- Joined
- Dec 1, 2010
- Messages
- 61,694
- Reaction score
- 32,331
- Location
- El Paso Strong
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
What's the opposite of "stand your ground"? "Cower and Slink Away"?
requiring one to have the duty to retreat is horribly unjust...and I see no logic in constraining or punishing the victim of violent crime.
Holder should be concerned with folks perpetuating violence rather than being concerned with those defending themselves from the violence.
Well, he is not arguing that the self-defense laws, in general, should be taken away. He is arguing that Stand Your Ground laws ought to be reexamined and perhaps done away with. Therefore, it would be inaccurate to characterize his arguments as taking the self-defense option away from people. You would still have the option to defend yourself if it was necessary.
I think this thread is gonna be moved.
I agree - in Holder's world, criminals would have the upper hand since citizens would be legally bound not to confront or get in the way of any criminal commiting a crime if that citizen could possibly back away and not get involved.
It also seems contrary to other laws on the books that make it a crime not to assist someone. Sounds like Holder wants to get innocents charged coming or going.
Good evening, CJ.:2wave:
Holder was the bag man for the Marc Rich pardon. If you keep that in mind everything else makes sense.
Good evening 2M - hope all is well with you.
Which has no effect on the fact that regular self-defense laws would still apply.
Very well. Home after spending a week at the beach with six grandchildren. Going to work to rest up. You?:mrgreen:
The premise of his position is that regular citizens (i.e. not law enforcement) have too much authority to use violence so this test of sincerity doesn't make sense.
I don't have a problem with "duty to retreat" as long as those laws respect situations when no option to retreat is available.you would have the right to defend yourself, after you have tried to run away, as required by law.
SYG laws rectifies the horrible policies of requiring retreat.. that's their primary reason for existing
Texas has never had a duty to retreat, but we do have SYG type laws on the books..... hell, even California doesn't have a duty to retreat.
I think it if wasn't for the buffoon who invented "duty to retreat", we wouldn't even need SYG laws
How does this stop self-defense laws from applying? If Zimmerman is tried for another crime, then he can still apply self-defense laws.Except that he also said "all options remain on the table" concerning Zimmerman...So, I guess in Holder's mind it is fine to have the laws, and to let the court do the trial, as long as they rule "the right way"? There was NO civil rights issue in this case.
How does this stop self-defense laws from applying? If Zimmerman is tried for another crime, then he can still apply self-defense laws.
I don't have a problem with "duty to retreat" as long as those laws respect situations when no option to retreat is available.
So who do determines when the situation has no option to retreat?
Sure and Holder believes that Stand Your Ground facilitates false claims of self-defense. He wants to prevent people from shooting innocent people and then falsely claiming self-defense. He doesn't want to wait until after people are already dead.
You're going off topic. Again, how does this stop self-defense laws from applying? If Zimmerman is tried for another crime, then he can still apply self-defense laws.Why must he jump through another hoop because the "mob" doesn't like the not guilty verdict? Do you think there is a civil rights issue here?
The jury.So who do determines when the situation has no option to retreat? An investigator? An politicized State's attorney? Some elected official?
You're going off topic. Again, how does this stop self-defense laws from applying? If Zimmerman is tried for another crime, then he can still apply self-defense laws.
That's not what he said so I see no reason to respond to this.really?.. he believes that?..seriously?
"I'm tired of false self defense claims..we should make defending yourself even harder .. maybe we should make require the peons to run away..and charge them with a crime if they don't"
Well, as I said, his argument is that SYG INCREASES the number of people who unlawfully shoot people and falsely claim self-defense. He wants to get rid of that increase.I wonder what caused folks to falsely claim self defense before SYG laws came into existence?.. probably those pesky self defense laws. .. they should probably be stricken from the books too :lol:
I don't have a problem with "duty to retreat" as long as those laws respect situations when no option to retreat is available.
I don't move onto other topics until I resolve the original debate. You can answer my question and resolve our original debate. After that, we can move onto your civil rights question.Do you see a civil rights issue here?
ahh, then what he really wants is better investigating by LEO...That's not what he said so I see no reason to respond to this.
Well, as I said, his argument is that SYG INCREASES the number of people who unlawfully shoot people and falsely claim self-defense. He wants to get rid of that increase.
Well, I think there should be a balance between self-defense and excessive use of force. SYG tips the balance to the latter. I can't support that.well, I do have a problem with requiring people to run away as a first course of action... hell, i'd have a problem with a duty to shoot someone too....you can't decree, from on high, that folks have a duty to act in one acceptable manner in a very fluid and stress filled situation , or be punished for not doing so.. it's incredibly wrong.
but i don't have a problem with keeping the option to run away legal... folks can run away if they want, just don't require everyone to.