Today Poll: Should there be a 'Stand Your Ground' type of law in NYS?

So far, more people voted that it's better to retreat than to protect yourself. What if you can't run or retreat? If more people stood together in unity and were allowed to protect each other, we wouldn't even be faced with this poll.

Judge Noonan needs to do the right thing and start issuing CC permits, not just for hunting and target shooting. I'm all for training before being issued a permit. Training that would demonstrate proficiency with your firearm and familiarity with the laws concerning concealed carry.

Citizens should never have to run. That's a criminal's domain.

Edit: Actually, I don't even believe we should need a CC permit. Training for firearm handling should be mandatory the way that there's a licensing system for hunting. If a person can pass the background check and passes the course for firearms, they should be able to have pistols the same way they have long guns.

Stand your ground laws do not help if the shooter is black.

So, people who are armed, will then have a "stand your ground" rule to absolve them from killing a kid armed with skittles and ice tea?
so, people who are so infected with hate, can hunt those who's skin, religion, or just existing is not to their liking,
What training brings these issues to light?
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against ownership of firearms. I am against the belief that owning a firearm gives you the right to be a vigilante.

It is truly disconcerting to hear that Republican NY State Sen. George Maziarz would introduce "stand your ground" legislation. We have enough laws that protect an individual who is threatened on the books now. The so-called "stand your ground laws" are nonsense that do little more than appeal to media driven mass paranoia and result in an increase of vigilante provoked homicides.

Being allowed by "the state" to carry a firearm does not make one a vigilante, Bea. No intelligent person believes that. Yesterday, tragically, some nutjob in Oakland, CA walked into a college and killed 7 people and wounded more. Had some of those folks been armed, the death and injury toll would be a lot less. Common sense has to prevail, and someone as consumed by hate or whatever as you say, can find a way to get a firearm anytime they want, right now. These laws protect good citizens who don't want to let the bad guys do whatever they feel like.

Dave,
Bea is just being Bea. Taking a general idea and applying it to one incident. By the way, the guy in Florida who introduced the "stand your ground" law said he did not think it applied to the shooting there. He said it was being misapplied.

Remember a year or so ago in Buffalo, a drunk entered the wrong house, refused to leave after repeated warnings and was shot. Originally the DA wanted to go after the home owner. If we had a "stand your ground" law, that would not have even been considered.

All the "stand your ground" law does is say that if you are threatened, you don't have to run away. You can defend yourself and not be prosecuted. It does not give you the right to go around looking for trouble or pretending your a cop.

Dave,
How many educational facilities allow firearms on their premises?
Are you saying that all college students should be armed while in class? Should everyone be armed when they go to their workplace? Are we living in a society where parents should be armed to take their kids to school; shopping; or to a park? Going out to dinner, make sure you pack your sidearm. Headed for a movie? There might be someone ready for a shootout, be sure you are armed.
Where is the line drawn?
Ed is right when he wrote:
"We have enough laws that protect an individual who is threatened on the books now. The so-called "stand your ground laws" are nonsense that do little more than appeal to media driven mass paranoia and result in an increase of vigilante provoked homicides."

John; It's also a good example of why we have too damn many laws and regulations. When you have to have a law to contradict the unintended consequences of another, it's too many.

John, you can attempt to diminish my opinion, but it doesn't mean that I can't give it. It isn't Bea just being Bea, it is Bea giving another point of view. By the way, I didn't see you admonish Dave for mentioning the incident in Oakland. hmmm, wonder why?

Bea; How many educational facilities allow firearms on their premises? Not enough

Are you saying that all college students should be armed while in class? Should everyone be armed when they go to their workplace? No, only those who want to and use common sense and discretion when carrying.

Are we living in a society where parents should be armed to take their kids to school; shopping; or to a park? Maybe not here in Genesee County, but in other areas, such as urban areas, yeah. As has been said by me and countless others over and over ad nauseam: If more people are armed, perps will be less likely to threaten a stranger with a gun. Anyway, why does freedom of choice anger you so much?

Bea,
You are distorting what others are saying. Nobody is suggesting anyone be required to be armed or to carry a gun. But if you want to carry a legally owned gun and are threatened with harm, this suggested law gives you the right to either run away or stay.

As for Oakland, he is might be right. If any of the students or teachers had a gun, maybe (and only maybe) there might not be so many dead. We'll never know. But this law would have protected them from prosecution if they had shot the attacker.

By the way, the "stand your ground" law does not expand gun ownership or lessen the requirements need to get a permit for a gun. It just legally protects you from prosecution for defending yourself.

The law also does not cover just guns, but any means you use to defend your life.

It just irks the hell out of me that good, honest hardworking people can't defend themselves against criminal thugs without having to defend themselves again against the so-called justice system in this country. Criminals seem to operate without much fear of law enforcement or the judicial system, while hard-working Americans are afraid to fight back, because they'll wind up being blamed by the system they are forced to pay for. Protecting yourself, your loved ones or even protecting a stranger along with the property you have worked to attain, should be a virtue.

Just what we need, shoot first, ask questions later, nothing like a wild west show to protect ourselves.

"A well armed Society is a polite Society"

If I fear for my life , then the law will take no part of my decision to react to defend . If I happen to have a gun then the fool will meet his maker . Race , color or anything along those lines won't matter in the split circumstance of defending myself . It is and always will be a political stunt by the The rev. J.J and A.S to make something out of nothing . All those rallies are just hurting the local stores . Sales have dropped in half at some merchants . Reverse Racisim is screeming all over the U.S. and I am tired of it . The whole subject of being African American is bunch of balony . The only one that should have a pre-fix to American should be the Natives other than that we are all American that are citizens . The phrase African American is excatly what it does , seperates us into groups . Blacks shoot blacks daily as do whites and any other color , many go without arrests or rallies .So why is this different? By the way the rallies speak it as white vs. black thing . Hispanic is white now that one parent is,so what is black man only when one of two parents are black , he would be white also !!!!

Frank,
Please explain whats wrong with giving to the option to stand your ground when you are threatened with deadly physical force, and having the legal protection if you want to?

Again, the only new thing the proposed law would do is give you the legal option, and legal protection, to not run. You still can run if you want and you have no obligation to protect yourself if you do not want to.

Remember, this law is does not mean you walk around looking for trouble, or that you can start trouble.

It does not add to the number of people who own guns, does not make it easier to own a gun or even encourage ownership.

Look the constitution says every American has the right to bare arms, so...there you go.

The problem with this whole situation is not that a kid got shot, it's that a African American kid got shot by a White Adult and was not arrested because of this law, in a town that is historically known for its...let's just say lack of respect for civil equalities. That is what the news media has made it. Fact.

Do you know any other facts? No, we don't. We know speculation. We have a thirty second clip of a 911 call, and now we have the media trying to paint Zimmerman as a racist killer, which he very well could be, but we don't know. What we have is a news circuit that sensationalizes everything, and a law that is to blame.

Do I agree with the sentiment that you should be able to defend yourself? Yes. Should Zimmerman been remanded to custody while the intial investigation was being conducted? Yes, but this law was reason to release him. Is the concept of this law good? Yes, but it's flawed. A person murdered another person, whether in self defense or not, it doesn't change that act. Instead of this being handled with sensitivity though, it's now every major news goto story.

Do I want this in NY State? Listen I don't want any NY official writing a law like this. Everytime Albany does something, they screw it up...bad. I'll pass. Instead how about they just stick to fixing the messes that they've made of this land. Thanks.

Using the Florida incident is just wrong

1. As I have ststed several times, we DO NO YET know exactly what happened, the facts that are out there one by one are turning out to be wrong. Just yesterday we discover that the 911 tape that we first heard on NBC's today show was modified, The guy never said the kid was black until way into the call, and only after being asked by the dispatcher and I quote, "Can you discribe him? Is he white, black or hispanic?" and the guy answered the dispatcher Black I think? Why do you people think that an NBC producer edited the recording?

2. In NY state currentyly, unless a guy is in your house, chances are even in self defense whether you protect yourself with gun club or pitch fork, you are most likely going to get charged. NY is a turn tail and run state.

3. John is right, stand your ground does not mean more guns on the street, and it applies to more than guns, it is about the right to defend yourself.

EDIT: For those that might question my statement about 911 tapes http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/2/inside-politics-nbc-news…

John, are we going to make new laws every time something doesn't sit well with some?
oh, never mind, we already do.
I just don't want to see stand your ground turn into, " I dare you to cross that line".

Frank,
It gives you additional legal protection you do not have now.
And other states besides Florida have this law and there has been no problem.

Phil, while I agree with you in principal but, I would like to point out

1. If it turns out that Zimmerman was acting in self defense as eye witness testimony so far tend sto indicate, no it wasn't murder, if he did, than it would be. Murder is WRONGFULLY taking a life, if it turns out not, then it is not murder.

2. No he should not necessarily have been remanded to custody in that, under Habious Corpus there is a limited time to press charges after a person is in custody. We know now that the police did in fact consult the District attorney, and the DA indicated there was not enough evidence to keep Zimmerman in custody. He was not just looking at the stand your ground law, but the statemenst of eye witnesses and such, he might also as well been protecting a future case against Zimmerman, Again all the facts are not yet public.

Just for the record, here is an interesting take on 'Stand Your Ground Laws

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/2/debunking-the-stand-your…

Bea: "John, you can attempt to diminish my opinion, but it doesn't mean that I can't give it. It isn't Bea just being Bea, it is Bea giving another point of view."

Very true, Bea, you can give your opinion any time.

Your credibility would be enhanced, however, if you just once considered facts as opposed to only counting on your left wing emotional bias.

Amen Bob you took the words right out of my mouth

Mark,

First, I really think you're splitting hairs here. The taking of a life, whatever you want to call, is still a violent act. One being justified does not change the fact that a violent act occured. I agree with you that if it turns out it was in self defense then that label would not only be wrong, but unfair. That said, initally no one knows that.

Second, Habious Corpus still allows for intial remanding of minimally 24 hours (The most important time in an invesitgation) to up to 48 hours depending on the situation. I think if the police had done that, there wouldn't have been the spulation.

All of that said, I think that thanks to national media, the whole concept of innocent until proven guilty is a farce, Even if the evidence suggests that he is innocent, and is never indicted...even if he is indicted and aquited, thanks to this approach, he is guity in the court of public opinion.

Just a bad situation all around.

Phil, I disagree with your statement that none if the hoopla would have occurred if he had been held for 48 hours.

Nothing short of a public hanging would have shut up Sharpton, Farrakhan, Jackson and all the other race baiting "activists" (publicity seekers).

i think you are dead wrong Phil, pardon the pun. About a 48 incarceration quieting all this. It happen a over a month before Sharton and Jacksoin became involed.

As soon as Jackson and Sharpton came along, it was destined to become a circus, Are you old enough to remember Tamara Brawley?

In case you do not remember,

"Tawana Brawley (born 1972) is an African-American woman from Wappingers Falls, New York. In 1987, at the age of 15, she received national media attention in the United States for accusing six white men, some of whom were police officers, of having raped her. The accusations soon earned her notoriety, which was inflamed by Brawley's advisers (including the Reverend Al Sharpton and attorneys Alton H. Maddox and C. Vernon Mason), the statements of various public officials, and intense media attention. After hearing evidence, a grand jury concluded in October 1988 that Brawley had not been the victim of a forcible sexual assault and that she herself may have created the appearance of an attack. The New York prosecutor whom Brawley had accused as one of her alleged assailants successfully sued Brawley and her three advisers for defamation."

Al Sharpton never apologized to those he acused of being racist and who's integriy he falsely defamed,,, I can cite dozens of racist accusations that SHarpton has made over the years that were without merit.

The bottom line Phil, the DA down there made the decision to release Zimmerman, NOT the police, and that decision was made based on Mr Zimmerman's rights, and the law.

Again I point out, just about everything that we have heard about this case has so far turned out NOT to be the entire truth. And again, there was an eye witness that came forward that night and stated that the Kid was on top of zimmerman beating him when he (The Witness) went into the house to call 911

And again, Mark I'm not saying he's guilty, nor am I saying that initial remanding would have eliminated the media attention. I already acknowledged what this really is about, but it added fuel to the fire no doubt.

I really couldn't care less about Al Sharpton either. The man lost all credibility years ago to me, so he and his group is a non factor.

I have my own version of stand your ground, a 90 pound chow/shepard who dislikes strangers on my property.

I want open carry of al firearms not just pistols. If I want to walk down the street with a shotgun on my back, the second amendment says I should be able to. "Keep and BEAR arms."