quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
If you don't think that syg opponents don't think that you should only meet force with eual force ie.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
if they have a knive you can't use a gun what in the world do you think "appropriate force" means?

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
If you don't think that syg opponents don't think that you should only meet force with eual force ie.

Are these syg opponents made of straw by any chance? Because personally I'm only interested in talking about positions held by real people. You have actual opponents of stand your ground here and we don't seem to be taking that position, I'm not. Hey Nosathro, are you taking that position?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
if they have a knive you can't use a gun what in the world do you think "appropriate force" means?

I don't think appropriate force means equal force, the two words aren't synonymous after all. I'm not a legal expert but I suspect "appropriate force" means something like the use of force is justified when a person reasonably believes that it is necessary for the defense of oneself or another against the immediate use of unlawful force. However, a person must use no more force than appears reasonably necessary in the circumstances.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
The whole thing comes down to the question of does the bad guy get a free shot.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
If you can't fight back untill he actually attacks you this means he has to shoot first.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
But of course nobody is going to be stupid enough to say it that way. They say you have to retreat, as if an assalent won't follow you, call the cops as if he won't shoot you for trying, wait till he actually attacks you which is give him the first shot.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Williams v. State, 252 So. 2d 243 - Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 4th Dist. 1971
See the restatement of the Garner rule in Fine v. State, 1915, 70 Fla. 412, 70 So. 379, where the court said:

"Upon the trial of an indictment for murder where the defense is self-defense, the character of the deceased as to peace and quiet frequently becomes a material subject for investigation. If the evidence, as in this case, is conflicting upon the question as to who began the difficulty, or whether the deceased's conduct or actions just prior to the encounter reasonably justified the belief that he was about to make an assault upon the accused, evidence as to the general reputation of the deceased for peace and quiet may lead the jury to a correct conclusion as to the guilt of the accused by enabling them to determine who really began the difficulty, and the reasonableness of the defendant's belief as to imminent danger to himself of great bodily harm or death from the deceased. * * *" (Emphasis added.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
It is true that when the assalent demands yor money he has committed a crime. But untill he resorts to violence your not allowed to except under syg laws.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Why are you more concerned with the well being of the attacker than you are for the defender.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I am not lying about your position, I am explaining the side effects of your position. And why is it that every time I catch you in a blatant lie you try to claim I am lying? Is this an inept attempt to distract from your lies?

Of course you don't care more about the bad guys than the good guys but the policies you support favor the bad guys and I am trying to help you see that. Unfortunatly every time I point out a flaw in what you want your brain locks up you can't accept the truth so you automatically yell liar.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Again the kind of distortion I have come to expect from you. How aboout a 12 year old surrounded by 6 16 year olds struck repeatedly and finnally strikes back? You wanted him locked up because the bigger kids were unarmed???
See gotsteel he says it is awfull to put words in other peoples mouths you know full well that I don't think either of those people were covered, one has been convicted confirming my view.

How about the Tx case were the man caught someone molesting his daughter hit him in the head several times with his fist killing him do you want that man going to prison?????

Syg isn't just about cases you cherry pick to prove your point in most of your favorite cases syg doesn't even come into play.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Syg doesn't cover either case in tx the man has already been convicted. I have made it clear that I didn't think syg protected either man. I have stated this repeatedly and yet you still insist that I support both shooters. With that in mind calling your statements a distortion is being generous. Since syg is not just about gun usage the other case in TX is coverd by it even though the man killed the assalant with his fists,
and the grande jury has confirmed he was justified. The two cases you are so fond of are simple cases of people doing stupid things unfortunatrly you can't outlaw stupid. Why do you keep saying that a man convicted of murder was protected by syg when quite obviously he was not. He claimed protection but he wasn't covered.