Now I will warn everyone I am essentially going to post this story and run. I don’t really have a dog in this fight but I don’t see any other threads on this at the moment and do think it is worth discussing so I will follow your discussions and only come in if there is a point I think has not been considered https://www.mic.com/impact/missouri-make-murder-legal-bill So, the question becomes - when is self defence really self defence and not murder?
When the courts decide it was not self defense, and had you read the bill insted of falling for click bait you would understand nothing in the bill makes murder legal. But typical for anti-gunners, they run with emotion versus finding out the facts. Current Bill Summary SB 666 - PRESUMPTION OF REASONABLENESS (Section 563.031) Under current law, the defendant has the burden to prove he or she reasonably believed physical or deadly force was necessary to protect him or herself or a third person. This act provides that there shall be a presumption of reasonableness that the defendant believed such force was necessary to defend him or herself or a third person. IMMUNITY FROM LIABILITY (Section 563.085) This act provides that a person who uses or threatens to use force in self-defense is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless such force was used against a law enforcement officer who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the person reasonably knew or should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. Additionally, a law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use or threatened use of force, but the agency may not arrest the person for using or threatening to use force unless the agency determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used or threatened was unlawful. This act provides that the defendant can raise a claim of self-defense during a pre-trial hearing in either a criminal or civil case which shall shift the burden on the party seeking to overcome the immunity by proof of clear and convincing evidence. Finally, this act repeals provisions relating to civil remedies that are unaffected by criminal provisions of self-defense law.
It sounds to me like the bill is an attempt to counter the practice of punishing legitimate self defense by holding the defender in jail anyway until their defense is investigated and tried, which can take years. Whether or not the self defense claim is legitimate will still be decided by a jury, and if found not legitimate, the killer will still go prison, but the defendent will be less likely to have their life ruined by the courts before they even get a trial, as is common now. This law should be expanded to more than just self defense, given the ridiculous backlog in our courts.
Here in Florida we passed the very same law a few years back, and prior to it passing the anti-gunners and media referred to it a making murder legal law. That was a total lie but I would expect noting less from media or the anti-gun crowd. What the law did do is require the state to presume a person is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Prior tot he passing of thee law we had numerous abuse's by anti-gun prosecutors who would charge people who had clearly defended themselves in an effort to get them to take plea deals and to send a message lawful self defense with a firearm is not condoned in their jurisdictions. The one case that really brought it all around was the prosecution of a woman in Dade County, her abusive ex-husband broke into her home and threatened her with a knife, she fired a shot at him and either missed or it was a warning shot, either way the Dade County Prosecutor charged her with aggravated assault, dismissing her claim of self defense by claiming, since she didn't shoot her ex, she could not have been in fear of her life. She couldn't afford a good defense ($50K+) took a plea and was sent to prison for I think 6 years. This was seen as a total miscarriage of justice and a few pro-gun groups began to lobby to get the self defense law changed in Florida to prevent such from ever happening ever again. The law was finally passed. The anti-gunners hated it but too bad, they fully understand their income depends on crushing the law abiding while making it as easy as possible for the criminal element to ply their trade and this law would but a dent in that game and therefore their income.
Well the question is really simple. If you have a reasonable and prudent fear for imminent loss of life or limb at the hands of another you are justified 100% in using lethal Force. The goal isn't to kill people the goal is to stop the thread. So even if we don't know the answer to the first question we can look at the second one and see. Was the Force excessive. This is easy to determine if somebody is threatening me and I'm in a car and I hit them with a car it would be easy to determine that I just hit them with the car if I backed up over them and drove forward over them a couple of times after hitting them well then we know the force was excessive because again it's only to stop the threat. If the fatal gunshot wound was say to the chest cavity or to the thigh it wasn't excessive based on the primary question being answered but if we saw three rounds in the back of the head after the shot to the upper thigh then we will know that that was excessive. It's all easy to determine it's just based on the circumstances of whatever incident you're talking about.
the 666 bill and I like how they say, except if it's a member of law enforcement who causes you to fear for your life
Correct, the determination should be evidence based and decided by a jury, not based on the opinion of the State which is all too often prejudicial and biased. Here's an example of just one of the prejudicial and biased judgements that led to the passing of Florida's law and what is behind the proposed Missouri law. “Here is a black woman who had a history of abuse against her and tried to use Stand Your Ground and ended up with a 20-year sentence,” Bruce Zimet, one Ms. Alexander’s lawyers, said in a telephone interview. Ms. Alexander said of how she believed the court viewed her defense, “It was a crime from the jump,” adding, the Stand Your Ground law “was never considered.” On Thursday, she plans to speak before a Florida Senate committee meeting in support of that proposed amendment to the law. If enacted, it would shift the burden of proof from defendants to prosecutors. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/us/marissa-alexander-released-stand-your-ground.html
This is where I have to split away from the bulk of the right wing I think they're stupid for this. The only ability of police officer should have that an average citizen doesn't is the right to arrest on the basis of suspicion. To say that you don't get to defend yourself against an attacker because they're wearing a uniform is some nonsense. That being said we do have to understand that please have a job and it requires them to approach people. I don't know why the right wing is so quick to defend the police. I understand supporting the job they do, but if the government was ever to confiscate firearms they would use the police to do it they're not our friends.
The bill is a bit too broad, or a better way of saying it is a bit too open to interpretation. The ideal scenario for stand your ground laws is that they have to meet a standard set of criteria In the home: -Self defense is authorized against anyone who enters your home without permission, excepting Police, fire, or life saving personnel (paramedics) (A mans home is his Castle) In Public -Self defense is authorized when a Reasonable Person would believe that you or your party were in immediate danger of physical harm (This does not include speech you do not like, The danger must take a physical form) -When all avenues of retreat are not available, and the person has made some effort to remove themselves from immediate danger (Must make some sort of an effort to extricate yourself from danger) -When person threatened is not in the commission of a crime. (I cant burglar your home and they claim self defense when I shoot your for trying to stop me)
That's improper, requiring being able to retreat is subject to abuse and therefore should not be required. As long as someone is lawfully in a place they should have no duty to retreat, doing so places them in too much danger.
I disagree. Retreat could simply be backing away to get distance to pull our firearm. I think its all in the wording.
Wrong, backing away is both dangerous and dumb, which is why most SYG laws are called STAND YOUR GROUND, not back away and get shot. It sure is and your idea would get people killed.
Uhh what? Backing away is literally trained to Police and military to give your self distance to pull your gun and shoot. You are specifically taught to give your self as much space to draw your weapon. Not sure where you got your training from but I got mine from the marine corps.
That is totally incorrect, if a person is threatened there is no time to back away, you draw and shoot before the other guys shoots. Trying to back away is both dangerous and signals the other person to begin firing. Last I checked humans don't have eye's in the rear of their heads, so how can backing up be done safely, one misstep and a person could be on their back or worse. Which is merely a few inches. Martin was on top of Zimmerman when he drew and fired, at he time he was laterally on his back, should he have dug a hole and backed up even further? . Your training makes no sense in the real world of self defense. As for the Marine Corps they teach combat training not self defense training, that's a totally different world, we are not talking about rifle shooting.
Marine corps training is more than rifle training. We are taught CQB as well. I think your incorrect. But I will leave it be. Just one last thing though. I walked through the hell that was Fallujah without a scratch on me, marine corps CQB training does work and is plenty useful for a civilian defensive use of force scenario.
