Assault Against the 2nd Amendment

Yet there are people sitting in prison for self defense, even though the prosecutors refuse to call it self defense. They will give it a different label so the defender goes to prison and the attacker goes free or isn't charged.

 

This shows that Democrats feel that ordinary citizens have no right or say in determining what laws are enacted o them. They just have to submit to what ever laws the Democrats decide to pass.

 

Show me specific cases. Skip the Pro Gun videos with wide claims. Show me cases where a person was under direct threat to life. Note, many laws do not define guy robbing you as threat to life. It is "threat to property".

 

Um....... what do you think the charge of "ARMED Robbery" is? In most places "Armed" is not defined as a "switch". IMS, the smallest object that was unbladed I ever saw stick as "Armed" was a Rolling pin or a Bastinado Stick. I cant say which would be "Smaller" as one is short and thick and the other is long and thin.

 

So. Armed Robbery is the charge for ANY theft where a person is present and things are taken with use of force and a weapon. Robbery is person, force, no weapon. Burglary is enter and take. Usually if the person is not present. Burg. is a warhouse. Robbery is an occupied home or store with people in it when directly confronted. In addition? There is a third charge of larceny. That is usually the "class" if you steal a car, shoplift (store with people present without force or threat, as a pocket fake gun is NOT ACTUALLY armed robbery under a shocking amount of laws as there was not weapon "present").

But in your case presented? To dismiss or for a jury to find self defense I would have needed:

1. Gun in face
2. Clear proof it WAS LOADED with something like a shot, shot
3. Open, provable theat to life

A gun in your face? Like it or not in many states? The person who "shot"? Is in jail because they had a legal obligation to flee, not defend. To surrender the property and contact the police. That is the law. It is not the law until someone says "Enough" and decides to stop the person. Sure as hell, your store (or my bar) is not under threat if someone is already fleeing (Back to me moving away, real case I had to take and won even though I didnt want it). You are not under threat because they have your possessions or property. DAs are bound by the LAW as written. And if the law states you have the obligation to flee not confront? What you want stops mattering. And almost every state has provisions for a judge to strike a case of OBVIOUS jury nullification (jury obviously ignored all law and found outside any possible law). They will be subject to appeal. So when a judge does? They are RARELY REVERSED. But they can nullify the NG, send back to the DA to decide if they will represent, and move on. You, in many places have far from the infinite right of "self defense" people assume they do. First limitation is usually fleeing/back to you.

 

How many people would be dead, trying to fulfill your requirements.

If the assailant had a gun to your face, then you have already lost.
If you need the assailant to fire a shot, then you only need a body bag.
Open provable threat is when the bullets are passing through your body.

 

Sorry. That is what the LAW SAYS. Aren't the Conservatives the side that yells about "Follow the laws as they are written". Not what makes sense. Not "you felt threatened in the moment". You guys keep bringing up cases in "duty to retreat" states and act like the people were WRONGLY CONVICTED under the law for "Standing their Ground". In States like NY with a duty to retreat? You hand over the money. File charges.

Want the fact that no one gets caught fixed? Mix of owners stop being cheap and put up REAL CAMERAS that are backed up externally, not shells to fake people out that they are on camera as a cheap alternative (My entire security set up for 15 locations costs like a grand a month, that is 90 day back up for all locations for 1k). Cops who INVESTIGATE, not just take a report file it and go to lunch (real issue in NYPD lately, the tantrums because they dont get their way. So they do little work). DAs who use common sense. If a gun was in the face of a owner and he opened fire? I would have taken two steps and used my "discretion" (that is gone more now). One. Was he licensed. If not? I am coming down harder. Dont care of you believe in liscensing or not. You shoot someone with no license? I was less likely to give you any Benefit of the Doubt. Two. The big one. That came AFTER 1 was yes. I ask the cop "Was it loaded". If the answer was yes? I would not take it court at all. If no? I go to the video. I go to the ME report (ie. entry in the chest or back). Because if you shoot someone fleeing? You were not under any threat. That was vengence.

In the end? If the law says "Duty to retreat"? You dont get to "Stand your Ground" anyway.

 

That is what Liberal's law says. Conservatives have different ideas.

Then there is always the saying:
It's better to be tried by 12, than carried by 6.

 

There is no "Liberal Law" and "Conservative Law" there is "Code". You keep posting and bitching about people in states that dont have "Stand Your Ground" laws being judged on the LAWS OF THAT STATE and not the Law you want them judged on. If the law says you have a OBLIGATION TO RETREAT? You dont get to argue in court "I believe in CONSERVATIVE LAWS". That will not get past judges. That will cause mistrials and judges invoking their power to overrule juries (yeah folks, juries are far from the "Final Say" you think they are. They can be overruled by a judge who feels they overlooked law in favor of feelings.). And that defense lawyer being sanctioned. NY Law is law in NY. And how they do it in TX or FL? Does not matter. How Conservatives feel it should be? Does not matter. And in NY? Self Defense is NARROW. And does not care about "Standing Your Ground". You must retreat.

 

When I say Liberal Law, I mean laws in Liberal run states. And Conservative Law is laws in Conservative run states. I'm not saying that there are two sets of laws you can choose from. That is your way of trying to confuse the issue. I'm not bitching about the people, I'm saying the laws are stupid. So I'm bitching about the laws, not the people.

The NYC DA was more interested in punishing Bernhard Goetz, than in punishing the people who attacked him. The time and effort the DA put in, trying to get Goetz in prison was monumental. Mass shooters don't get as much effort from the DA.