MO lawmaker wants gun owners to consider retreat over firing

[Midwest 28]

MO lawmaker wants gun owners to consider retreat over firing

 

http://www.kctv5.com/story/24856794/mo-lawmaker-wants-gun-owners-to-consider-retreat-over-firing

 

Missouri lawmaker wants gun owners to retreat instead of shooting to defend. Rep Randy Dunn proposed HB 1940 http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills141/billpdf/intro/HB1940I.PDF  The bill would require a person to retreat when facing danger.

 

 

Attorney Kevin Jamison strongly opposes the bill.

"I'm appalled. This is showing more regard for home invaders than home owners," he said. "This is an absurd piece of legislation. It should be given the contempt it deserves."

[Malsua 1,422]

I guess he wants to be just like NJ, where thugs car jack Landrovers with impunity.

 

My guess is that he's an inner city representative and doesn't want his constituents shot and killed when they rob and terrorize law abiding citizens.  I did not look him up, but his script follows the same as ever other inner city nitwit. 

[Spartiati 63]

Why doesn't he ask criminals to consider not being criminals thus not putting law abiding citizens in the position to have to defend themselves against bodily harm?

[ChrisJM981 924]

I guess he wants to be just like NJ, where thugs car jack Landrovers with impunity.

 

My guess is that he's an inner city representative and doesn't want his constituents shot and killed when they rob and terrorize law abiding citizens. I did not look him up, but his script follows the same as ever other inner city nitwit.

It's not the inmates' votes as much as it's protecting their bread & butter. Think about how much money is spent representing, incarcerating, and eventually recapturing those people. That money spent in their districts brings a lot of votes their way. They can't have their cash cow perforated with hot lead.

[gunguy1960 2]

Some states require you to leave your house if an intruder comes in, I think Vermont is one of them.

[NotJust22s 10]

I believe you should ask the bad guy politely to please not hurt you and let you have 5 minutes to gather your stuff and get out of his way.

[GRIZ 3,369]

Some states require you to leave your house if an intruder comes in, I think Vermont is one of them.

Vermont does not require you to leave your house. If you are in fear of your life you can use deadly force. Vermont does not have a stand your ground law but they also don't have a law forbidding you from standing your ground.

[Midwest 28]

I believe if one defends their house in the U.K. they can go to jail and the intruder can sue the home owner if they get hurt trying to rob the house.

[Respect2A 0]

I believe if one defends their house in the U.K. they can go to jail and the intruder can sue the home owner if they get hurt trying to rob the house.

That will be us someday.

[illy 1]

Yeah, the U.K. is really something else. Look at this-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10628124/Good-Samaritan-jailed-for-six-years-for-punching-drug-dealer-who-attacked-woman.html

 

Cliffs:

-Drug dealer punches drug user (female) over £40 debt.

-Good guy says 'you shouldn't do that'.

-Drug dealer stops, starts coming at good guy.

-Good guy punches drug dealer twice (once after he went down).

-Good guy gets 6 years in jail.

-Drug dealer not charged for anything (not selling drugs, not punching the woman, not attempting to assault the good guy) because his "injuries were so horrific".

 

If these lawmakers want to live in that kind of furked up world, they should just move there.

[HBecwithFn7 296]

Vermont does not require you to leave your house. If you are in fear of your life you can use deadly force. Vermont does not have a stand your ground law but they also don't have a law forbidding you from standing your ground.

 

As I understand it (at least in Florida, where I studied it a bit), "Stand your ground" is simply an extension of the pre-existing "castle doctrine" - which provides for the use of deadly force  (without retreat) when all criteria are met, but in one's home(land), place of business, car (perhaps) etc. etc. "Stand your ground" simply adds "additional places" to that list (in essence, "anywhere the victim has a right to be", with the exception of those places enumerated in the law - school zones, govt buildings, courts, houses of worship, etc - ie. places where you can't CCW anyway).  "Stand your ground" has nothing to do with the "criteria for use of deadly force," which is a totally different thing to demonstrate. It simply enables you to "demonstrate it" in other places, outside of your "castle."   Which would seem to be the reason why neither Zimmerman nor Michael Dunn invoked the Stand your ground hearing option, as the concern really wasn't about that but, more fundamentally, whether or not all the "criteria for use of deadly force" were met. In Zimmerman's case, they seem to have been. In Michael Dunn's case, not so much.

 

Does VT, then, have a formal "castle doctrine" written in the law?

[GRIZ 3,369]

Vermont has no "Castle Doctrine" law. VT law says you can use lethal force if you are in fear of our life. This is what your use of lethal force is judged on wherever it occurs. There isn't a requirement to retreat either. Compared to a lot of other states VT doesn't have a lot of laws (like prohibitive gun laws).

[silverado427 10,692]

I guess he wants to be just like NJ, where thugs car jack Landrovers with impunity.

 

My guess is that he's an inner city representative and doesn't want his constituents shot and killed when they rob and terrorize law abiding citizens.  I did not look him up, but his script follows the same as ever other inner city nitwit. 

+1

[SgtToadette 59]

There's a big difference between wanting us gun owners to consider retreating before firing and legally requiring people in shoot/no-shoot situations to do so.

 

Speaking from a moral perspective, I think every gun owner should consider retreat before firing. Taking human life is not something I hope we ever want to do and if retreating in a situation can prevent that from happening, we should take it upon ourselves to do so. If, however, my life or the life of someone in my mantle of protection is in immediate jeopardy, then I will do what the situation dictates is necessary to stop that threat. Having a gun simply gives us more options but we need to remember that it is not always the option.

 

What this law maker is doing is far from simply asking us to consider retreating, he's trying to modify the law to legally require us to do so. That's not okay.

[pbkid6974 1]

i think its time to move to the UK and break into someones house cutting my hand badly on the glass from the door. after i receive free medical treatment, i will then sue the shit out of the homeowner for locking their doors and not letting me into their dwelling without their permission to take their most expensive belongings. i will not be charged with any crimes because i stopped short of the threshold of the door. after i become rich from the pain and suffering lawsuit i will return to the US and never work again and buy guns and invite all of you over to shoot at my private range.

[halbautomatisch 60]

i think its time to move to the UK and break into someones house cutting my hand badly on the glass from the door. after i receive free medical treatment, i will then sue the shit out of the homeowner for locking their doors and not letting me into their dwelling without their permission to take their most expensive belongings. i will not be charged with any crimes because i stopped short of the threshold of the door. after i become rich from the pain and suffering lawsuit i will return to the US and never work again and buy guns and invite all of you over to shoot at my private range.

Only problem with you strategy is that you will get put on a waiting list to receive your free medical treatment and will likely bleed to death  before they get to you.........

[JohnnyB 4,324]

There's a big difference between wanting us gun owners to consider retreating before firing and legally requiring people in shoot/no-shoot situations to do so.

 

Speaking from a moral perspective, I think every gun owner should consider retreat before firing. Taking human life is not something I hope we ever want to do and if retreating in a situation can prevent that from happening, we should take it upon ourselves to do so. If, however, my life or the life of someone in my mantle of protection is in immediate jeopardy, then I will do what the situation dictates is necessary to stop that threat. Having a gun simply gives us more options but we need to remember that it is not always the option.

 

What this law maker is doing is far from simply asking us to consider retreating, he's trying to modify the law to legally require us to do so. That's not okay.

+1000

[Bt Doctur 188]

Let`s play pretend. I have 100 acres and a backhoe  and a weapon that will remove you from this earth.

You break into my home , armed ,and I put your lights out for good.

Tie you to my tractor, go to the back 40,  dig a deep hole, throw  the remains in the hole and cover it up.

Go back to my house ,turn on the tv and have a beer.

No fuss ,no muss , no phone calls, no police.

Beats spinning out the cow manure.

[NYMetsFan86 9]

Hypothetically amazing

 

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

 

 

[Handyman 5,682]

Hypothetically, you have made the world a better place.

[Njbanshee 9]

Crap, I need more land and a backhoe.

[Sota 1,191]

That would be the 3 S's...

Shoot

Shovel

Shutup

[Bob2222 316]

Police and jails are a fairly recent invention. (The City of New York Police Department was established in 1845.)

 

Prior to that, a horse and a shovel. And the crows were probably better fed in the 19th Century than they are today. Hypothetically speaking.