GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-07-2012, 22:52   #1
CDR_Glock
Senior Member
 
CDR_Glock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,265
Do stand your ground laws help or hurt crime rates?

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/articl...rt-crime-rates

Obviously, this writer is biased against SYG.
__________________
Lifetime Member of the NRA

My YouTube Channel:

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
CDR_Glock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2012, 23:13   #2
janice6
Platinum Membership
NRA
 
janice6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: minnesota
Posts: 18,860


What a crock.

BG kills you. One crime, one murder.

You kill BG that tries to kill you. One crime, one murder.

Nice way to lie with stats.
__________________
janice6

"Peace is that brief, glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading". Anonymous

Earp: Not everyone who knows you hates you.
DOC: I know it ain't always easy bein' my friend....but I'll BE THERE when you need me.
janice6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2012, 00:00   #3
HandyMan Hugh
NRA Life Member
 
HandyMan Hugh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Formerly of Hallstead, PA
Posts: 6,019
Again, the antis lie by omission. Almost all of the 600 "homicides", I believe are justifiable ones.
__________________
HandyMan Hugh D.H.M.D.
NRA Life Member/Certified Pistol Instructor
Remember when seconds count the police are just minutes away! As good as they are, They can't be everywhere at once!
HandyMan Hugh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2012, 01:09   #4
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,911


Anything that tips the scales in the favor of the good guy, is alright with me.

I'm still going to try to avoid trouble, for obvious reasons. It's expensive. Even if it is a completely justified shoot, and you do everything right, it's gonna cost you a lot.

http://www.theshootist.net/2009/01/o...-perry_12.html
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
--Gunhaver
Don't let the guys quoted above contact your reps more than you.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Cavalry Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2012, 11:43   #5
Misty02
Senior Member
 
Misty02's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Anything that tips the scales in the favor of the good guy, is alright with me.

I'm still going to try to avoid trouble, for obvious reasons. It's expensive. Even if it is a completely justified shoot, and you do everything right, it's gonna cost you a lot.

http://www.theshootist.net/2009/01/o...-perry_12.html
Iíve read through this and researched more into this case. Do you know anything about the civil case? Based on the comments it appears it had pretrial briefs due on 2/25/12. I am interested in learning more about it.

.
__________________


"In making tactical dispositions, the highest pitch you can attain is to conceal them." - Sun Tzu

Outpost Member #69
Misty02 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2012, 12:09   #6
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,911


Quote:
Originally Posted by Misty02 View Post
Iíve read through this and researched more into this case. Do you know anything about the civil case? Based on the comments it appears it had pretrial briefs due on 2/25/12. I am interested in learning more about it.

.
Seems to have dropped off the radar. Don't know if that is good news or bad.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
--Gunhaver
Don't let the guys quoted above contact your reps more than you.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Cavalry Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2012, 13:07   #7
Misty02
Senior Member
 
Misty02's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Seems to have dropped off the radar. Don't know if that is good news or bad.

I did google searches and searched the 19th JDC site and came up empty. I sure hope this man was able to put that nightmare behind him and is living as happy as possible.

.
__________________


"In making tactical dispositions, the highest pitch you can attain is to conceal them." - Sun Tzu

Outpost Member #69
Misty02 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2012, 13:16   #8
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,911


No good deed goes unpunished.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
--Gunhaver
Don't let the guys quoted above contact your reps more than you.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Cavalry Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2012, 15:37   #9
ScottieG59
Senior Member
 
ScottieG59's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Rural area near Kansas City, KS
Posts: 967
There is a lot of confusion on these laws with names such as "stand your ground" or "make my day." My understanding is that these variations of the Castle Rule address upon whom the onus of proof shall be placed.

The person using deadly force will be assumed to have acted reasonably unless the evidence indicates otherwise. Prior to the passage of the various laws, the person using deadly force was assumed to have acted criminally if he did not have proof that he attempted to run away. While this may have been adequately cleared up in trial, it still resulted in devastating expenses and loss of freedom of the acquitted people.

I believe the new laws placed a threshold above which the evidence must be before the case would be permitted to go to trial. This was expected to limit the frivolous pursuit of marginal cases some prosecutors would through at the court, hoping something would stick. It does not change the elements of what constitutes guilt in the criminal sense. It just forces the prosecutor to have a viable case before attempting to criminally charge a defendant.

There has been something of an attempt to bend or twist the intention behind these laws. The famous case dealing with the shooting of the unarmed teenager is a poor example of what the law is about. The issue there is a lack of witnesses besides the one that survived. Both the teenager and the shooter were allowed to be where they were. If the shooter started the fight and shot once he was losing, everything changes. However, this would have to be proven. Supposedly, the prosecutor left out key information when seeking trial in order to get above the threshold. The whole thing is going to be a painful process. The shooter was new to concealed carry and lacked the skills to deal with or avoid physical conflict. Due to his lack of preparedness, the last resort of deadly force was the only force he could bring to the fight.

The retired fireman that killed his neighbor completely misunderstood what the law way about. He seemed to have believed the distortions thrown about by the mass media. There is no "stand your ground" when you initiate the violent conflict. In this case, there were many witnesses and the shooter actually recorded his crime, thinking it would be used in his defense. Clearly, the shooter was very confused and another man lost his life celebrating his wife's birthday.

The above two cases do not clearly show what the "stand your ground" laws are about. Look at the case where the 14 year old boy shot a home intruder. He took reasonable precautions by not answering the door when the criminal has his female accomplice knock on the door. When the male criminal attempted to break in, the 14 year old got the younger children to a safer area, armed himself and directly stopped the threat by shooting the intruder. The assumption is that the boy was reasonably believing that he and his siblings' were in danger of death or great bodily harm. The facts presented do not meet the threshold to even consider a trial.
ScottieG59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2012, 16:41   #10
DTGlock20
Member
 
DTGlock20's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: IGH MN
Posts: 76
I love the reference in the artlcle to the former Monitor writer, Mr. Rogers, who apparently has had numerous loaded firearms pointed at his head. Perhaps if he had armed himself somewhere along the line, he could have handled those situations differently instead of giving us the bleeding-heart, gun violence is scary, gun-control is the only way to solve the worlds problems BS. I'm sick of it.
__________________
Glock 20SF, Glock 19 (Gen 3), Glock 26 (Gen 3)
DTGlock20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2012, 17:02   #11
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,911


Quote:
Originally Posted by DTGlock20 View Post
I love the reference in the artlcle to the former Monitor writer, Mr. Rogers, who apparently has had numerous loaded firearms pointed at his head. Perhaps if he had armed himself somewhere along the line, he could have handled those situations differently instead of giving us the bleeding-heart, gun violence is scary, gun-control is the only way to solve the worlds problems BS. I'm sick of it.
Seems like a change of tactics is needed.

Stop illegal gun violence.

Encourage legal gun violence. Which will certainly help the first goal.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
--Gunhaver
Don't let the guys quoted above contact your reps more than you.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Cavalry Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2012, 17:13   #12
steve1988
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Ft. Meade, MD
Posts: 1,178
One statement in the article stuck out in particular to me:
Quote:
The long-accepted “duty to retreat” standard allows time and opportunity for violence to be avoided. “Stand your ground” may demand a split-second decision that even trained law-enforcement officers find challenging, and invites tragedy.
This implies that retreating, under "Stand Your Ground" laws, is somehow eliminated from the equation altogether. It doesn't "demand" anything of the people. You are still free to retreat. You just don't have the obligation.
__________________
Thomas Paine: "...arms...discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. ...Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them."
steve1988 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2012, 17:41   #13
samurairabbi
Dungeon Schmuck
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 6,922
Quote:
Originally Posted by janice6 View Post
What a crock.

BG kills you. One crime, one murder.

You kill BG that tries to kill you. One crime, one murder.

Nice way to lie with stats.
Lumping justifiable homicide into the Murder category is one of the four great statistical distortions commonly used in the firearms restriction movement. The other three:

- Counting a gunshot death of a 17-thru-19-year-old as a "child" shooting death.
- Lumping a shooting of a casual acquaintance in with the classification of shooting of a "friend or family member".
- Classification of a firearm owned by a resident victim of a shooting as "firearm used against the resident", even if that firearm does not even figure in the incident.
__________________
Samurai Rabbi

Last edited by samurairabbi; 07-08-2012 at 17:43..
samurairabbi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2012, 17:48   #14
lawson12
Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 35
Pisses me off when they say he's going to trial for the murder of "Mr. Martin". First off, it hasn't been proven that Zimmerman murdered the punk, innocent until proven guilty, and calling Trayvon "Mr. Martin" is showing him respect that no one should assume he deserves.
lawson12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2012, 18:12   #15
oldman11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,575
This guys whole article is one lie after another. He twists facts and falsifies studies. He is definitely anti-gun and anti-stand your ground. He obviously thinks that criminals should be protected. He certainly doesn't want you and other honest citizens to be able to protect themselves, and possibly others.
oldman11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2012, 19:02   #16
steveksux
Massive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 14,304
The most likely truth is that they neither help nor hurt in any statistically significant way.

What's the % of the population that routinely carries a pistol? Pretty small. That's going to be the % of the robberies/crimes where carrying a weapon has the possibility of changing the outcome. Something around 3% for Michigan.

Now out of those 3%, what percentage of those cases did stand your ground play a role? That would be the % of cases where there was a shooting because of SYG laws, where the carrier would have tried to retreat without SYG laws.

Not to mention the difficulty of getting any data to support that, as SYG laws often coincide with switching to Shall Issue. So there's generally a much smaller % of the population armed BEFORE SYG goes into effect. Extrapolation from such small numbers is generally not so reliable.

Randy
steveksux is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2012, 20:58   #17
FireForged
Millenium #3936
 
FireForged's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Rebel South
Posts: 4,551
I believe that the people with enough grit to stand their ground to begin with would probably stand their ground anyway. I doubt that "stand your ground" legislation has emboldened any relatively passive people. so my answer is nah, I doubt it effects statistics to any real measurable degree.. Just a laymans opinon of course.
__________________
"I believe that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive." - Ronald Reagan

Last edited by FireForged; 07-08-2012 at 20:59..
FireForged is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2012, 11:35   #18
Brian Lee
Drop those nuts
 
Brian Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Up a tree.
Posts: 7,710
A strong self defense on the part of good people is the only thing that makes a strong impression on the minds of bad people.

The stronger the right to self defense, the lower crime will go in the long run.
Brian Lee is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:04.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,103
279 Members
824 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 16:42