Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
The Riddler

Stand Your Ground Bill

Rate this topic

141 posts in this topic

Brewers timing is off but I'm all for it. I hope it passes!

 

 

 

BOSTON - A state senator from Western Massachusetts is advocating for a bill that would expand a person's right to use deadly force in self-defense without first making an attempt at a retreat.

 

Under the legislation by Sen. Stephen M. Brewer, a Barre Democrat, the state would expand its current "Castle Doctrine," which says a person has no duty to retreat from intruders at home before using deadly force.

 

Brewer's bill would expand that Castle principle to using deadly force in public anyplace the person has a right to be. The principle is called the Stand Your Ground Principle. More than two dozen states have passed either the Castle Doctrine, Stand Your Ground or both, according to the Associated Press.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a case some time ago where a woman was in her house. An intruder broke in and starting coming at her. She ran down into the basement and he continued to come after her. She struck him with an object and it killed him. She was arrested and charged with murder and sentenced to 20 years in prison. The basis of the verdict was that she could have ran back up the basement and escaped. This case went all the way to the supreme court. She was again found guilty based on precedent. The way our court system works is that decisions are made based on the outcome of previous cases(precedents). It just so happened that the president used on the basis of this judgment was 300 yrs old. They immediately brought this up in court after and changed the laws. The only problem is that when a law changes its not retroactive so all prior punishments based on the old law still stand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the problem with this bill and what happened in florida is this ,,, zimmerman would probably never followed this young man if he was not armed , give somone a weapon without propur training is deadly ,,,as we see in this case a unarmed man killed for what ,, there is a fine line of the use of deadly force

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all for it. Does suck with the timing though. Met Senator Brewer last Saturday, very nice guy. Wish he were my Senator. He is Bernie's Senator though.

Cabo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm all for it. Does suck with the timing though. Met Senator Brewer last Saturday, very nice guy. Wish he were my Senator. He is Bernie's Senator though.

Cabo

 

Hi Jon :wave: Senator Brewer all things considered, is a pretty good Joe and he is very outspoken for sportsmens issues!!!!!!!!!

 

 

Hows the Princess??????????????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brewers timing is off but I'm all for it. I hope it passes!

BOSTON - A state senator from Western Massachusetts is advocating for a bill that would expand a person's right to use deadly force in self-defense without first making an attempt at a retreat.

Under the legislation by Sen. Stephen M. Brewer, a Barre Democrat, the state would expand its current "Castle Doctrine," which says a person has no duty to retreat from intruders at home before using deadly force.

Brewer's bill would expand that Castle principle to using deadly force in public anyplace the person has a right to be. The principle is called the Stand Your Ground Principle. More than two dozen states have passed either the Castle Doctrine, Stand Your Ground or both, according to the Associated Press.

 

You have got to be kidding me. Thank god this will go nowhere!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the problem with this bill and what happened in florida is this ,,, zimmerman would probably never followed this young man if he was not armed , give somone a weapon without propur training is deadly ,,,as we see in this case a unarmed man killed for what ,, there is a fine line of the use of deadly force

 

i agree with you on proper training being needed. the current firearms course required doesnt even involve handling let alone firing weapons, and there are definitely people who may become a little to brave/bold when carrying, whereas someone like you or myself, who have spent so many hours carrying and firing many different weapons systems, it isnt going to change our mentality o thought process at all.

 

that being said, i think its ridiculous that a person making decisions in real time, when they think their life is on the line, then has to sit in court while a jury filled with people who have never been in a situation close to that decide whether or not they tried hard enough to get away

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

then when the guy says "i shot him because he cut me off in traffic" what are you going to say?

sure, bring it on, let everybody carry, no training, no supervision, no competence testing, ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have got to be kidding me. Thank god this will go nowhere!

 

HAHA! Laughable. One incident like FL is rare compared to the junkies and losers looking to break into homes and take your belongings and possible shoot you in the face and harm your kids. I will protect myself and family at any cost I see fit and I shouldn't have to duck from flying bullets and run around my house to escape a lunatic with a knife trying to stab me or a family member. I see no reason not to have it. It would make it an even fight so to speak and might deter an intruder if they know the homeowner could be armed too and have the right to shoot/protect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
then when the guy says "i shot him because he cut me off in traffic" what are you going to say?

sure, bring it on, let everybody carry, no training, no supervision, no competence testing, ...

 

I think that's going a little far. Of course people should be competent and trained and tested. Where does it say they are going to let anyone carry? That's an obsurd statement. Those who carry illegally have more rights it seems than those that don't anyway. I think you should have to have a mental evaluation, be tested and trained and have no criminal background. I think restricitons are needed but so is a bill for the right to save your own life. The way I see it, who's to tell me I can't use what force necessary to make sure someone who's trying to kill me doesn't succeed in doing so. Man, this country is messed up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where is it written that a person cannot defend his or hers self???????????????? That is a guarenteed right in our constitution! Killing someone is another story, I personally would not want to but...................... and in this proposed bill I see no provision to alter or redo any part of the Massachusetts Gun Control laws.

Whats the big deal, run away, protect yourself from a real or perceived threat, or roll over and take a beating your choice!!

 

PS Mass. is a state in which endorses the Castle Doctrine!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.