bigfutz
Well-Known Fanatic
In Greenville, Group Rallies Against "Stand Your Ground"
http://www.wspa.com/story/25291300/grou ... greenville
(Sent from WSPA)
http://www.wspa.com/story/25291300/grou ... greenville
(Sent from WSPA)
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Dozens of people stand against "Stand Your Ground"
- Thread starter bigfutz
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Tigerstripe
Well-Known Fanatic
her son and 3 others were playing their music loud, 12 in woofers, in a gas station. when a man asked them to turn it down he said he was threatened by a guy in the car and thought he saw the bbl of a gun come out the car window. the fired 10 shots and was convicted of attempted murder.
not the best example of stand your ground. where is the video?
not the best example of stand your ground. where is the video?
RK3369
Well-Known Fanatic
I wonder how those protesting the concept of stand your ground would feel if they were threatened with what they considered to be the threat of deadly force when they were in a place where they had a right to be????
I am often amused by how vehemently people speak out against these rights but are often the first ones to invoke them when they are in the underdog position.
I am often amused by how vehemently people speak out against these rights but are often the first ones to invoke them when they are in the underdog position.
bigfutz
Well-Known Fanatic
Without Stand Your Ground, what is the justification for a CWP? (The next thing you'll hear from these protesters.)
My point may have been missed... "dozens." Seems these movements draw a lot of press support for such a small turnout.
My point may have been missed... "dozens." Seems these movements draw a lot of press support for such a small turnout.
armaborealis
Well-Known Fanatic
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2011
- Messages
- 575
"Dozens of people?" :lol: If you look at the video they have maybe 27 people plus the panel. MAYBE. And that includes the panel, and any pro-gun folks that showed up. Hardly "dozens." Notice the camera angle only shows half of the room, because the seats on the other side are empty?
The woman whose son was killed is... well, not making sense. She wants to hold those who use their guns inappropriately accountable. Guess what? Her son's killer has been convicted and faces 75 years in prison, plus a retrial for the murder charges. He's going to die in a prison. He is being held accountable. SYG didn't help him.
They also don't bother to educate about what SYG does. In SC you need to be in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury before using deadly force. You also need to be without at fault, i.e. you did not bring on the trouble. Before SYG, you had to retreat if you could do so in perfect safety, too. Now, you don't need to retreat. It is really hard to prove that you could retreat in perfect safety, but it did lead to some good folks like Jason Dickey getting convicted wrongfully.
The media don't mention "REASONABLE FEAR," i.e., that an objective outside reasonable man would find your use of force necessary and reasonable. They just say "if you feel that you're in danger you can shoot!" Which is not true.
The woman whose son was killed is... well, not making sense. She wants to hold those who use their guns inappropriately accountable. Guess what? Her son's killer has been convicted and faces 75 years in prison, plus a retrial for the murder charges. He's going to die in a prison. He is being held accountable. SYG didn't help him.
They also don't bother to educate about what SYG does. In SC you need to be in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury before using deadly force. You also need to be without at fault, i.e. you did not bring on the trouble. Before SYG, you had to retreat if you could do so in perfect safety, too. Now, you don't need to retreat. It is really hard to prove that you could retreat in perfect safety, but it did lead to some good folks like Jason Dickey getting convicted wrongfully.
The media don't mention "REASONABLE FEAR," i.e., that an objective outside reasonable man would find your use of force necessary and reasonable. They just say "if you feel that you're in danger you can shoot!" Which is not true.
RK3369
Well-Known Fanatic
what I don't get it why people think that simply removing guns is going to solve the problem. As has been demonstrated when DC banned gun ownership, crime rates soared because the criminal element knew that law abiders didn't have the means to defend themselves. It's kind of like having nuclear weapons. All the major powers have them, but nobody uses them because they (hopefully) understand the consequences. But if we abandoned our nukes, I'm sure we would be one of the first targets that our enemies would eliminate. The threat of retaliation (or self defense) is equally applicable to a criminal thinking you may have the means to defend yourself and kill him if he tried anything. If he knows you are unarmed, that makes you easier pickins.
bigfutz
Well-Known Fanatic
Except you can't have a summit with the leader of all criminals and comeIt's kind of like having nuclear weapons.
to some sort of disarmament agreement. (I know, you can't really do that with nukes either.)
armaborealis
Well-Known Fanatic
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2011
- Messages
- 575
RK3369 said:what I don't get it why people think that simply removing guns is going to solve the problem. As has been demonstrated when DC banned gun ownership, crime rates soared because the criminal element knew that law abiders didn't have the means to defend themselves. It's kind of like having nuclear weapons. All the major powers have them, but nobody uses them because they (hopefully) understand the consequences. But if we abandoned our nukes, I'm sure we would be one of the first targets that our enemies would eliminate. The threat of retaliation (or self defense) is equally applicable to a criminal thinking you may have the means to defend yourself and kill him if he tried anything. If he knows you are unarmed, that makes you easier pickins.
The even more ironic thing is they only want to disarm peaceable folks. The thugs will still have arms.
But even if we had a magical machine that removed all firearms we know what that world would look like. It'd be medieval. The strong can rule the weak, men could rough up women, gangs can terrorize men walking alone, and so on. That sounds like a shitty world to me.
RK3369
Well-Known Fanatic
The even more ironic thing is they only want to disarm peaceable folks. The thugs will still have arms.
Which is exactly what I don't understand how a rational person can't see. Removing the "equalizer" in the system gives all power to the physically strong and makes fearful slaves out of the physically weak.
Which is exactly what I don't understand how a rational person can't see. Removing the "equalizer" in the system gives all power to the physically strong and makes fearful slaves out of the physically weak.
Avtomat-Acolyte
Well-Known Fanatic
RK3369 said:The even more ironic thing is they only want to disarm peaceable folks. The thugs will still have arms.
Which is exactly what I don't understand how a rational person can't see. Removing the "equalizer" in the system gives all power to the physically strong and makes fearful slaves out of the physically weak.
The law exists only because of the systemic pattern of making excuses for the criminals in our society anyways. It is never "their fault" and they're always "aspiring rappers", "never had a chance", "society failed them", "slipped through the cracks", "turning their life around", etc.
This law was created to fill the gap whereas we have a segment of society that absolutely fails to accept personal responsibility for their decisions and actions.
Now the same people that helped create and promote the initial problem are trying to remove the solution and make it so these people don't have a "personal responsibility by proxy" law that protects the actual victims.
I don't think the idea here is whether the press supports it. They are just reporting things they feel are newsworthy or. It's up to us to make a story newsworthy for the coverage it may provide our point of view.bigfutz said:Without Stand Your Ground, what is the justification for a CWP? (The next thing you'll hear from these protesters.)
My point may have been missed... "dozens." Seems these movements draw a lot of press support for such a small turnout.
RK3369
Well-Known Fanatic
exactly. Most media reporting is biased, and generally to the left. I've gotten so sick of it in the mainstream now that for the most part I don't watch any news on the major networks and generally only FOX news channel. Can't stand how much the mainstream media glorifies Obama, and to me he really is the worst President we've ever had. Completely ineffective, nobody is threatened by him, and he seems bent on completely rewriting the traditional values of this country. I only hope the right can come up with an acceptable candidate who appeals broadly enough to beat Hillary but it's not looking real possible at this time. Sad.
RK3369
Well-Known Fanatic
just be aware that there is currently a bill in the statehouse that is trying to do just that. It's trying to strike the language that allows stand your ground from the law. We need to be sure to contact our legislators to express our displeasure with that challenge. Here's a link to the article in the Charleston lefty trashletter.
http://www.postandcourier.com/article/2 ... /140309613
http://www.postandcourier.com/article/2 ... /140309613
Tigerstripe
Well-Known Fanatic
what is wrong with these idiots?
please compare these 2 sentences:
"stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force" if the person is "in another place where he has the right to be" if he or she believes force is necessary to prevent death or bodily injury or to himself or another person.
"Until it's modified we really see it as an excuse to shoot just about anybody for anything as long as you claim 'stand your ground.'"
personally if i am confronted with a criminal act being done to me or another person where i believe someone is going to die, it aint gonna be me.
i claim the 2nd amendment.
please compare these 2 sentences:
"stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force" if the person is "in another place where he has the right to be" if he or she believes force is necessary to prevent death or bodily injury or to himself or another person.
"Until it's modified we really see it as an excuse to shoot just about anybody for anything as long as you claim 'stand your ground.'"
personally if i am confronted with a criminal act being done to me or another person where i believe someone is going to die, it aint gonna be me.
i claim the 2nd amendment.
bigfutz
Well-Known Fanatic
A wise man once said the 2nd Amendment (and the Constitution for that matter) is not there to defend us; we must defend it. Shame on us for letting these unconstitutional laws get passed unchallenged.
wylie
Well-Known Fanatic
bigfutz said:A wise man once said the 2nd Amendment (and the Constitution for that matter) is not there to defend us; we must defend it. Shame on us for letting these unconstitutional laws get passed unchallenged.[ You are 100% right. We have the Michael Bloomberg against guns and his goons coming here demanding action and then we have moms demanding action against guns we see them on the news we read about them they're having meetings with the politicians for their common sense gun laws. But we're are we I do not see us going to any meetings with the politicians showing the politicians statistics of how many peoples lives have been saved by people who were armed. How does a mother holding a child run from a robber or a rapist who is threatening them with deadly force. Or a senior citizen. So if they remove this stand your ground and there is a shooting even if it's justifiable you are probably going to get a lawsuit from the criminals family.
Tigerstripe
Well-Known Fanatic
rotary mike, what are the chances of you coming up with a bill we can get passed for victims of criminals to be able to sue criminals families for trauma, wrongful death and anything else you can come up with. (medical bills, lawyers fees...)
even moms demanding action couldnt be against that.
even moms demanding action couldnt be against that.
does anyone notice the gun-grabbers have written-off any effort to rid places of illegal guns? they relegate the poor and desperate to the, "can't do anything about the criminal element (gangs) having firearms, but we can ensure that the non-criminals can't ever be the one with an AD, or going off the deep end, or getting even. those few are worse than the BGs who shot 66 people over a weekend a little while back.
on another note, does SC prohibit legal gun owners from removing/transporting firearms during a state/national emergency evacuation?
cheers, ya'll
on another note, does SC prohibit legal gun owners from removing/transporting firearms during a state/national emergency evacuation?
cheers, ya'll
Share:
