• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Concealed Carry Question

No, that's actually pretty standard in most states.


So-called "Stand your ground" simply removes the duty to retreat before using deadly force, in cases where you are otherwise legal to SD.

I agree it removes the duty to retreat. I'm pretty sure it also adds the "forcible felony" part, which is autonomous from any fear of life or grave bodily harm. Only some states have the "forcible felony" clause.
 
No, that's actually pretty standard in most states.


So-called "Stand your ground" simply removes the duty to retreat before using deadly force, in cases where you are otherwise legal to SD.

There are about 4 or 5 or statements that he ignores for some reason.
You are correct. Stand your ground gets rid of the retreat clause that other states do have.

Which to me is stupid. No state should give more rights to a criminal.
 
Continue to ignore all the or's not my issue.
Nothing I said was incorrect.

Or doesn't mean and. One need not have fear of life or grave bodily harm in the prevention of an imminent forcible felony.
 
Ok.

What states expect you to be psychic?



You seriously want to do this, over a figure of speech?


You'll have to do it alone then, I have better things to do.
 
You seriously want to do this, over a figure of speech?


You'll have to do it alone then, I have better things to do.

I guess a fun attempt to play with a set-up term like that is too much too handle...
 
What's the general rule of thumb as far as deadly force use. If the aggressor is not armed as you are, when can you be justified in using a weapon against an unarmed but physically intimidating and aggressive perpetrator?

depends but often yes. If you are walking down the street and say someone jumps you and starts hitting you, you generally can shoot them. Same if someone say puts you in a choke hold
 
What's the general rule of thumb as far as deadly force use. If the aggressor is not armed as you are, when can you be justified in using a weapon against an unarmed but physically intimidating and aggressive perpetrator?

Justifiable belief that your life or the life of others was in imminent risk in most cases. Castle Doctrine would say that in most states, if they are in your home at all you are justified in shooting them.
 
If you shoot someone for any reason, you will be arrested and taken to the jail. You'll get an arraignment where the judge will set the bail. Hopefully you can come up with 15% or you will wait in jail until your court date. That might be a few months.

The worst time to shoot someone is when you are walking alone and get mugged. You need witnesses. In that scenario, make sure the perp is dead. Otherwise, the lawyers will call it a liars war.

You will incur quite a bill for legal fees.
 
If you shoot someone for any reason, you will be arrested and taken to the jail. You'll get an arraignment where the judge will set the bail. Hopefully you can come up with 15% or you will wait in jail until your court date. That might be a few months.

The worst time to shoot someone is when you are walking alone and get mugged. You need witnesses. In that scenario, make sure the perp is dead. Otherwise, the lawyers will call it a liars war.

You will incur quite a bill for legal fees.


Depends on the state and the circumstances. In my state, the cops typically have to have a reasonable suspicion that it was other than self-defense before they can arrest you, per Atty-Gen opinion paper published several years ago.

But in general yes, that is often the case.
 
I guess a fun attempt to play with a set-up term like that is too much too handle...



Yeah, well sorry but... It's often hard to tell "fun" from "trolling", and there's so much of the latter that my patience is running on empty.
 
What's the general rule of thumb as far as deadly force use. If the aggressor is not armed as you are, when can you be justified in using a weapon against an unarmed but physically intimidating and aggressive perpetrator?

Basically what it comes down to is that you are going to have to prove to a jury that you were "reasonable" in your actions, and that had you not done what you did, you were in danger of losing your life. You will probably not be acquitted if you shot or killed someone just to save yourself from an ass kicking.
 
What's the general rule of thumb as far as deadly force use. If the aggressor is not armed as you are, when can you be justified in using a weapon against an unarmed but physically intimidating and aggressive perpetrator?

Why ask these questions on the internet to complete strangers?

You get what you pay for.

Know state laws, talk to,and pay, a local 2A lawyer.

Some people should not carry a gun when uncertainty exists.
 
I recommend the excellent book "The Law of Self Defense" by Andrew Branca who's a self defense attorney.
 
Why ask these questions on the internet to complete strangers?

You get what you pay for.

Know state laws, talk to,and pay, a local 2A lawyer.

Some people should not carry a gun when uncertainty exists.

Free advice being worth every penny you paid for it...
 
Back
Top Bottom