Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Grainne who wrote (102781)	5/1/2005 11:50:39 PM
From: Alan Smithee	Respond to of 108807

I think the question of necessity has to be subjective. Did the shooter believe in his or her mind, based on all the facts and circumstances, that he or she was in imminent danger of severed bodily harm? What takes it out of the realm of the subjective is whether that belief is reasonable. That question is answered in light of what others in the community would believe to be the case, again based on all the facts and circumstances. In reality it is nothing more than the test prosecutors go through in evaluating claims of self defense. As I understand it, what the Florida law changed was that it removed the obligation to retreat from an imminent threat. One can now stand his or her ground and still have available the defense of self-defense.

To: Grainne who wrote (102781)	5/2/2005 6:21:34 AM
From: redfish	Respond to of 108807

"Reasonable belief seems really subjective to me." If a person armed with a knife tries to pull me out of my car it is impractical for me to seek an objective third party to determine whether shooting him six times in the chest is a reasonable response.

To: Grainne who wrote (102781)	5/10/2005 10:31:00 AM
From: Bill	Respond to of 108807

Current gun laws may be working very well: The Volokh Conspiracy blog That's the suggestion of Posse Incitatus, which notes the result of a state-federal-local dragnet which rounded up over 10,000 fugitives. Only two percent of these fugitives had guns. P.I. suggests that the data show that American gun control laws work so well that criminals are much less likely to own guns than is the general public. That's a good point, regarding fugitives who were arrested in their homes, presuming that many arrests included the lawfully-allowed "protective sweep" by police officers to check the vicinity for weapons. As for the arrests that took place in public areas, a gun carrying rate of two percent might not be far different from the rates of lawful carrying by licensed citizens. volokh.com posseincitatus.typepad.com