duty to retreat, George Zimmerman, Justine Damond, Matthew Harrity, Mohamed Noor, stand your ground, The law of self-defense, Trayvon Martin, Use of deadly force
Of late, the “Stand Your Ground” laws of the several states have been badly maligned and misrepresented. Circa August of 2018, 36 states have a SYG law–Wyoming was the most recent in March of 2018–and most also provide immunity from lawsuits in cases of lawful self-defense–a very good thing. Why should victims of criminal assault be sued for defending their lives?
As regular readers know, a five-part crockumentary is now playing. It romanticizes the death of holy social justice martyr Trayvon Martin. I’ve reviewed the first two episodes here and here. Both episodes are rife with lies and dripping with emotion rather than fact, but the most egregious continuing lie is the idea that Florida’s SYG law somehow contributed to the death of Martin. “SYG allows white men to murder black boys!” “SYG kept George Zimmerman from being arrested!” “SYG makes it easy to murder and the NRA is responsible!” None of these, and other slanders is remotely true.
Even the most recent article on the Justine Damond case brought this comment from a regular reader:
Doug later offered this translation:
What is particularly interesting is that SYG was inapplicable to the Zimmerman case. It had no bearing on the case at all, and was never raised at trial by the prosecution or defense. The jury’s acquittal of Zimmerman was entirely uninformed by SYG. SYG is also entirely inapplicable to the Justine Damond case, and will not be raised in the trial of Mohamed Noor.
UPDATE, 03-22-20 1150 CST: As I noted in the original article, Stand Your Ground played no part in the trial of Mohamed Noor, who was convicted and sentenced to prison in the death of Justine Damond.
But why not? We hear SYG this and SYG that on the media. Don’t they know about such things? With almost no exceptions, they are as clueless about this subject as they are about firearms and self-defense law. If you are interested in this, gentle readers, by all means read Andrew Branca, whose definitive book The Law of Self Defense, is must reading.
Since it had no bearing whatever on the Zimmerman case, but much of the country thinks it did, let us review the applicable Florida statute:
776.013 Home protection; use or threatened use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person who is in a dwelling or residence in which the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and use or threaten to use:
(a) Nondeadly force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force; or
(b) Deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.
(2) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using or threatening to use defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used or threatened was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred. [skip]
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
I have omitted less relevant portions of the law. If you are concerned I may be engaging in the same kind of concealment as the media and social justice warriors (I know: one-in-the-same), take the link and read the rest–there isn’t much, and it’s mostly definitions–for yourself.
The point of the law is to remove the duty to retreat, which is still the law in most of the 14 remaining states. In those states, if one is attacked and threatened with serious bodily harm or death, even in their own home, they have a legal duty to retreat, unless such running away would be reasonably impossible. In the past, this has actually resulted in a legal duty to abandon one’s home and family to violent felons when under threat, and it is the obligation of the innocent to prove they could not possibly retreat before using force. In rational states, as long as one is lawfully present when attacked, they have no duty to retreat, and may “stand their ground” and defend themselves.
But that’s crazy! The absence of SYG laws make it easy for violent felons to prey on the honest! Right and right. If one has the natural, unalienable right of self-defense–the right to preserve one’s life–it makes no sense to give every advantage to those vicious and cruel enough to unlawfully take the lives of the innocent. It makes no sense to make them run away, to turn their backs to those trying to kill them. It also makes no sense to deprive them of the best and most common instruments necessary to preserve life and limb, or to prevent them from carrying those instruments wherever they may be, but many progressives and social justice cracktivists labor ceaselessly to do just that.
Let us examine the five essential elements that apply to the use of force in states without a SYG law:
1) Innocence: the defender must not be the initial or unlawful aggressor. People engaging in mutual combat can’t claim innocence. Because they’re actively trying to harm each other with no way to tell how far the conflict will go, they’re not engaging in self-defense.
Police officers generally have the presumption of innocence. It’s their job to go into harm’s way, and they act under “color of law.” They can’t avoid conflict like most citizens can, although these days, particularly where social justice outweighs the rule of law, they do all they can to do just that.
2) Imminence: one can’t use deadly force against a possible attack, or against an attack that might happen at some time in the future. The danger must be real, clearly about to occur–within mere seconds–or already occurring.
3) Proportionality: this speaks to the degree of danger of the attack. If the only thing in jeopardy is hurt feelings, even a weak slap to the face might not be proportional. A reasonable person–or a reasonable police officer–must believe they’re facing a threat of serious bodily harm or death. This can be difficult indeed. Will the next punch merely bruise, or shatter a skull? Will the next kick merely knock the wind out of someone, or tear an artery?
4) Reasonableness: a reasonable person faced with the same circumstances would act in the same way. For the police, the standard is would “a reasonable police officer” of the same knowledge, abilities and in the same circumstances be compelled to use deadly force?
Keep in mind that a reasonable person, and a reasonable police officer are two different things. By their training and experience, police officers are generally afforded more latitude in the use of force.
5) Duty To Retreat: this is a state-imposed duty requiring anyone facing imminent danger—or actual attack—to do all they can to flee before using force in their defense. It is often the burden of the accused to prove they fled, or did everything they reasonably could do to flee. One might consider this an unnecessary, extra requirement of innocence.
Let’s apply this general information–there is, of course, more to the law–to the Trayvon Martin and Justine Damond cases to illustrate the point.
Trayvon Martin (the Trayvon Martin case archive is available here): thinking Martin, who was out in the rain on a cold night, appeared drugged (he was), and seeing him standing on the lawn of a home that had recently been burglarized and realizing he appeared to be casing the place, George Zimmerman called the police and remained on the line as Martin spotted him and sprinted off, disappearing between a long row of townhomes. Told twice to keep the dispatcher informed about what Martin was doing, Zimmerman trotted after Martin, not to catch him, but to try to keep him in sight for the officers he was told were on their way.
Zimmerman quickly lost Martin and told the dispatcher he was turning around and would meet the responding officers at his parked truck. Martin had more than enough time to escape and never be seen again, but hid and ambushed Zimmerman, breaking his nose and knocking him to the ground, where Martin straddled him, rained blows down on him in Mixed Martial Arts “ground and pound” style–according to a credible eyewitness–and repeatedly beat his head against the concrete sidewalk upon which he lay.
Zimmerman, screaming for help, was unable to deliver a single blow or defend himself, and when Martin told him he was going to kill him, had every reason to believe him. He fired a single shot from his lawfully carried handgun, stopping the attack and killing Martin.
Analysis: in this case, SYG didn’t apply. Zimmerman was pinned to the ground being beaten to death. There was no possibility of retreat, nor would Zimmerman have been required to retreat, though he would have been wise to do so if he could. That’s true for anyone. Every other element was in Zimmerman’s favor. This did not rely solely on Zimmerman’s word, but all of the physical and other evidence supported his account, as did the testimony of every credible witness. Because it was clear Zimmerman acted in lawful self-defense–the prosecution actually proved it(!)–the law required his acquittal. The charges should never have been brought.
Justine Damond (the Damond case archive is available here): Officers Matthew Harrity–the driver–and Mohamed Noor were sent to a call–it was near midnight–of a woman screaming somewhere behind a home. This is all they knew as they arrived at the alley behind the home in a good, low-crime neighborhood of Minneapolis. Rather than handling the call the smart way by parking their car and walking the alley on foot so they could use the plentiful cover and concealment and see and hear what was going on, they merely turned off the lights of their patrol vehicle, turned on the spotlight, and rolled down the alley. Nearing the end, they turned on their lights and accelerated, intending to leave. They paused momentarily to allow a bicyclist to pass, and Justine Damond, who had made the 911 call, appeared at Harrity’s open window. Noor, in a panic, pushed his gun across Harrity’s body and shot Damond in the stomach, almost instantly killing her.
Analysis: Harrity and Noor were lawfully present. They were doing their duty, though doing it incompetently. Neither of them saw or heard Damond approaching. She likely thought they were just going to drive off and wanted to tell them what she knew. Seeing, or merely sensing movement, Noor killed her, having no idea who he was shooting or why.
Because Damond was the victim, SYG does not apply. She had no reason to think her life was in danger as she approached the police car. No reasonable person would recognize a duty to retreat, and in any case, SYG would not apply to the police or Damond. She had no time to retreat.
In this case, the ultimate issue will be whether any reasonable police officers, facing the same situation, would have blindly fired his weapon in the face of his partner at a target he could neither clearly see nor identify.
I cannot say it often enough: SYG laws do nothing more than remove the duty to retreat. They establish no shield against prosecution, nor do they allow anyone to do anything the law forbids. They have no racial component. They protect only the innocent, and in a limited fashion. The lawful use of force, SYG law or not, depends on the other four elements I’ve mentioned.
I think the context of SYG is being mixed with CCW… of which my original query was aimed at, so that makes me at fault for feeding the confusion. In my mind I am reminded of that recent video of the Florida SYG case with the guy who pushed down the other guy… and then the sheriff let’s the shooter go.
Here’s my impression on CCW… and I honestly have considered carrying one myself so I am not against it. Being a bit of a psych guy I seem to perceive that the people who want to carry have any or all of these going on…
1. …would have no issue in killing someone (I mean.. the idea is, if you have one then you have to intend on using one if you feel it’s the right time.. whatever the reason.. meaning, you want one to kill someone… if you feel justified),
2. …want to be some sort of superhero and save someone… or saving property (the latter is not a reason to carry, in my opinion, as any property is not worth losing a life)
3. …are not truly afraid of being threatened, but feel mentally “comfy” carrying one.
4. …is likely not the one who should really carry one. (if you have a fear in needing one it’s not likely you want to use one fearing more the burden of harming another.)
Of different note.. as a security person we are taught the limits and techniques of “citizen’s arrest”. I am unsure how that relates to being armed. I imagine it’s a per state issue.
Oh.. btw.. on the above list I’d likely fall into #3. Ever since the military I miss carrying one.
Doug, I’ll respond to your comment separately, so the text doesn’t get squished down to a tiny column that I find difficult to read.
You SHOULD get a license and carry. if you do, very quickly you will be disabused of virtually all of the impressions you outline. When I first started carrying concealed over 20 years ago, I was extremely aware of the legal and moral consequences that could confront me. My interest was (and still is) not to be a vigilante or “superhero”, but to be in a position to defend my life or the lives of my family in an ever-increasingly lawless world.
Concealed carry is not a casual thing. You must have a heightened sense of situational awareness, probably much as you do in your security job. Not that you’re looking for an opportunity to use your weapon, just the fact that you ARE carrying a potentially deadly instrument and the knowledge YOU are responsible for everything that happens as a result.
In my 20+ years of CCW, I once was in a situation where a co-worker was in fear of bodily harm by an abusive “boyfriend”. This individual had beaten the woman repeatedly and he was entering our place of employment to remove her from the building by force. The police had been called over 15 minutes previously (twice), but had not yet arrived. Fortunately, a quick-thinking employee, close to the entrance, was able to lock the door before the subject entered the office. Police arrived about five minutes later and took him into custody.
As this situation unfolded, the LAST thing I wanted to do was draw my weapon. The boyfriend was a hothead who would be unlikely to retreat. Yet the female, in tears, feared for her safety. I would have acted to protect her if the aggressive male had continued to advance. Fortunately, things didn’t get that far and my firearm remained concealed.
Your point #4 above is the most cogent one. Any law-abiding person fears harming another. And at the same time, when this “another” is about to harm you or some other innocent person, your options are to act (if you can) or do nothing. And the decision on which course to take transpires in a matter of seconds.
Refusing to equip yourself to efficiently defend your life is to choose to be a victim. And there are an increasing number of people in this world who will take advantage of that choice. You see them in the news every night.
An excellent position and mindset for carrying! Now.. absolutely no argument from me on anything you’ve said. If THAT were the formal cfriteria by which we gauge a CCW permit that would be great. BUT…… (you knew there had to be one)… there is no requirement regarding the mindset of granting CCW to anyone.
I am reminded of a quote from the movie, “Parenthood” with Keeanu Reeves..
“You know, Mrs. Buckman, you need a license to buy a dog. You need a license to drive a car. Hell, you even need a license to catch a fish. But they’ll let any butt-******* to be a father. ”
My point being… subtract “be a father” with “carry a gun”.
In most states, you do need a license to carry, so I’m not sure about your comparison. I am also unimpressed with your presumptions about mindsets of those who choose to carry. Carrying brings with it an awesome responsibility. Not superhero responsibility but a responsibility to behave, know your surroundings, not to over react, remain unimpaired, to use good judgment 100% of the time, etc. while I would assume that there are those who get licensed to carry fit into one of your 4 compartments, none of those whom I know that carry, do.
I would presume it depends where you hail from. Where I live there are a fair number of folks who carry.. and it scares me a bit.
Occasional Thinker said:
I don’t think you understand people that well. CCW holders are involved in fewer crimes than all or almost all demographics, making it unreasonable to worry about them. Those that carry with intent to commit a crime really aren’t concerned about commiting a crime. I doubt you truly realize how many people (a small percentage, but still a large number) not only have no qualms with injuring someone, but actually enjoy it. I spent my twenties working in an inner city area and the casual violence was just part of daily life, unlike suburbia. I tell others I plan as a pessimist but live as an optimist. I know what can happen and prepare for it but then I enjoy life.
I have been shot at a few times, had guns pointed at me on several occasions, and been threatened with a knife on multiple occasions. Twice, I have used a gun to defend myself or others. The first time was when I became involved in a domestic dispute by answering a knock on the door one night. I guess I was being a superhero in your mind, but I could not close the door on a woman with multiple bruises on her face, a broken nose, and other injuries when she told me her husband was drunk and was going to kill her. Shortly after the husband showed up attempting to kick my door open and armed with a butcher knife screaming he was going to kill all of us. The second time involved two you men armed with knives who thought a business owner working alone presented a great opportunity to share the wealth. Here I have to conflict with a couple of your points. Yes, I would have pulled the trigger and they, in both cases, understood that I would and backed down. In either instance, I could have pulled the trigger and been justified but, because I do not look for an opportunity to kill someone, I did not. I believe this to be the case in most self defense uses of firearms, which kind of negates several of your points.
That said, I do believe there are people that should not have a gun. Or a driver’s license. Or reproduce. Or express their opinions in public. Or many other things. But I fear allowing government to have the power to decide who gets to do any of those things more than I fear those individuals exercising their rights or privileges as citizens. Because at heart, I am an optimist and believe that the majority of those traveling through life with me are good people.
[sigh] You guys are missing my point. I, in no way, am suggesting CCW is not a good thing.. or even a bad thing. I am saying, that depending on an individual state’s criteria for permitting, that pretty much any human being can get one, and there’s likely some human beings who should not have one. I am saying humans are all behaviorally different and as such can view CCW in many ways not always so discriminating in the potential use of the weapon.
Casey Tompkins said:
Your personal fear of other people who concealed carry hasn’t much to do with the point at hand. It merely reflects your own bias.
A question: how many unjustified shootings have occurred in your area in the past 10 years by CCW owners? Zero? Then the issue is your own apprehension, not the alleged motivations of other people for carrying a weapon.
I’m a humanist before I am a statistician… but I am a statistician to gauge humanity. If the count in my area is “zero” then that might suggest humanity in my area has yet to be tested… rather than suggest a conclusion that the Second Amendment conquers all.
You state you have not sought a concealed carry license. Perhaps, after you have done so, you might be able to speak with greater authority regarding the vetting process. In my experience, not just “anyone” can obtain a license.
However, there are many who, outside the law, carry nonetheless. Chicago is a case in point.
I second the recommendation for Andrew Branca’s book. Massad Ayoob is another use of force expert to listen to, or take classes from. I haven’t had the opportunity yet.
There is a LOT of bad self defense information out in the world. Professor Althouse, who I read daily, recently posted an entry where I think she was very confused about what is and isn’t self defense. She was a University of Wisconsin law professor, but probably never had to deal with criminal law and self defense.
The first was flat-out assault and battery leading to a homicide. The second was self defense, even if she fired through the door before the intruder gained entry.
James W Crawford said:
I still believe that the sight of Justine Diamond wearing a negligee terrafied Noor.
Maybe Noor was angry because the 911 call interrupted his eight-hour coffee break. He and Harrity were obviously in a hurry to get to the doughnut shop.
Now don’t go blaming donuts… after all, eating one can be a “holy” experience. (hahaha.. I kill myself sometimes. Get it..? holy as in having holes?) :/
IIUC, Stand Your Ground laws do not really change rules of engagement. They just remove any legal Duty to Retreat. So, you can’t pick a fight, shoot your opponent, and then claim self-defense under an SYG law. You can’t shoot some harmless panhandler or some passer-by in the street, and then claim justification because he looked like a weirdo. You still have to be the innocent victim of an unprovoked attack, and you still have to have reasonable cause to fear for your life.
Since relatively few states impose a legal duty to retreat, it follows that most states have always had SYG, by default if not by statute.
My impression was that most states that have a legal duty to retreat only require it in public places, so citizens could still legally stand their ground in their own homes. Of course, I could be misinformed.
I used to think that Duty To Retreat laws were not a real problem, as long as (1) they only applied in public places (streets, parks, stores, restaurants) where each person had as much right to be as the other, and (2) as long as they only required retreat when the victim could safely do so, without any danger to himself or others. After all, anyone in his right mind would try to avoid a shoot-out anyway, whether the law required it or not.
I am now convinced, though, that SYG laws are needed to protect innocent people from being railroaded. The victim of a violent crime might have to make a life-or-death decision (flight or fight, shoot or don’t shoot) in a split second. A prosecutor or a plaintiff’s lawyer can take weeks or months to cook up some hypothetical scenario in which the defendant theoretically “could have” (and, therefore, should have) retreated.
There may be some states that have inadequate vetting procedures for CCW licensing. That is a separate issue from SYG.
But federal law requires showing I.D. and passing a background check just to buy a gun retail, so even the worst CHL/CCW permit holder has been vetted, to some degree. More so than someone buying a car.
In some cases, bureaucratic bungling and/or Democrats’ diversion programs and plea bargaining have allowed criminals to slip through the cracks and pass a background check to buy weapons, with tragic results (Parkland, FL, and Sutherland Springs, TX). That, too, is a separate issue.
Of course, some police shootings (Tamir Rice, Amadou Diallo, Daniel Shaver, Dillon Taylor, and maybe Philando Castile) prove that even trained and certified law enforcement officers can make tragic mistakes when forced to make a life-or-death decision in a split second. (I don’t count the cases of Erik Scott or Justine Damond, since I believe those cops were trigger-happy hotheads who never should have been allowed to work in law enforcement, or even to own guns, in the first place.)
So, wouldn’t the problem be even worse with untrained civilians carrying guns? Maybe. But not necessarily.
Police officers are called on to intervene in emergencies. They arrive at the scene of armed robberies or mass shootings that are already in progress. They see a man in civilian clothes with a gun in his hand, and they don’t know if he is the bad guy, or an off-duty cop, or a legally armed citizen.
Private citizens are not expected to go to the site of violent crimes in progress, and are far less likely to get into such ambiguous situations.
In principle, I would be OK with state laws requiring training and qualification for a CHL, just as the law requires passing a test for a license to drive a car on public streets. (And some states probably already require qualification for a civilian CHL.) The problem is that SJWs would use it to get de facto gun prohibition by making the test so hard that Annie Oakley, Jim Cirillo, and Wild Bill Hickok could not pass it. Maybe the law could specify that the CHL course must not be any more difficult than the minimum standard for police in that state. Or something like that.
I’m a little late to the party, and possibly Doug will not see my reply. I wanted to address his points though, since these are points I often see raised.
1. [Concealed Carriers] would have no issue [with] killing someone. If you have [a gun] you intend [to use it] if you feel it’s the right time. Whatever the reason. Meaning, you want one to kill someone if you feel justified.”
Having =\= wanting to use. There are 2 fire extinguishers in my home. I have no desire to use them. I have several emergency first aid kits that I periodically receive training for to ensure I know how to use them, but I have no wish to ever use them. I have a chainsaw, but I do not wish to be the star of a real life version of Texas Chainsaw Massacre. I have guns, but I do not wish to kill another human.
Being mentally prepared to kill when necessary is not the same thing as wanting to kill. Coming to grips with the idea that there is evil in the world and you must be prepared to confront it =\= wanting to seek out and destroy. There are certainly people who fit your description and have aggression issues but they typically do not qualify for a CC license.
2a. [Concealed Carriers] want to be [a] superhero and save someone or property
2b. [Preservation of property] is not a reason to carry [a weapon] as [no] property is worth losing a life
I would far prefer that more people take an interest in helping and defending their fellow man than the opposite. Criminals thrive on the indolence and indulgence of society, which is precisely what the “not my problem, I’m staying out of it” and “no property is worth a life” attitudes convey.
3. [People with CC] are not truly afraid of being threatened, but feel [mentally comfortable] carrying [a weapon.]
Well, no. I know about a dozen CC licensees. About half had some incident that made them feel unsafe. Personally I chose to carry after I couple of my college friends and I were confronted by a group of highly aggressive panhandlers one night in the city. It wasn’t quite a mugging but it was perilously close to one, and we walked away minus the cash we had on us. Thankfully they were satisfied with that and didn’t wish anything else from my female companions.This lead to looking into laws on carrying weapons, and then to applying for a CC license. This is not an uncommon sequence of events for many who apply for and receive CC licenses.
4a. [A person interested in a CC License] is [probably not] the [type of person] who should carry [a weapon].
A CC license is something that must be applied for, but according to this position applying for a CC license is evidence that the applicant is not fit for the license.
Essentially the same argument seen/heard from the far left. No one should have the right to a CC license or self defense, that’s the job of the Gov./Police.
4b. “If you have a fear in needing one it’s not likely you want to use one fearing more the burden of harming another.
I think this loosely translates to:
“If you’re truly a fearful person who thinks they need a weapon, you probably won’t have the mental fortitude to use that weapon if the time came.”
This has been disproved on many occasions. The incident in Georgia where a mother took her young children and a revolver, retreated to her attic and then shot the intruder who came after her is a case in point. There are many incidents of weapons being used by those fearful for their own lives. Self-preservation is a very strong instinct, and it is not the job of the Government to decide who has enough of that instinct to qualify for a license. Often the mere presence of a weapon changes the outcome, and many self defense uses don’t actually involve a weapon being fired. Every criminal runs the odds, mentally, before approaching a victim. Like any predator they prefer the weak and defenseless, as there is the best risk to reward ratio. If a potential victim produces a weapon the scenario changes from a relatively certain positive (for the criminal) outcome to a gigantic question mark with a high penalty. Most criminals will run. Not worth it, they can find another victim.
1. If you have a CCW then you are prepared to use it to kill someone… UNLESS your reason to carry is for a less benign, less confrontational interest. Being “prepared” to use it means you are resolved to use it if required in your own mind that it’s necessary. That’s a no brainer.
My past training in the military stated if you point the weapon for any reason it’s always with the intent to kill… never warning shots into the air, never to wound. Police are similar. Personally.. and this is only for me if I were CCW… my intent would likely be to disable first before killing, just because that’s me. It all depends on the situation for sure. If the guy is armed, then I have no issue popping a couple into him center mass. If he’s going to simply push me down in the street… I might consider otherwise.
Why? I have absolutely NO idea how I might act emotionally after having taken a life for any reason. Until you do it, no one.. and I mean no one, can be totally sure.. unless they’ve killed before. Even police. It’s called being human.
2a. I say again.. no property is worth a life.. no amount of money in a robbery is worth a life. But that’s my own moral balance. Quite obviously, if you are CCW.. and your situational threat falls within the law.. well, in that instance you can be an executioner if you so desire… and no one can put you in jail. If morally you can accept killing someone to save some money or property.. go for it.
4a. Seems as typical in here everyone is trying to make my remarks some Second Amendment issue. I speculated that likely the person who wants CCW should not have CCW. A moral Catch 22 actually… but more suggesting there’s very little psych eval to determine reason for needing CCW; it’s not an attack on the Second. That Amendment is going to be around forever and people insist that it’s going to vanish. That’s NRA fear mongering.. not common sense.
I’m sure you can find one incident/event that fits each any every possible scenario. Again… my point was nothing about the justification for CCW.. just making the observation that it’s humans who CCW and if it’s open for everyone then you have to expect a lot of people doing things their own way for their own reasons and with poor judgement. In the end you have to know your own limitations (not everyone does) and balance them with the desire to carry.
If you carry a gun, you should be willing to use it. You should be willing to use force sufficient to stop the threat. This is not blood-thirst, this is a sense of duty. Would most soldiers rather go home without having seen the elephant? Absolutely. But you do not carry a weapon unless you are willing to use it.
Why would you want only people who are uninterested in rescuing others to carry a weapon? Heroism is a noble virtue, after all. As far as defending property, I do not agree that property is always worth less than a criminal’s life. Obviously, do not go for lethal force if non-lethal options are available (I am fond of a Mag-Lite). but if someone is trying to rob me, I smack them in the head, and they drop dead, I’m not going to feel bad.
A very good comparison… use of something other than a firearm. It brings out totally different reactions. Firearms kill from a distance, hence the relative ease in which to decide to use one. Your Mag Lite (I have one also) or any clubbing weapon makes inflicting harm onto others, even to the point of killing them, a more personal affair… and far more with intended purpose. No one beats the crap out of an attacker with the idea to kill them unless there’s something vindictive involved. Beating them until they are unconscious is usually good enough. Beating them until their head compresses (death) is usually reserved for someone who might attack a loved one.
Might be interesting to contemplate the Trayvon Martin event. He was literally pummeling Zimmerman… maybe it was the drugs.
Interesting comparison… physical rage over pulling a trigger.
If you need permission to do something it is not a right. It is a privilege being granted to you. This is why CCW permits are supposed to be shall issue, not may issue. It is not the Government’s job to impose conditions or criteria in order for a citizen to exercise a God-given constitutionally guaranteed right. Especially since those laws will swiftly be written to disarm/disenfranchise specific groups (look into the racist history of gun control, Jim Crow was very concerned with keeping coloreds disarmed.) As to the assertion that the 2A is in no danger, far too many of your allies on the left have been honest of late about their desire to abolish the second amendment, either outright or by degrees such as in CA and NY.
Regarding your closing observation; yes we are all humans and we are all fallible. However since the alternative is to live as a subject and not a citizen, I prefer dangerous freedom to a gilded cage, as did those who founded this country.
There we go again.. the Founding Fathers.
James W Crawford said:
Meanwhile, in the Peoples Republic of Oregon, the imbecile Judges and Juries of Yamhill County Oregon have given a marijunna bootlegger a free pass for shooting a 12 gauge shotgun, most probably loaded with slugs, at his neighbor’s children.
Pingback: The Trayvon Martin Case, Update 53: All White People Are Racist! | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: Guns And Liberty: A Rationale, Part 9, 2019 | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: Guns And Liberty: Part 9, 2020 | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: Guns And Liberty, 2021, Part 9 | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: Guns And Liberty, 2022: Part 9 | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: Guns And Liberty, 2023: Part 9 | Stately McDaniel Manor