4/20/2012 5:04pm, #1011
- Join Date
- Sep 2006
- Judo & BJJ
4/20/2012 5:08pm, #1012
4/20/2012 5:09pm, #1013
Hey guys, I'll be back when this rerun is over.
4/20/2012 5:11pm, #1014
4/22/2012 10:47am, #1015
Gov. Deval Patrick is vowing to veto a bill that would a create a so-called "Stand Your Ground" law in Massachusetts.
More than two dozen lawmakers are backing a bill that mirrors the law at the heart of the debate over the killing of an unarmed black teenager in Florida by a neighborhood watch captain.
State Sen. Stephen Brewer said he’s sponsored the bill for the past five years. The Barre Democrat said his main goal is to protect individuals who defend themselves in public from criminal and civil penalties.
City Councilors Tito Jackson and Felix G. Arroyo introduced the resolution calling upon Beacon Hill to reject senate bill S.00661, titled “An Act Relative to the Common Defense,” otherwise known as “Stand Your Ground.”
The resolution was passed with no dissent.
“This proposal is dangerous, and allows for vigilantism in the name of public defense,” said Jackson about the senate bill, which would expand the allowable use of deadly force in self-defense considerably. “It allows for deadly force any place you are allowed to be ... for the perception of a threat. We don’t want Boston to be a place where untrained civilians are encouraged to use deadly force against each other.”“The next generation of innovators, leaders and thinkers do not wear what we wear here in the City Council chambers,” he said. “Genius in the making looks different in the 21st century ... We don’t believe in people by fearing them.”
Jackson stated his belief that the Commonwealth already has sufficient laws on the books to allow citizens to defend their homes, property and loved ones—specifically, the Castle Doctrine, which allows deadly force in defense of one’s home. Massachusetts case law has also upheld the use of deadly force outside the home where a person is under attack or in immediate danger, provided they have done “everything reasonable” under the circumstances, to avoid the physical confrontation.
4/22/2012 3:53pm, #1016
4/22/2012 9:52pm, #1017
People in the city here live in fear all the time. In most areas, virtually every time a gun is fired in the city it risks hitting bystanders. Anything encouraging gunfire in the city is bad, if you ask me.
I don't just say this because a friend's young son was shot and crippled by a wayward round, but that is part of it. How good a shot is your average gun owner, I wonder?
Barre, Ma where the state sen. represents is very country. I can see how this law would sound good to people in sparsely populated areas, where police response time is longer, and there may not be bystanders to help or accidentally get shot by stray fire, but we're talking about state laws.
Boston, Worcester, and the other urban areas in Massachusetts don't need any more gunplay.
4/23/2012 8:39am, #1018
- Join Date
- Mar 2006
Think I'm going to send Z-man some money for his defense.
4/23/2012 3:32pm, #1019
4/23/2012 10:57pm, #1020
Surely you're not serious.
What scenario are you envisioning here?
I've defended myself from attack, and (more commonly) scared off, or discouraged many many would be assailants. This without having hit anyone with a closed fist, in anger, in almost 2 decades.
It's easier in the city perhaps, as so much is on camera, and police abound (relative to the country/burbs), and response time is fairly quick, if it's important.
There's been a lot of crazy **** in my city experience, but best not to get into it too deeply here. Suffice to say, d3adly is an absolute and complete last resort. Situational awareness, calling the cops, a loud voice, some alive training, and a cool head does more than anything IMO.