Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off-topic' started by Malum Prohibitum, Jan 4, 2011.
http://www.news-journalonline.com/news/ ... -rise.html
Good, I'd rather see a rise in self-defense shootings than an increase in murders!
I think the economy is really poor, and I don't think the worse is over with yet, and I think people are FINALLY GETTING IT! Arm yourself, or Die.
Because of this, I believe other States need to strike while the iron is hot, and try to talk their legislature into getting rid of some of these Draconian type laws for gun control, and let us carry in more places, and eventually, carry openly and concealed without a license, and maybe even one day, have Constitutional Carry, where we can carry everywhere, except where prohibited by private property owners, or security plans at some "sensitive" "sterile" environments that the government will always want to control.
I'd love to see all free citizens, being able to carry in all STATES, everywhere they go, where not prohibited by private property.
If more people start to BUY from Pro-carry businesses, and more people start to carry, we may actually get to curb the prohibited private property through their bottom line and wallets. Power to the free market and the people.
Maybe even, a few licensed carriers will start to save the life of a few LEO in a bad shooter situation, and maybe even the government will start to see that "the good guys" will even go out of their way to save the life of a LEO or other government employees.
Things are definitely going our way for right now. Let's keep it rolling and strike while the iron is hot.
IMHO, "drug deals gone wrong" and "self defense shootings" just don't go together/add up.
I really don't get this. When the law says, "A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force," it's not the law's fault the prosecution didn't happen.
So a person shouldn't be allowed to exercise the fundamental right to self defense if they happen to breaking one of our nation's millions of laws, which no one person fully understands?
It could be argued that if you call in sick to work -- but aren't actually sick -- that you are defrauding your company and are therefore breaking the law*. If someone invades your home that day and you are forced to defend yourself, should you be prosecuted because you were "breaking the law" at the time?
"The accused shooter, Emanuel Rivera, 26, was charged with delivery of a controlled substance and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, but not murder, Chitwood said, who has discussed the cases with prosecutors. "
It's bad enough that marijuana is illegal, and perhaps worse that "using a firearm in commission of a felony" applies to nonviolent felonies, which are quite numerous. Surely an additional charge of murder is overkill here?
Should self defense apply while someone is breaking into my house? They're breaking one of our millions of laws then, too.
If "offense" is clearly an element of the crime, that's (obviously) different. It's not "self-defense" it's "other-offense".
I was referring primarily to non-violent, white-collar, drug, and malum prohibitum crimes. "Posession of a firearm while committing a felony" should NOT count as a "violent" crime.
But does him being charged with delivery make him the offensive person in the scenario?
Having read the whole article, it really doesn't give enough information on any of the cases for me to make a good judgment as to if the force was necessary or justified. I'm not for defending drug dealers, no matter what the peddle, but if he had reasonable fear for his life, then I think it's justified.
Think of it this way. Say Emanuel is a drug dealer and gets convicted of the two crimes he's accused of. The justice system then has taken care of business. As a convicted felon, he can no longer legally own a gun. So the next time he kills one of his "customers" he won't be able to hide behind the law.
No, why would it? If you buy groceries from publix, have they "offensively" sold them to you? It sounds like, if you remove drugs from the occasion (pretend they were two people exchanging an item bought on craigslist), it was a good shoot. If it's a good shot (legitimate defense, not offense) then if someone is breaking a law that should not matter.
I don't think either of those crimes he is charged with should be crimes (provided they are nonviolent) and I also don't think that felons should get lifelong bans from owning firearms. If you can't be trusted with a gun,you can't be trusted with a car, a house, or anything else. Furthermore, why should he lose his 2A rights forever when he will get to keep his other rights?
And I certainly hope that, should the same exact situation come up in a couple of years, he is ONLY charged with "felon in possession" and will still be immune while exercising his fundamental human right of self defense. I hope even more that we see some reform in what constitutes "felon in possession". Imo, if you've done your time + probation, you should have ALL of your rights restored.
We all have the RTBA, even drug dealers! No loss there, move along!
I can see your point. I wasn't for removing immunity if you should happen to have a joint in your pocket when you needed to defend yourself. Your statement reminds me of that case, not that long ago, where someone wanted to trade a firearm for drugs. Which he did: gave gun, got drugs. The proscecution said that was "using" a gun in the commission of a drug crime, and it went all the way to the Supreme Court, as I recall.
I found this Miami Law Review article Floridaâ€™s â€œStand Your Groundâ€ Law: The Actual Effects and the Need for Clarification on the subject, which was kind of interesting. I really don't understand some of their complaints.
Again, it's not the law's fault if people aren't doing their jobs. The issue here is that the law bars the police from detaining you unless they have probable cause you did it for some reason other than self-defense. They seem to be arguing that everything should go to a jury or something.
And they touch on the same subject we're talking about here.
They go on to talk about this as if were a bad thing. I can agree with the right to self-defense for everyone, even drug dealers. On the other hand, I'm not comfortable thinking that a gang-lord should get to use the immunity provision as cover against rivals who try to take him out. They're coming after him because of his illegal enterprise. The immunity would make it easier for him to maintain his illegal enterprise.
As for the article itself, it's weird. It's obviously slanted. They mention the NRA with phrases like "The NRAâ€™s self-interest," "a powerful NRA lobbyist," "the NRAâ€™s self-interested crusade". Self-interest is hammered: "The heavy influence and publicity by the NRA should indicate that the group has its own self-interest in the law." Well, duh, are they implying the Brady Campaign is selflessly interested? Oh, I get it, the Brady's are just looking out for innocent bad guys shot everywhere.
They use examples where the people were actually charged (no immuniity provided) and then say that shows problems with the immunity provision. They use hypothetical situations to "prove" the law has problems. They complain that if someone pulls a knife on you, the law lets you use a gun in defense. That should be illegal disparate force, they claim.
I've usually thought scholarly journals and law reviews were neutral, but I've seen some law review articles where you could tell the author was biased one way or another. This is the first one I've seen where the bias is just bleeding from it.
"Chief Assistant State Attorney in the Fourth Judicial Circuit of Florida, Jay Plotkin, illustrated this problem when he said, â€œnfortunately, you canâ€™t write a law that says only good citizens can use deadly force to protect themselves . . . If a bad guy is defending himself against another bad guy, the law applies to him, too""
That's part of the problem: this whole "good-guy vs. bad-guy" thing. In the context of self-defense, I would argue that bad guys are people who would initiate force against others (robbers, murderers, rapists, etc) and good guys are everyone else.
In the eyes of the law, though, ANYONE can be a bad guy if a prosecutor or cop digs enough, because they view bad guys as "anyone breaking the law". I don't think a guy buying (or selling) pot is a bad guy anymore than I think a guy buying (or selling) a 6-pack of Budweiser is a "bad guy", regardless of what the law says. They may be bad guys for OTHER reasons, but that activity in and of itself should not throw them into "bad guy" status wherein they lose fundamental rights.
This all goes back to over-legislation, government largess, and the problems created by enforcement of morality and malum prohibitum crimes.