Trayvon's Rule...

[vt_shooter]

I'm hoping the mentioned "Trayvon rule" is satire, but you never know! Clearly many who embrace a sub-culture that embraces criminal behavior wish there was a law that requires a victim to warn an attacking thug that he's armed so that the thug can abort the attack and live another day to seek a softer target.

 

[r1derbike]

Satire, or not, we in AR have a duty to retreat in the home (if possible), and announce we have a firearm and will use it. If no time to make the assertion, well, the criminal has made a horrible decision.

In public the game changes considerably. Gun pointed at me, lead is going downrange. I value my life more than a murderer does.

 

[AndeyHall]

Satire, or not, we in AR have a duty to retreat in the home (if possible), and announce we have a firearm and will use it. If no time to make the assertion, well, the criminal has made a horrible decision.

In public the game changes considerably. Gun pointed at me, lead is going downrange. I value my life more than a murderer does.

Wait wait wait...in your home you have a duty to retreat, but in public you don't? I think you have that backwards if correct at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Link Removed

 

[whodat2710]

"Section 5-2-607 of the Arkansas Code provides that a person is justified in using deadly physical force upon another person if the person reasonably believes: that the other person is committing or about to commit a felony involving force or violence; is using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force; or is imminently endangering the person's life or imminently about to victimize the person from the continuation of a pattern of domestic abuse.

A person may not use deadly physical force in self-defense if he or she knows that he or she can avoid the necessity of using deadly physical force with complete safety by retreating.

However, a person is not required to retreat if the person is: in the person's dwelling and was not the original aggressor; or a law enforcement officer or a person assisting at the direction of a law enforcement officer; or by surrendering possession of property to a person claiming a lawful right to possession of the property."

FYI - it took me about 10 seconds to find this info for a state I don't live in. If you live there you might want to invest a little of your own time. The part in Blue shows that Andy was right in his assumption, the part in red shows that you need to call your elected officials. I can only picture the scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail... "Run Away! Run Away!"

 

[GlassWolf]

This law makes sense to me. If you're in a parking lot, you can run. If you're already in your own home, where can you retreat? Besides, in public, the other person may have a justifiable reason to be in your proximity, but in your home, what business does a stranger have breaking in that would be considered reasonable and legal?

 

[AndeyHall]

This law makes sense to me. If you're in a parking lot, you can run. If you're already in your own home, where can you retreat? Besides, in public, the other person may have a justifiable reason to be in your proximity, but in your home, what business does a stranger have breaking in that would be considered reasonable and legal?

No it doesn't make sense. Here in South Carolina they got it right...you have NO duty to retreat as long as you are in a place you have a legal right to be and you are not the original aggressor. Saying that you DO have a duty to retreat in a public place means that if I walk into a public restaurant with a bar with some friends to have dinner, and we'll say some half drunk ******* who's 6'2" and 280lbs decides he just doesn't like me. He walks up to me, 5'8" and 155lbs, and tells me he doesn't like me and wants me to leave (this actually happened to a friend at a bar one night). Now bear in mind that I have just as much of a right to be there as this individual. So why do I have to leave? Are we saying that depending on how violent he is willing to get in order to keep me out is what determines whether I can stay or not? Are we saying that I can fight back but only to a certain point and then I have to leave?

So yes, you might CAN run, but you shouldn't HAVE to run.

Sent from my iPhone using Link Removed

 

[BluesStringer]

This law makes sense to me. If you're in a parking lot, you can run. If you're already in your own home, where can you retreat? Besides, in public, the other person may have a justifiable reason to be in your proximity, but in your home, what business does a stranger have breaking in that would be considered reasonable and legal?

The problem with duty to retreat laws is the subjectivity with which they are enforced. If you're armed in that same parking lot and some guy walks up to you with one hand in his pocket saying give me your money, I've got a gun in here, do you turn your back on the guy and retreat, try to back away while still facing him, or draw and drop him since he's already threatened you with deadly force? Me, I would never turn my back on someone who has already threatened me with deadly force, and while I may try backing away, if the dude's serious, he ain't likely to let that go very far without reiterating his threat. I don't know if he has a gun or not, but if he does, the only "safe" option is to draw and take my chances that I'm faster and/or more accurate. If he doesn't have a gun though, then I'm at the mercy of some subjective scrutiny by cops and prosecutors who may or may not understand the split-second decision I had to make because of being repeatedly threatened with deadly force. To them, the parking lot may look like the perfect avenue of retreat, but to me it was no different than giving up without a fight and asking the guy to shoot me.

The word "safe" or "safely" is a completely subjective concept meaning whatever it means to the person hearing and/or interpreting it forensically after the fact of a crime and/or self defense shooting. So with a law like that in effect, a carrier has to submit to the subjective whims of the bureaucrats who wrote it first, and then to the subjective whims of the enforcers the law empowers to second-guess the objective realities s/he faced when s/he decided to pull the trigger. "In a parking lot, you can run" is, in and of itself, a subjective evaluation devoid of the objective realities of the threat being faced by the carrier.

"Duty to retreat" laws are notorious for making criminals of people facing legitimate threats who decide in a split second to try to meet that threat and come out alive. They favor bad guys. Except for furthering control by government over the most basic instinct of self-preservation, it doesn't "make sense" at all.

Blues

 

[ezkl2230]

First, we have seen that the Florida legislature stood up to pressure to dismantle SYG.

We should not assume, however, that that was the end of it.

We have an election coming up next November. There will be a full-court press to try to elect officials who will commit to dismantling SYG - in Florida and beyond.

This fight is just getting started - again.

 

[Nightmare45]

Texas you have no duty to retreat anywhere you have a legal right to be, that said, while I attempt to avoid confrontation, try to harm myself or a family member, you will not have a happy outcome. Peace, Love, Colt 45.

 

[vt_shooter]

Maybe off topic, but how would people here react if a gang of 5 thugs came up to you in a secluded parking lot at night, seemingly out of nowhere, and asked you for $5? They haven't yet become violent, but you know you're being sized-up, and in all likelihood it's coming real quick. Seems like you've got three options:

a) Blaze away before before they actually become violent. Their lawyers and the state will argue they did nothing, which at that point they hadn't. You're screwed.
b) Draw your weapon and see if they scatter. But you're close enough to them that that this might backfire badly and you could lose your weapon to them. High odds of being screwed.
c) Wait for them to initiate the violence then blaze away, but that might not work either - one of them might do a knock-out punch on you before you see it coming. Very high odds of being screwed.

Seems like no matter what you do, you're in a bad spot - there's a strong likelihood you'll either become dead, badly injured, broke from lawyer fees, and/or in jail. People's thoughts on this? remember, they hadn't yet become violent, but your senses tell you it's coming, so what do you do. Thanks.

 

[JCliff]

First, we have seen that the Florida legislature stood up to pressure to dismantle SYG.

We should not assume, however, that that was the end of it.

We have an election coming up next November. There will be a full-court press to try to elect officials who will commit to dismantling SYG - in Florida and beyond.

This fight is just getting started - again.

.
This is exactly right. The progressive-statist movement will bring it up over, and over, and over, and over...it is an ideological thing for them.

 

[GlassWolf]

First, you'd need to work on your situational awareness.. big time.
second, I'd position myself defensively so I had the best advantage I could get when things did go south, and I'd have a plan in mind for how to address the aggressors. My gun wouldn't be the first thing I reached for, most likely at that range. I'd probably have to clear at least one of them to give me time to draw and fire. A lot of it really depends on the exact setting. Is my car alone? am I between two cars? Are there other people around, so if I yell for help, I'll draw desired attention that might dissuade the thugs from aggression? Too many variables.

 

[ShootSig]

No. Just No

 

[ShootSig]

I personally do not feel that every confrontation with somebody carrying needs to end with either somebody getting shot or having a pistol pointed at them. I carry every day but my pistol is for life threatening situations. I am not out looking for somebody to shoot and would much rather have to use my fists than have to shoot them. This law will force you to make it known that you are carrying. In some cases this may be enough to diffuse a situation but i feel that in other cases it will force people to use your gun or risk having it taken from you and used against you. There are many situations where you can be considered the aggressor where you are actually in the right. Example: I am at the store with my 12 year old daughter and she strays away from me a short distance. I walk into the next aisle and find a 40 year old man trying have a conversation with her. He will be met with stern words from me and depending on the content of his conversation may receive a punch in the nose. My first instinct would not be to shoot this man but you better believe that i will be very forceful when confronting this situation. Pass this law and I will be forced (as the aggressor) to tell him that i have a gun. Some people may walk away, but i personally know others who would take this as a challenge and i would not be the least bit surprised if they press the attack themselves.

 

[Nightmare45]

I'll give you Trayvons rule, had you not been a thug and walked away you would be alive today. So long ass hole.

 

[SR40c]

No sympathy here for Saint Skittles. He got what he had coming.