calls about Trayvon Martin are clearly racist. That racist assumption that Trayvon Martin was a criminal, when he was not, was a fundamental part of the shoot-first decision rather than letting law enforcement deal with Martin. It was the foundation for Zimmerman harassing and stalking Trayvon Martin that led to their confrontation, and the fatal shooting.
The notion that violence, including lethal violence, against anyone who is seen as 'other' and therefore threatening must be condoned extends to race as well by the right. In the case of George Zimmerman, every time he saw a young black man, he assumed he was a criminal. It may very well be that Zimmerman did not harbor antagonism towards black women, or black children; but he clearly did so towards black teens who were male, or black men. That set of assumptions about a group of people, the automatic and deeply held belief they are criminals, reflected in Zimmerman's prior 911 calls, and his calls about Trayvon Martin are clearly racist. That racist assumption that Trayvon Martin was a criminal, when he was not, was a fundamental part of the shoot-first decision rather than letting law enforcement deal with Martin. It was the foundation for Zimmerman harassing and stalking Trayvon Martin that led to their confrontation, and the fatal shooting.
http://penigma.blogspot.com/2012/10/might-makes-wrong.html

I have yet to meet ONE person who legally carries a concealed weapon in Florida who feels that Zimmerman was entirely within his rights to pursue and confront Trayvon Martin. I refuse to speculate on if Zimmerman is a racist who feels that all "black teens or who were male or black men" were dangerous. While I can't know anything on Zimmerman's mindset that fact remains that the news media portrayed his description of Martin in an unfair light.

Zimmerman was accused of being motivated by racism[3][163] and of having racially profiled Martin.[3][123][290][317] During early media coverage of the incident, Zimmerman's call to the police dispatcher was edited by NBC, shortened such that it appeared that Zimmerman had volunteered Martin's race. The unedited audio recording proved that the police dispatcher specifically asked about Martin's race, and only then did Zimmerman reveal that Martin was black. NBC apologized for the misleading edit and disciplined those involved.[318]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Allegations_against_Zimmerman

I personally feel that Zimmerman should have his day in court as there are many valid questions about his actions. I should also point out Zimmerman is NOT using a "stand your ground" defense. Therefore your linking Zimmerman to either castle doctrine or "stand your ground" is largely irrelevant.

George Zimmerman's attorneys won't use "stand your ground" defense
AP/ August 13, 2012, 7:32 PM

(AP) ORLANDO, Florida - The attorney for the man who shot and killed unarmed Florida teenager Trayvon Martin said Monday he'll seek to get the case dismissed using a traditional self-defense argument and not the state's "stand your ground" statute.

Mark O'Mara, who is defending George Zimmerman against a second-degree murder charge in the fatal February shooting, said the traditional self-defense approach is appropriate because the facts suggest his client couldn't retreat from a beating Martin was giving him.

Zimmerman's attorneys had said last week that they would use Florida's controverial "stand your ground" law, which allows people to use deadly force - rather than retreat - if they believe their lives are in danger.

"The facts don't seem to support a 'stand your ground' defense," O'Mara said.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57492488/george-zimmermans-attorneys-wont-use-stand-your-ground-defense/

Over 800,000 resident Floridians have concealed weapons permits and perhaps 10% carry a handgun on a daily basis. Statistics and commonsense prove that that the Zimmerman shooting is an aberration. The overwhelming percentage of those who legally carry concealed in Florida do NOT consider themselves to be vigilantes or cops. We do not seek confrontation and most are extremely hesitant to engage in any argument that might potentially turn violent. I, like most others who carry, will walk away from any situation that might lead to violence even if it makes us look cowardly.You may disagree but I will point out that if your contentions were even marginally correct we would have had at least several more instances in recent months similar to the Trayvon Martin shooting.

While I may disagree with your post and many of the "facts" that you have posted, I feel that you are sincere in your beliefs and I welcome future discussions. I can only ask that you carefully consider my viewpoint as I will yours.