gunsmith
member
http://www.qando.net/
The author stipulates CA is a duty to retreat State, I thought it was a stand yer ground State...
Thursday, September 07, 2006
The Right to Self-Defense
Posted by: Dale Franks
The editors of the Las Vegas Review Journal note that a number of states have passed "stand your ground" laws that allow the victims of violent crime to meet force from criminal perpetrators with force.
The measure says any person "has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm."
This common-sense bill, restoring a right to self-defense which American used to assume was widely understood, has proved so popular that similar measures have now been approved in 15 states including Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, and Michigan — and have been proposed in eight more, including Maryland, Ohio, and Virginia.
In general, I think these are good laws. For instance, California is a "duty to flee" state. Essentially, that means that when a criminal attacks you, you have a duty if possible, to emulate Brave Sir Robin, and run away, rather than defend yourself. As far as I'm concerned, the "duty to flee" proposition is a denial of the right to self defense.
Others, as the RJ editors note, appear to disagree.
Needless to say, the "gunfights after every traffic accident" which were predicted by the gun control advocates have not transpired in any state adopting such "no retreat" measures.
But make no mistake, they continue to fight such legislation. Their latest tactic? Identifying the death of any armed home invader or rapist at the hands of his intended victim as a "murder," they have launched a Web site opposed to these new self-defense laws, dubbed www.licensetomurder.com.
Let me be plain. Self-defense is not murder, in any way, shape, or form. As far as I'm concerned, if you sow the wind, then you're SOL if you reap the whirlwind from your intended victim. It sucks to be you.
So, what does the LicenseToMurder web site look like? Well, when you peruse the main page, one of the first things you see is this:
Hi, I just want to thank you for the information. My nephew John David Knott was murdered by Gary L. Hill, in Colorado Springs, Colorado, and now a murderer walks free. I and many others are so in grief- there was no justice for John whatsoever.
Well, that sounds nasty. What horrific set of circumstances caused the murder of poor young Johnny Knott?
Last year, Gary Lee Hill was attacked in his home by four people, including 19-year-old John David Knott. After the attack, the four got into a car, and Knott drove away. Hill, however, grabbed a gun and followed the car down the street. He then shot Knott in the back, crashing the car, and killing him.
Yes, Hill was attacked. But he chased Knott down, and fired on him while he was driving away. This isn't premeditated murder, but Hill killed Knott all the same. And now, because of the "shoot first" law, Hill gets to walk free."
Here was a lovely, young, tousle-headed lad, little Johnny Knott, whose only offense was to take part in the home invasion and battery of Gary Hill. The evil Mr. Hill apparently sat in his home and viciously, and with malice aforethought, waited until four high-spirited youths burst into his home and assaulted him, after which he was free to cold-bloodedly murder one of them.
I see. Apparently, their position is, "Hey, wait a minute! You mean, if I attack some citizen at random, he gets to shoot me!? That's just wrong!"
OK. Granted, Mr. Hill shouldn't've chased his assailants down the street. Quite apart from the overtones of vigilantism, which we shouldn't condone, it's just unwise on a number of practical levels.
On the other hand, when I learn that young John-John was killed by the man whose home he invaded and assaulted, it's difficult to get past my initial emotional reaction of...f*ck 'im.
I mean, I don't think I'd object if a Grand Jury indicted Mr. Hill on some sort of manslaughter or firearms charge, based on Mr. Hill chasing down his assailants after the fact. After all, even the "stand your ground" law theoretically ends at the threshold of the home, or the immediate area of the assault. But that judgment certainly wouldn't be based on any sympathy for Mr. Knott.
I should think the real lesson here should be, "If you don't want to get shot, you should refrain from home invasions." At the end of the day, these "murders" result directly from the criminal actions of the "victims", not the premeditated violence of their killers. If you don't want to be shot by a homeowner, then not breaking into his home would seem to solve the problem nicely all 'round.
Yes, I'm sure it's a tragedy for Mr. Knott's family, and that's regrettable. But, at the end of the day, I prefer to reserve my compassion for the victims of evil, rather than its perpetrators.
Permalink | Comments ( 2 ) | TrackBacks ( 0 ) | Category: Law
The author stipulates CA is a duty to retreat State, I thought it was a stand yer ground State...
Thursday, September 07, 2006
The Right to Self-Defense
Posted by: Dale Franks
The editors of the Las Vegas Review Journal note that a number of states have passed "stand your ground" laws that allow the victims of violent crime to meet force from criminal perpetrators with force.
The measure says any person "has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm."
This common-sense bill, restoring a right to self-defense which American used to assume was widely understood, has proved so popular that similar measures have now been approved in 15 states including Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, and Michigan — and have been proposed in eight more, including Maryland, Ohio, and Virginia.
In general, I think these are good laws. For instance, California is a "duty to flee" state. Essentially, that means that when a criminal attacks you, you have a duty if possible, to emulate Brave Sir Robin, and run away, rather than defend yourself. As far as I'm concerned, the "duty to flee" proposition is a denial of the right to self defense.
Others, as the RJ editors note, appear to disagree.
Needless to say, the "gunfights after every traffic accident" which were predicted by the gun control advocates have not transpired in any state adopting such "no retreat" measures.
But make no mistake, they continue to fight such legislation. Their latest tactic? Identifying the death of any armed home invader or rapist at the hands of his intended victim as a "murder," they have launched a Web site opposed to these new self-defense laws, dubbed www.licensetomurder.com.
Let me be plain. Self-defense is not murder, in any way, shape, or form. As far as I'm concerned, if you sow the wind, then you're SOL if you reap the whirlwind from your intended victim. It sucks to be you.
So, what does the LicenseToMurder web site look like? Well, when you peruse the main page, one of the first things you see is this:
Hi, I just want to thank you for the information. My nephew John David Knott was murdered by Gary L. Hill, in Colorado Springs, Colorado, and now a murderer walks free. I and many others are so in grief- there was no justice for John whatsoever.
Well, that sounds nasty. What horrific set of circumstances caused the murder of poor young Johnny Knott?
Last year, Gary Lee Hill was attacked in his home by four people, including 19-year-old John David Knott. After the attack, the four got into a car, and Knott drove away. Hill, however, grabbed a gun and followed the car down the street. He then shot Knott in the back, crashing the car, and killing him.
Yes, Hill was attacked. But he chased Knott down, and fired on him while he was driving away. This isn't premeditated murder, but Hill killed Knott all the same. And now, because of the "shoot first" law, Hill gets to walk free."
Here was a lovely, young, tousle-headed lad, little Johnny Knott, whose only offense was to take part in the home invasion and battery of Gary Hill. The evil Mr. Hill apparently sat in his home and viciously, and with malice aforethought, waited until four high-spirited youths burst into his home and assaulted him, after which he was free to cold-bloodedly murder one of them.
I see. Apparently, their position is, "Hey, wait a minute! You mean, if I attack some citizen at random, he gets to shoot me!? That's just wrong!"
OK. Granted, Mr. Hill shouldn't've chased his assailants down the street. Quite apart from the overtones of vigilantism, which we shouldn't condone, it's just unwise on a number of practical levels.
On the other hand, when I learn that young John-John was killed by the man whose home he invaded and assaulted, it's difficult to get past my initial emotional reaction of...f*ck 'im.
I mean, I don't think I'd object if a Grand Jury indicted Mr. Hill on some sort of manslaughter or firearms charge, based on Mr. Hill chasing down his assailants after the fact. After all, even the "stand your ground" law theoretically ends at the threshold of the home, or the immediate area of the assault. But that judgment certainly wouldn't be based on any sympathy for Mr. Knott.
I should think the real lesson here should be, "If you don't want to get shot, you should refrain from home invasions." At the end of the day, these "murders" result directly from the criminal actions of the "victims", not the premeditated violence of their killers. If you don't want to be shot by a homeowner, then not breaking into his home would seem to solve the problem nicely all 'round.
Yes, I'm sure it's a tragedy for Mr. Knott's family, and that's regrettable. But, at the end of the day, I prefer to reserve my compassion for the victims of evil, rather than its perpetrators.
Permalink | Comments ( 2 ) | TrackBacks ( 0 ) | Category: Law
