I dunno ...

WHAT  IF  some of the Deer-on-the-Highways could "stand their Ground" with Rifles, Shotguns, and Pistols and start SHOOTING passing Motorists ... ???

"'Deer-in-the-HeadLights' ... ???  Hey, you stupid Humans ... !!! Are you talkin' about ME ... ???  BAM ... !!!  BAM ... !!! BAM ... !!!"

Jun 12, 2012 -- 8:47PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Jun 10, 2012 -- 10:59PM, farragut wrote:

As bad as is the human toll on our highways, the toll of deer thereon is far worse. Let us be honest and expose the truth as distasteful as it may be. Speciesism is flourishing in the USA. It's systemic in certain areas and segments of our society.

 

Or perhaps there are some other underlying reasons for different results.

You're being too rational.

But ... It's ALWAYS about "Cases," isn't it ... ???

That terrible tragic Sory today from (I believe) Texas, e.g., in which a Guy caught a Creep in the very ACT of raping his 5 Year old Daughter, who was screaming for Help ... The Dad BEAT the Creep to DEATH with his bare Hands ... Should he be tried, much less found Guilty of something ... ???  Of course not ...

But ... If the Creep had been caught, say, stealing the NewsPaper off the front Step, and was armed with, say, a Bag of Skittles ... ???  Should the HomeOwner be let go after shooting and killing the Thief ... ??? Of course not ...

Jun 19, 2012 -- 11:36PM, rangerken wrote:

The idea, the thought even, that any American citizen should be required, or expected to run away from danger and ever, EVER be prosecuted for standing up to it is to me, totally repugnant. If you're a coward, then by all means run. If you are at an obvious disadvantage for whatever reason and resisting would be suicidal then by all means run. Otherwise, stand your ground indeed!

There is nothing the least bit racist about allowing, and expecting, Americans to 'stand their ground'. The various laws say NOTHING about anyone's race!

Some things are simply sttupid, and this 'investigation' is one of those things.

Ken

I gotta say, I sort of feel like you should try to run away or leave or backup before resorting to some kind of retaliatory violence.  It someone has you in a corner and you can't back up then you simply have to defend yourself.  But if you can backup, leave, run and you don't and someone ends up dead then I feel you made a tragic choice in standing your ground. 

When to backup and when to fight is going to be different for each circumstance but I think in this day of guns it is a good rule of law. 

To often people overreact or misconstrue the situation and backing up can save lives. 

Jun 20, 2012 -- 12:03AM, rangerken wrote:

no one should be penalized for not running away...it is just that simple in my opinion. And again , it is about individual cases

Ken

Ken, when I took the NRA gun safety classes, they made a point about avoiding confrontation if possible.  

I think the concern prompting the investigation is whether blacks are allowed to stand their ground, or only whitish people are. After all, Zimmerman was initially let go, yet he followed Martin--was Martin not allowed to stand his ground? Do the dead not get the right to stand their ground just because they can't testify as to how much threat they perceived?

Jun 20, 2012 -- 12:03AM, rangerken wrote:

Teilhard, you wrote...

"But ... It's ALWAYS about "Cases," isn't it ... ???"

You are right. It is always about cases. But the basic thing is that no one should be required to run away and no one should be penalized for not running away...it is just that simple in my opinion. And again , it is about individual casesA

Ken

I agree that people have the right to defend themselves, but I don't think people, should be allowed to instigate a confrontation and still be able to claim self-defense. The law has caused what I believe to be some patently stupid judicial decisions such as:

People often go free under "stand your ground" in cases that seem to make a mockery of what lawmakers intended. One man killed two unarmed people and walked out of jail. Another shot a man as he lay on the ground. Others went free after shooting their victims in the back. In nearly a third of the cases the Times analyzed, defendants initiated the fight, shot an unarmed person or pursued their victim — and still went free. Link