Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Stand Your Ground law coming under scrutiny due to the Zimmerman/Florida incident
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Antigonus" data-source="post: 1776267" data-attributes="member: 19664"><p>So if you get shot and killed in a situation like this, you're comfortable with the burden of proof being on the state to completely convince 12 people that the person who killed you was not doing so because he <em>felt threatened</em>? I think if an altercation occurs and one person decides that deadly force is necessary, the burden of proof should be on them to show that such action was justified. I don't know about you but if someone shoots me to death in the street I would like them to be forced to prove to law enforcement officials or a court that they needed to kill me, not that the state needs to prove to 12 random people that the person who killed me didn't feel a certain way. As it stands, the state has to go in and prove a negative - I think everyone here is intelligent enough to realize how difficult that is, especially in a courtroom setting.</p><p></p><p>It strikes me as odd that the same people who express serious misgivings about the government's ability to do anything right so often seem willing to assume the one thing it can do right is prosecute criminals effectively. When I was deployed to Iraq the ROE stated that we were justified in using deadly force if we "felt threatened". It's sad to think that we are adopting a wartime mentality in our peaceful country - I'm a pro-gun person but when state legislation starts to look like the ROE of a military occupation, there should be cause for concern.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Antigonus, post: 1776267, member: 19664"] So if you get shot and killed in a situation like this, you're comfortable with the burden of proof being on the state to completely convince 12 people that the person who killed you was not doing so because he [i]felt threatened[/i]? I think if an altercation occurs and one person decides that deadly force is necessary, the burden of proof should be on them to show that such action was justified. I don't know about you but if someone shoots me to death in the street I would like them to be forced to prove to law enforcement officials or a court that they needed to kill me, not that the state needs to prove to 12 random people that the person who killed me didn't feel a certain way. As it stands, the state has to go in and prove a negative - I think everyone here is intelligent enough to realize how difficult that is, especially in a courtroom setting. It strikes me as odd that the same people who express serious misgivings about the government's ability to do anything right so often seem willing to assume the one thing it can do right is prosecute criminals effectively. When I was deployed to Iraq the ROE stated that we were justified in using deadly force if we "felt threatened". It's sad to think that we are adopting a wartime mentality in our peaceful country - I'm a pro-gun person but when state legislation starts to look like the ROE of a military occupation, there should be cause for concern. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Stand Your Ground law coming under scrutiny due to the Zimmerman/Florida incident
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom