Now add to that a “stand your ground” law that says anyone who feels threatened, no matter where he is, can shoot to kill. No longer would he have a legal duty to try to avoid confrontation, much less try to determine if a threat was real. He could shoot first and ask questions later.
And what God-Awful change to Missouri’s laws is being cooked for the St. Louis Compost-Dispatcher to raise a doomsday alarm?
Yes, the actual law will be expanded to include the ability to defend yourself anywhere as long as you are being a good citizen. Nowhere in the actual law or proposed changes one can find the annulment of other basic tenets to claim self-defense: Innocence, Imminence, Proportionality and Reasonableness. Yet the Editorial Board at the St. Louis Compost-Dispatcher make it sound as if you will be allowed to kill anybody that looks crossed at you because you got the last cold can of soda from the store. And then we have this last gem:
A study at Texas A&M University found that “stand your ground laws” do nothing to promote public safety and increase homicides by 8 percent. The study found that victims are disproportionately African-American.
First, given Missouri’s history with Jim Crow’s laws, specially when applied so Blacks could not be armed, this is just pure hypocrisy. Plus the data from Florida has shown that Blacks are also the biggest beneficiary of SYG. Second, the link they provide does not go to a study by Texas A&M but a paper published by Everytown for Gun Safety, Michael Bloomberg’s pet Gun Control group.
And still I have yet to find one single Legal genius that can explain to me why is it that my life must take a depreciation every time I cross some stupid imaginary legal line: On this side of my home threshold I am golden to defend myself, move over it and I am a hardened criminal that should rot in prison.
There has to be some sort of Gun Control’s Blue Book of Life Values somewhere I can borrow.
Is it mandatory that every time the anti’s link to a “reference” that they lie about something?
No surprise they invoke Trayvon Martin, despite it not being an SYG case. They seem to think repeating that falsehood again and again will magically make it into an SYG case retroactively.
No surprise either that they use the term “feel threatened” and ignore that a threat must have the ability, opportunity, and intent to legally be considered a threat. It’s all about the feelings, you know!
“A study at Texas A&M University found that “stand your ground laws” do nothing to promote public safety and increase homicides by 8 percent. The study found that victims are disproportionately African-American.”
Anyone else ever notice that they always talk about ‘homicides’ but never specify whether those ‘homicides’ were actually, you know, *criminal* in nature as opposed to justified self defense?
Dollars to doughnuts a bulk of the ‘increase’ would be revealed to be those in the process of acting criminally getting their comeuppance.
Indeed, Phssthpok — most folks think “homicide” and “murder” are synonymous. They look at me as if I’ve grown a 2nd head when I explain the differences.
I see what you did there…
You actually won’t find a legal reason as to why you are clear to defend yourself in your home, but are not allowed to defend yourself outside the home. The reason is philosophical, not legal.
If it was left entirely up to those with (D) after their name, you would have no right to defend yourself at all, at home or otherwise. The reason is simple: for marxists to take power, they need control and fear. They create the circumstance of control by eliminating those pesky 2A rights, thereby making sure that government abuses have no check. They create fear by making it impossible for a person to defend themselves against a criminal, or alternately, making it more difficult to defend yourself than it is to simply be a victim. Malicious prosecutors on both sides of the aisle are part and parcel of that action, of course, but it is happening with alarming frequency already, nevermind the laws on the books (Trayvon Martin ring a bell?)
If you ever want to understand the character of a law, ask yourself one question: to whom does the control go, and who shall be left in fear of the consequences of the law? With that information, you can easily discern the intent of the lawmakers involved.
Don’t you just love being lectured about security and safety by people who live in private, gated communities in the good part of town, who work at business guarded by armed guards- like the editors at the above newspaper?