Many people, possibly including you, conflate the concept of “self defense” and “stand your ground”. Everyone is entitled to defend themselves in the U.S. But in some jurisdictions a person is obligated to retreat if possible, before they are entitled to defend themselves. This means that, for example, if a gay couple is holding hands on a public sidewalk and a right-wing Christian fundamentalist runs at them with a baseball bat and yells at them to leave or he will beat them with the bat, the couple would be REQUIRED BY LAW to run away, rather than standing where they are legally entitled to stand and fight back if they choose. The concept of “stand your ground” grants a person the right to remain where they are legally entitled to be, and fight back if they choose.
This case is a good example of the difference between a gun owner who carries a gun to protect himself from assault, and a gun owner who carries a gun so he doesn’t have to take shit offa anyone.
All I can say, as a local, is that I am glad this piece of trash is going to jail. I don’t want to hear about anymore appeals, I don’t want to hear things get hashed and rehashed to the point that nobody gives a shit.
As a white middle aged man, I find his actions inexcusable.
This pleases me. I can’t even clearly communicate at how annoyed I am with this kind of behavior, not to mention how this kind of asshole makes other gun owners look reckless, racist, and bad.
There’s a generation of Fudds out there that feel they are the arbiters of moral society and being armed means they’ll always be in the right. Idiots.
What’s terrifying here is that if the poor kid had anything remotely resembling a weapon in his car–even if it was well out of reach and never came into play–this jerk would have walked free, from everything I’ve read.
When I was a youngun, and had to drive at all hours of the day and night, I kept a crowbar–a big one–under my seat just in case. What if they found anything that could conceivably be a weapon in the car? I have a feeling that the trial would still be ongoing.
I actually know a man personally who performs the training you are talking about. He teaches people what they need to know in order to obtain and retain a concealed carry license. He’s been doing it for many decades, and his curriculum isn’t significantly shaped by the presence or absence of SYG laws. Yes, you do have to learn the relevant laws, but those laws do not modify the behaviors or mindset he teaches to his students - he teaches them that use of the gun is a last resort, mostly because once you use it you’ve significantly decreased the likelihood that you will be able to legally carry in the future.
Further, I have myself received gun training, in the Boy Scouts in the early 1970s, and I was present when my son received training from the BSA and NRA a few years ago. Nothing has changed in the training due to SYG laws being enacted in the interim, as far as I could tell.
So, do you have any actual evidence to support your claim that people in SYG states receive materially different training than elsewhere, that literally distorts their thinking? Because I know a lot of people who carry in a lot of different states, and without significant proof I’m going to have to assume you’re just making stuff up. The idea that a murderer’s actions were in any way due to SYG laws materially affecting gun training is way too unlikely for me to believe it without some extraordinarily convincing evidence.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.