At last....an organizaton with BACKBONE

[Randall53]

AT LEAST WE HAVE ONE ORGANIZATION IN THE USA THAT HAS SOME BALLS AND A BACKBONE..!!!!!

 

 

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/08/09/Florida-s-Sheriff-Association-backs-the-State-s-Stand-Your-Ground-Law

Edited August 11, 2013 by Randall53

[gun sane]

These LEOs aren't blind.  They can see the benefits of an armed citizenry to take up the slack and slow response times in a dire emergency.  Too many lawmakers sit within the safe confines of a capitol building and wonder why the gun laws they impose don't drop the crime rate.  Stuck on stupid.

[Wheelgunner]

Randall53, you're right that these sheriffs deserve props for their position on this issue.

 

But I think factions like the "Dream Defenders" - who seek to repeal the Florida "stand your ground" law - have caused a great deal of controversy and confusion by conflating two distinct self-defense concepts.  See, they are working to end the statutory provision that governs "stand your ground" type scenarios.  But even if they succeed in causing this statute to be repealed, their action will not change the legitimate use of force in "stand your ground" situations.  That is because fundamental rights we enjoy are not gifts that government bestows on us at its pleasure; rather, they are the legitimate domain of all free men. 

 

This distinction may seem highly technical and thus unimportant, but quite the opposite is true.  It is critically important.  We have our rights because we were born.  We believe all men have these rights.  But we know that governments often disagree with this fact, and therefore memorialized our rights in the Constitution.  The Constitution didn't give us our rights, and we have others that simply weren't written into it but that are no less legitimate for that.   

 

In light of all this, it is clear that only repealing a State's "stand your ground" statute would in no way detract from a free man's legitimate, God-given human right to defend himself, particularly from a lethal threat.  Who knows whether a particular judge would agree with this; it's hardly the point.  Did the Armenians lack a legitimate recourse to defending themselves from the Turkish military in the 1890s because there was no "stand your ground" statute in their homeland?  Were they doomed to "flight rather than fight"?  What about Southern blacks who were attacked by lynch mobs in the Jim Crow era?  Was the legitimacy of their defensive use of force determined by racist laws in their home state?  Clearly not.

 

Again, it's good that we (the media, the gov't, and citizens) are having this discussion.  But at the end of the day neither you, nor I, nor the people of Florida need a statutory permission slip to exercise our human rights.

 

(Edited for clarification)

Edited December 22, 2013 by Wheelgunner

[Greg_Mid_TN]

Well said Wheelgunner! And cudos to FL LEOs.

[Randall53]

I agree with what you said Wheelgunner, but a lot of people have gone to prison for shooting an assailant before these laws were passed that stopped the stupid requirement to retreat or run away in the face of a threat.  They have great merit in our violent society and protect those of us that are to old to run or too feeble to fight.

Edited August 11, 2013 by Randall53

[Luke E.]

 Every sheriffs deputy and almost every policeman that I am friends with or have spoken with completely support armed citizenry and have a do what you need to do mentality. I wish more would band together and make it public that they feel this way. I don't mean making a meager little statement but rather climb up on a hilltop and explain to people that they are there own first line of defense and the LEO's will get there as soon as they can but a lot of times they only make it in time to take care of an attack or murder scene. I feel like most all Sheriffs Departments around the country are dominated by like minded men and women and if they were very very public about it, it would make the facts very hard for anyone (including a POS president and members of his merry band of outlaws) to hide and lie about. 

 and yes Wheelgunner, I completely agree that they are Constitutionally PROTECTED rights not Constitutionally or government given rights to be changed at any particular Congress or president's whim.

[Paladin132]

Good posts, but I would like to point out that without a stand your ground doctrine you do not have a legal right to self defense in certain situations. There is not articulable legal right to self defense. There is no law or constitutional clause that states that right. What you have are certain laws that give you a very imperfect version of a right that I think we can agree is a basic human right. 

[DaveTN]

 

The Florida Sheriffs Association vote comes on the heels of the acquittal verdict in the George Zimmerman trial in which he was charged with 2nd degree murder of Trayvon Martin. Many opponents of the verdict claim that Florida’s Stand Your Ground law made it impossible for the state to convict Mr. Zimmerman at trial, even though his legal team did not use the law in his defense at trail.  

I’m an opponent of the verdict and I know that Stand your ground had nothing to do with it.

Plus I can spell trial right two times in a row... trial... see.

 

[Dennis1209]

Good posts, but I would like to point out that without a stand your ground doctrine you do not have a legal right to self defense in certain situations. There is not articulable legal right to self defense. There is no law or constitutional clause that states that right. What you have are certain laws that give you a very imperfect version of a right that I think we can agree is a basic human right. 

 

... to be self evident, life...

[Oh Shoot]

 Every sheriffs deputy and almost every policeman that I am friends with or have spoken with completely support armed citizenry...

 

Except all the ones in the TN Sheriffs Association that just killed the knife carry reform.

 

- OS

[RobertNashville]

I know a few LEOs as well and what they are telling me is that many of the younger cops (those just joining the force or have joined in recent years) have a very different view of an armed citizenry. These cops seem to feel that only "professionals" should have weapons and in many cases, they personally don't like firearms at all.

 

I'm sure there are plenty of exceptions and hopefully, for those who do feel that way, a few years of duty may change their minds but in any case, I think we all have to look at each LEO individually because being a LEO is probably no real guarantee either way of how they feel about citizens and their 2A rights.

[Luke E.]

Except all the ones in the TN Sheriffs Association that just killed the knife carry reform.

 

- OS

 

 I have never spoken to any of them about knife carry.

 

I know a few LEOs as well and what they are telling me is that many of the younger cops (those just joining the force or have joined in recent years) have a very different view of an armed citizenry. These cops seem to feel that only "professionals" should have weapons and in many cases, they personally don't like firearms at all.

 

I'm sure there are plenty of exceptions and hopefully, for those who do feel that way, a few years of duty may change their minds but in any case, I think we all have to look at each LEO individually because being a LEO is probably no real guarantee either way of how they feel about citizens and their 2A rights.

 

I'm sure there are plenty out there that are on the other side of the situation and I was only attesting to the ones I have personally spoken with. I just know that there are many many more rural counties out there than otherwise which likely translates over.. Maybe not but makes sense to me. But believe me when I say I do take them on a case by case basis and i'd even go so far as to say that they have to prove their selves to me. I've had some shady interactions with law enforcement and that enough to make me skeptical.

[JAB]

Randall53, you're right that these sheriffs deserve props for their position on this issue.

 

But I think factions like the "Dream Defenders" - who seek to repeal the Florida "stand your ground" law - have caused a great deal of controversy and confusion by conflating two distinct self-defense concepts.  See, they are working to end the statutory provision that governs "stand your ground" type scenarios.  But even if they succeed in causing this statute to be repealed, their action will not change the legitimate use of force in "stand your ground" situations.  That is because fundamental rights we enjoy are not gifts that government bestows on us at its pleasure; rather, they are the legitimate domain of all free men. 

 

This distinction may seem highly technical and thus unimportant, but quite the opposite is true.  It is critically important.  We have our rights because we were born.  We believe all men have these rights.  But we know that governments often disagree with this fact, and therefore memorialized our rights in the Constitution.  The Constitution didn't give us our rights, and we have others that simply weren't written into it but that are no less legitimate for that.   

 

In light of all this, it is clear that only repealing a State's "stand your ground" statute would in no way detract from a free man's legitimate, God-given human right to defend himself, particularly from a lethal threat.  Who knows whether a particular judge would agree with this; it's hardly the point.  Did the Armenians lack a legitimate recourse to defending themselves from the Turkish military in the 1890s because there was no "stand your ground" statute in their homeland?  Were they doomed to "flight rather than fight"?  What about Southern blacks who were attacked by lynch mobs in the Jim Crow era?  Was the legitimacy of their defensive use of force determined by racist laws in their home state?  Clearly not.

 

Again, it's good that we (the media, the gov't, and citizens) are having this discussion.  But I guess my avatar says it all.  The point is that at the end of the day neither you, nor I, nor the people of Florida need a statutory permission slip to exercise our human rights.

 

(Edited for clarification)

 

I agree with you in a philosophical sense.  That does not change the fact that citizens in some states had (maybe still have) a stated or implied duty to retreat before using deadly force.  This meant that a would-be victim of deadly assault who chose not to present their back as a target to an assailant but, instead, use deadly force without attempting to retreat could be charged with a crime even if clearly acting in self defense.  Heck, apparently in some states you are expected to try and run away even inside your own home and only use deadly force if the assailant pursues you/backs you into a corner from which you can no longer retreat.  "Stand your ground" laws are intended to remove any such duty to retreat in any location where you are legally allowed to be.

 

Even here in TN, where there was no clearly stated duty to retreat, 'stand your ground' type laws were put into place to make it absolutely clear that the would-be victim in fact has no such duty.  Therefore the repeal of 'stand your ground' laws - while such repeal can obviously not take away a natural right - could result in would-be victims being prosecuted (and, possibly found guilty) for not further risking their lives by attempting to run away before using potentially deadly force in self defense.

Edited August 14, 2013 by JAB