Posted on 06/12/2012 5:28:59 AM PDT by Afisra
Research conducted at Texas A&M University concludes that far from reducing crime rates, so called 'Stand your Ground' laws are actually responsible for a drastic increase in the number of homicides nationwide each year.
(Excerpt) Read more at radio.woai.com ...
Seems to me like the study tried to be rational, yet the typical idiotic and agenda-driven journalism major typed up a headline to create a stir, solely to help circulation. As usual.
More killings of perps is actually a very good thing.
Law abiding citizens, OTOH, contribute an average of $8K per year in taxes if they work full time. So you need to have five full time workers to support each perp in prison (excluding all other necessary government services) or 32 of them to support each perp which has not yet been put in prison.
Putting perps in the morgue at the hands of armed citizens is, by far, the most cost effective solution. Nothing else even comes close. We should be giving armed citizens a trophy and paying them a bounty every time they perform such a public service.
Just curious, but where did the requirement for a person to run from an encounter, even in their own home come from?
Was it one of those old anti-black laws to prevent them from shooting the KKK when they came to the front door forcing you to run out the back while your house was torched?
They specifically said that they defined justifiable homicide as only killing a felon during commission of a felony. It did not include self-defense, etc.
This “study” does not prove anything other than a few correlations. Their conclusions are probably not valid.
I expect that John will be looking at this very shortly.
I notice that the study “examines whether aiding self-defense in this way deters crime or, alternatively, escalates violence.” The two are not contradictory or mutually exclusive.
Self defense can be a deadly activity. Keep it up.
Appears that the authors don’t know the difference between SYG and the Castle Doctorine.
Appears that the authors also feel that it’s better to submit to rape, robbery or assault than to defend one’s self.
The notion of self defense is alien to those who view you as a candidate for human sacrifice.
It also helps to point out that the criminals should not have been planning to commit burglaries and robberies in the first place. Had they behaved properly, the situations would not have arisen in the first place. Of course, it could then be said that the burglary and robbery victims should not have been in possession of such property that would tempt those of us who are less fortunate....And on and on and on. It’s a simple matter of redistribution./s
AND chlorinates the gene pool.
Upon reflection, the only sensible course is to reroute the robbers and burglars from property owners who espouse SYG to property owners who believe in reasoning and non-violence.
All libs could tie a yellow ribbon or some such to the mailbox. Nothing fancy or imposing, just a small notice.
That way, all would be satisfied.
The SYG folks would be left alone, the libs would get opportunities to show tolerace, and perps would not have so much danger in their chosen occupation.
Question: Who are the victims of shootings (the intended victim or the one instigating a crime against the intended victim who happens to be armed?
FYI: my sister and brother-in-law went to A&M. They still have Gore stickers on the bumpers.
The Cadet corps is pretty bad ass, though. A cadet pulled a sword on an opposing cheerleader for somehow desecrating Kyle Field during a football game.
A&M mascot is a collie named Reveille (sic?) and you WILL not disrespect Reveille, the line of past Reveilles, I think, are buried on Kyle Field (but that might just be a rumor). Great agriculture and veterinary school.
A&M has a very colorful history.
OK, I'll take a swing at that pitch.
I'm a common law fan. In fact, I'm fanatical about it, because it incorporates over 1000 years of the study of unchanging human nature.
I can't wrap my head around the APPLICATION of SYG laws. The principle, or concept, is easy to understand - it's just the Castle Doctrine moved to the street.
The problem is that physical engagements that can lead to deadly force happen in lots and lots of ways AWAY from your castle.
To put it simply, if someone kicks in your door at 2am and you kill them, the presumption that you had nothing to do with it (that you have "clean hands") is obvious. Not to say that the law can't ask if, for example, the dead guy is your daughter's boyfriend - but a presumption in your favor, sure.
The common law doctrine outside your castle is "retreat to the wall" - which means, do your best to stay out of trouble, but if trouble follows you, engage your right of self-defense up to and including deadly force.
It seems to me that SYG laws, by taking away "retreat to the wall" not only protect you in the case of unprovoked assault (where conventional self-defense law should work) but also eliminate the "stay out of trouble" part of the common law, which is as wise today as it was in 1066.
I know you waive SYG if you are the aggressor - but what about situations like bar fights and street hassles where Solomon himself can't figure out who did or said what to set it off? I've always been taught, and I teach others, that carrying means you have MORE responsibility to avoid stupid conflicts. It seems to me that SYG weakens this important rule.
Can any Florida FReepers enlighten me about how it actually works?
So, at the top end, about 14 homicides more per year per state. That’s about what we have on one weekend in Chicago from drive-by shootings.
Stand your Ground is cleaning out the gene pool.
I would stand to defend that every one of these “murders”, (as defined by folks that pick up a handgun with two fingers and screech “Ewww!”), has been where John/Jane Q. Public have been the target of thieves, thugs, murders, rapists, or gang members, and have exercised their basic human right of self-preservation.
I challenge this announcement of increase, i.e., 500 to 700, because that is far too large for a statistical reality. You can’t bat 100 today, and 300 tomorrow! You can’t play golf with a 135 score today, and get a 69 tomorrow.
More bad statistics. And self-defense isn’t murder anyway.
???? that sounds like a bizarre interpretation of justifiable homicide.
like a definition of their own making.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.