Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Open Carry meets Stand Your Ground

Saska
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2014 4:30:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If a group of individuals walk into a place of business carrying semi-automatic rifles over their shoulders in Florida, and someone feels intimidated (afraid for their personal safety) by this act, they are within the law to open fire and kill the individuals who have intimidated them. Does anyone else find it funny/scary that it is the same gun toting radicals that want both open carry rights and stand your ground laws? It seems to me that what they really want is open warfare without consequence.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2014 6:22:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/16/2014 4:30:36 PM, Saska wrote:
If a group of individuals walk into a place of business carrying semi-automatic rifles over their shoulders in Florida, and someone feels intimidated (afraid for their personal safety) by this act, they are within the law to open fire and kill the individuals who have intimidated them. Does anyone else find it funny/scary that it is the same gun toting radicals that want both open carry rights and stand your ground laws? It seems to me that what they really want is open warfare without consequence.

Nah, they just want to know that they have the power and the right to kill anyone who makes them feel afraid in any time at any place.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2014 7:51:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/16/2014 4:30:36 PM, Saska wrote:
If a group of individuals walk into a place of business carrying semi-automatic rifles over their shoulders in Florida, and someone feels intimidated (afraid for their personal safety) by this act, they are within the law to open fire and kill the individuals who have intimidated them. Does anyone else find it funny/scary that it is the same gun toting radicals that want both open carry rights and stand your ground laws? It seems to me that what they really want is open warfare without consequence.

The Zimmerman trial kinda showed that murder is legal is Florida.

Also, there was an instance of a woman who fired a gun in the air in Florida because she was afraid of her abusive husband. The woman got 20 years in prison. But, if she shot him it prob would have been legal.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2014 8:06:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/16/2014 7:51:52 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 7/16/2014 4:30:36 PM, Saska wrote:
If a group of individuals walk into a place of business carrying semi-automatic rifles over their shoulders in Florida, and someone feels intimidated (afraid for their personal safety) by this act, they are within the law to open fire and kill the individuals who have intimidated them. Does anyone else find it funny/scary that it is the same gun toting radicals that want both open carry rights and stand your ground laws? It seems to me that what they really want is open warfare without consequence.

The Zimmerman trial kinda showed that murder is legal is Florida.
It's not murder if it is self defense, and the state couldn't prove it wasn't.

Also, there was an instance of a woman who fired a gun in the air in Florida because she was afraid of her abusive husband. The woman got 20 years in prison. But, if she shot him it prob would have been legal.

If we are thinking about the same case, the fact the woman went INTO her husbands house is the reason SYG did not apply, and the 20 years was due to mandatory minimum sentences.
My work here is, finally, done.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2014 8:21:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/16/2014 8:06:47 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 7/16/2014 7:51:52 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 7/16/2014 4:30:36 PM, Saska wrote:
If a group of individuals walk into a place of business carrying semi-automatic rifles over their shoulders in Florida, and someone feels intimidated (afraid for their personal safety) by this act, they are within the law to open fire and kill the individuals who have intimidated them. Does anyone else find it funny/scary that it is the same gun toting radicals that want both open carry rights and stand your ground laws? It seems to me that what they really want is open warfare without consequence.

The Zimmerman trial kinda showed that murder is legal is Florida.
It's not murder if it is self defense, and the state couldn't prove it wasn't.

Also, there was an instance of a woman who fired a gun in the air in Florida because she was afraid of her abusive husband. The woman got 20 years in prison. But, if she shot him it prob would have been legal.

If we are thinking about the same case, the fact the woman went INTO her husbands house is the reason SYG did not apply, and the 20 years was due to mandatory minimum sentences.

They were married so it was both their houses. And, minimum sentences are way more stupid and injust than the stand our ground law. I think minimum sentences are extremely are extremely immoral, injust and evil
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2014 8:24:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/16/2014 8:21:22 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 7/16/2014 8:06:47 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 7/16/2014 7:51:52 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 7/16/2014 4:30:36 PM, Saska wrote:
If a group of individuals walk into a place of business carrying semi-automatic rifles over their shoulders in Florida, and someone feels intimidated (afraid for their personal safety) by this act, they are within the law to open fire and kill the individuals who have intimidated them. Does anyone else find it funny/scary that it is the same gun toting radicals that want both open carry rights and stand your ground laws? It seems to me that what they really want is open warfare without consequence.

The Zimmerman trial kinda showed that murder is legal is Florida.
It's not murder if it is self defense, and the state couldn't prove it wasn't.

Also, there was an instance of a woman who fired a gun in the air in Florida because she was afraid of her abusive husband. The woman got 20 years in prison. But, if she shot him it prob would have been legal.

If we are thinking about the same case, the fact the woman went INTO her husbands house is the reason SYG did not apply, and the 20 years was due to mandatory minimum sentences.

They were married so it was both their houses. And, minimum sentences are way more stupid and injust than the stand our ground law. I think minimum sentences are extremely are extremely immoral, injust and evil

It was her husband, yes, of which she had a restraining order for.
Stand your ground does not give you license to hunt for trouble.
She had no reason to be there, thus SYG does not apply.
Also, I don't think it was up in the air, but into the wall, which went through the wall, into the child's bedroom, where a child was (not sure about the very last part).
My work here is, finally, done.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2014 8:26:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/16/2014 8:24:46 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 7/16/2014 8:21:22 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 7/16/2014 8:06:47 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 7/16/2014 7:51:52 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 7/16/2014 4:30:36 PM, Saska wrote:
If a group of individuals walk into a place of business carrying semi-automatic rifles over their shoulders in Florida, and someone feels intimidated (afraid for their personal safety) by this act, they are within the law to open fire and kill the individuals who have intimidated them. Does anyone else find it funny/scary that it is the same gun toting radicals that want both open carry rights and stand your ground laws? It seems to me that what they really want is open warfare without consequence.

The Zimmerman trial kinda showed that murder is legal is Florida.
It's not murder if it is self defense, and the state couldn't prove it wasn't.

Also, there was an instance of a woman who fired a gun in the air in Florida because she was afraid of her abusive husband. The woman got 20 years in prison. But, if she shot him it prob would have been legal.

If we are thinking about the same case, the fact the woman went INTO her husbands house is the reason SYG did not apply, and the 20 years was due to mandatory minimum sentences.

They were married so it was both their houses. And, minimum sentences are way more stupid and injust than the stand our ground law. I think minimum sentences are extremely are extremely immoral, injust and evil

It was her husband, yes, of which she had a restraining order for.
Stand your ground does not give you license to hunt for trouble.
She had no reason to be there, thus SYG does not apply.
Also, I don't think it was up in the air, but into the wall, which went through the wall, into the child's bedroom, where a child was (not sure about the very last part).

Still no where near worth 20 years in prison!...Maybe none, or one or two years max
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2014 8:29:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/16/2014 8:26:11 PM, twocupcakes wrote:

Still no where near worth 20 years in prison!...Maybe none, or one or two years max
Agreed.
But, that wasn't the analogy you were drawing, was it? ;)

You brought it up to show inequity in gun use, which isn't anyone's fault except the legislator's for the 20 years, for the aggrevated assault.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2014 8:33:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/16/2014 4:30:36 PM, Saska wrote:
If a group of individuals walk into a place of business carrying semi-automatic rifles over their shoulders in Florida, and someone feels intimidated (afraid for their personal safety) by this act, they are within the law to open fire and kill the individuals who have intimidated them. Does anyone else find it funny/scary that it is the same gun toting radicals that want both open carry rights and stand your ground laws? It seems to me that what they really want is open warfare without consequence.

It seems to me that you don't know what stand your ground actually means.

In this scenario, you would have to prove that:
1. You had a right to be in the store (already difficult to prove)
2. You had a reasonable fear (difficult to prove if they are have their weapons out, keeping in mind you have your own)
3. You had a reason to use deadly force (again, difficult to prove, since neither had a right to be there, and the shooter is the one exercising force)
My work here is, finally, done.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2014 9:09:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/16/2014 8:33:22 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 7/16/2014 4:30:36 PM, Saska wrote:
If a group of individuals walk into a place of business carrying semi-automatic rifles over their shoulders in Florida, and someone feels intimidated (afraid for their personal safety) by this act, they are within the law to open fire and kill the individuals who have intimidated them. Does anyone else find it funny/scary that it is the same gun toting radicals that want both open carry rights and stand your ground laws? It seems to me that what they really want is open warfare without consequence.

It seems to me that you don't know what stand your ground actually means.

In this scenario, you would have to prove that:
1. You had a right to be in the store (already difficult to prove)
2. You had a reasonable fear (difficult to prove if they are have their weapons out, keeping in mind you have your own)
3. You had a reason to use deadly force (again, difficult to prove, since neither had a right to be there, and the shooter is the one exercising force)

1) This is assumed. You're going to have to prove that all the people involved DIDN'T have the right to be in the store.
2) Brandishing a weapon does constitute reasonable fear in many jurisdictions.
3) Reasonable fear of use of deadly force is a reason to respond with deadly force under SYG laws.

I don't find anything inconsistent with the OP.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2014 9:13:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/16/2014 7:51:52 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 7/16/2014 4:30:36 PM, Saska wrote:
If a group of individuals walk into a place of business carrying semi-automatic rifles over their shoulders in Florida, and someone feels intimidated (afraid for their personal safety) by this act, they are within the law to open fire and kill the individuals who have intimidated them. Does anyone else find it funny/scary that it is the same gun toting radicals that want both open carry rights and stand your ground laws? It seems to me that what they really want is open warfare without consequence.

The Zimmerman trial kinda showed that murder is legal is Florida.

I'm hoping you're aware that the Zimmerman case was completely unrelated to SYG?

Also, there was an instance of a woman who fired a gun in the air in Florida because she was afraid of her abusive husband. The woman got 20 years in prison. But, if she shot him it prob would have been legal.

There's more to that case than you seem to be implying...I'm hoping you're aware of that, as well.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2014 9:18:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/16/2014 9:09:43 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/16/2014 8:33:22 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 7/16/2014 4:30:36 PM, Saska wrote:
If a group of individuals walk into a place of business carrying semi-automatic rifles over their shoulders in Florida, and someone feels intimidated (afraid for their personal safety) by this act, they are within the law to open fire and kill the individuals who have intimidated them. Does anyone else find it funny/scary that it is the same gun toting radicals that want both open carry rights and stand your ground laws? It seems to me that what they really want is open warfare without consequence.

It seems to me that you don't know what stand your ground actually means.

In this scenario, you would have to prove that:
1. You had a right to be in the store (already difficult to prove)
2. You had a reasonable fear (difficult to prove if they are have their weapons out, keeping in mind you have your own)
3. You had a reason to use deadly force (again, difficult to prove, since neither had a right to be there, and the shooter is the one exercising force)

1) This is assumed. You're going to have to prove that all the people involved DIDN'T have the right to be in the store.
No, they just have to prove that the dead man didn't, which is difficult if the store allows open carry.
2) Brandishing a weapon does constitute reasonable fear in many jurisdictions.
At least someone knew this ;)
It would be null, since it isn't brandishing, it is carrying. The conceal gun owner is the one who would be brandishing.
http://www.shouselaw.com...
3) Reasonable fear of use of deadly force is a reason to respond with deadly force under SYG laws.
Having a gun =/= using a gun.
It is not reasonable to assume that AS A GUN POSSESSOR, a man with a gun is a threat simply because he has a gun.

I don't find anything inconsistent with the OP.

Look at how he defines SYG: "and someone feels intimidated (afraid for their personal safety) by this act"
That is not the law, and, again, why is someone who currently owns a gun intimidated by another?
My work here is, finally, done.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2014 9:32:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/16/2014 9:18:12 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 7/16/2014 9:09:43 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/16/2014 8:33:22 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 7/16/2014 4:30:36 PM, Saska wrote:
If a group of individuals walk into a place of business carrying semi-automatic rifles over their shoulders in Florida, and someone feels intimidated (afraid for their personal safety) by this act, they are within the law to open fire and kill the individuals who have intimidated them. Does anyone else find it funny/scary that it is the same gun toting radicals that want both open carry rights and stand your ground laws? It seems to me that what they really want is open warfare without consequence.

It seems to me that you don't know what stand your ground actually means.

In this scenario, you would have to prove that:
1. You had a right to be in the store (already difficult to prove)
2. You had a reasonable fear (difficult to prove if they are have their weapons out, keeping in mind you have your own)
3. You had a reason to use deadly force (again, difficult to prove, since neither had a right to be there, and the shooter is the one exercising force)

1) This is assumed. You're going to have to prove that all the people involved DIDN'T have the right to be in the store.
No, they just have to prove that the dead man didn't, which is difficult if the store allows open carry.

Why would it be difficult? You just ask the store owner.

2) Brandishing a weapon does constitute reasonable fear in many jurisdictions.
At least someone knew this ;)
It would be null, since it isn't brandishing, it is carrying. The conceal gun owner is the one who would be brandishing.
http://www.shouselaw.com...

Thanks for the link. It defines "brandishing" as follows:

1) that you drew or exhibited a deadly weapon or firearm in the presence of another person,
2) that either
a) you did so in a rude, angry, or threatening manner, or
b) you did so unlawfully in a fight or quarrel, and
3) that you were not acting in self-defense or in the defense of another person at the time
.

Now this is given that CA is a concealed carry state, so there's that to keep in mind, but under how it's defined, if you were to have an M-16 slung on your back, that would meet #1 and #3 easily, and if a fight of any sort broke out in the store, even if that fight did not involve the guy with the M-16 at all, that would meet #2b (again, assuming concealed carry, meaning that any open carry would be unlawful), which means that such a person would be "brandishing" a weapon.

If you're uncomfortable with #2b, you can change it to simply say "you exhibited a weapon in a fight or a quarrel", i.e. take out the "unlawful" part since we're talking about making open carry legal.

If a fight that did not involve the man with the gun broke out in proximity of him, others would have "reasonable fear" because a gun had indeed been brandished, and under SYG, others would have justification to respond with deadly force.

I've had this discussion before...there's a reason why open carry is prohibited in the military, and it's because the military's use of deadly force is the epitome of SYG.

3) Reasonable fear of use of deadly force is a reason to respond with deadly force under SYG laws.
Having a gun =/= using a gun.
It is not reasonable to assume that AS A GUN POSSESSOR, a man with a gun is a threat simply because he has a gun.

I don't find anything inconsistent with the OP.

Look at how he defines SYG: "and someone feels intimidated (afraid for their personal safety) by this act"

That seems consistent with how I understand SYG.

That is not the law, and, again, why is someone who currently owns a gun intimidated by another?

Because a gun entails deadly force. In the military, I'd only be armed had I expected my enemy to be close and armed as well. I never walked around the commissary with my weapon, nor did I see anyone doing so unless they had a clear "Security forces" badge on them...hell I wasn't even issued a weapon after basic training, because the places I worked were not combat zones.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2014 9:48:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/16/2014 8:29:52 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 7/16/2014 8:26:11 PM, twocupcakes wrote:

Still no where near worth 20 years in prison!...Maybe none, or one or two years max
Agreed.
But, that wasn't the analogy you were drawing, was it? ;)

You brought it up to show inequity in gun use, which isn't anyone's fault except the legislator's for the 20 years, for the aggrevated assault.

It shows how fuucked up laws, lawmakers, lawyers, and judges are.

How someone who prob deserves about 20 yrs gets nothing but somoene who prob deserves nothing gets 20 yrs.
Saska
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2014 9:26:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/16/2014 8:33:22 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 7/16/2014 4:30:36 PM, Saska wrote:
If a group of individuals walk into a place of business carrying semi-automatic rifles over their shoulders in Florida, and someone feels intimidated (afraid for their personal safety) by this act, they are within the law to open fire and kill the individuals who have intimidated them. Does anyone else find it funny/scary that it is the same gun toting radicals that want both open carry rights and stand your ground laws? It seems to me that what they really want is open warfare without consequence.

It seems to me that you don't know what stand your ground actually means.

In this scenario, you would have to prove that:
1. You had a right to be in the store (already difficult to prove)
2. You had a reasonable fear (difficult to prove if they are have their weapons out, keeping in mind you have your own)
3. You had a reason to use deadly force (again, difficult to prove, since neither had a right to be there, and the shooter is the one exercising force)

To my understanding, stand your ground laws do vary a bit between places. In a place like Florida, my description of stand your ground seems fairly accurate.

With the mass public shootings that seem to have become a regular thing in America, many Americans are justifiably afraid of people walking into public areas with high powered assault rifles. Say a person sees that and thinks the person is preparing to pull the gun on the whole area, and decide that in order to protect themselves and the rest of the public around them, they pull their gun and shoot the person. Does that sound very far fetched? Do you think a court would find them guilty of murder if they fully believed they were protected tens or hundreds of people? Maybe, maybe not... But the whole point of my post isn't about the stand your ground laws protecting people, it was about people thinking they are justified in committing actions because of how they understand the laws. My original point was that the mixture of the Open Carry movement combined with the Stand Your Ground laws makes for a dangerous combination that could very likely result in even more unnecessary gun deaths.
Saska
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2014 9:31:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/16/2014 6:22:49 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 7/16/2014 4:30:36 PM, Saska wrote:
If a group of individuals walk into a place of business carrying semi-automatic rifles over their shoulders in Florida, and someone feels intimidated (afraid for their personal safety) by this act, they are within the law to open fire and kill the individuals who have intimidated them. Does anyone else find it funny/scary that it is the same gun toting radicals that want both open carry rights and stand your ground laws? It seems to me that what they really want is open warfare without consequence.

Nah, they just want to know that they have the power and the right to kill anyone who makes them feel afraid in any time at any place.

That's probably true. My point about them wanting open warfare without consequence may be a little extreme. But it's really no less terrifying either way. Glad I live in Canada where our gangs and criminals do most of their killing the old fashioned way - with knives. At least I won't likely get caught by a stray blade during a knife fight.

A few months ago in my city, we literally had a guy run into a mall and start stabbing people. He stabbed four people (no one died) and then someone tackled him and stopped his 'spree'. Imagine if he had an assault rifle or even a hand gun.