[HTML1]
Australia’s SBS Dateline doesn’t put a question mark after their report License to Kill. Which raises a question mark about their objectivity. But seriously, what do you expect in a mainstream media outlet operating in a country that’s banned firearms for personal defense? Maybe they should have, I dunno, presented the other side of the Brandon Baker shooting from someone outside of the bereaved family? Make the jump for the account from foxtampabay.com . . .
Pinellas sheriff’s deputies say 23-year-old Seth Browning followed Brandon Baker to the entrance of Baker’s apartment complex on Seagull Drive just after 2 a.m. Tuesday.
Deputies say Browning was concerned about the way Baker was driving and decided to follow Baker to get his vehicle tag number. The sheriff’s office says Browning never called 911 to report an erratic driver.
Baker’s twin brother and Baker’s girlfriend followed in a third vehicle.
Deputies say Baker approached Browning’s vehicle aggressively. Browning stayed in his car, according to investigators. Detectives say Baker’s brother Chris also got out of his car and approached Browning.
The sheriff’s office says Browning, an off-duty security guard, sprayed pepper spray at the Baker twins. Investigators say at that point, Brandon Baker reached into Browning’s vehicle and punched him. Deputies say that’s when Browning pulled out his work-issued gun and shot and killed Brandon Baker.
So, SBS provides three examples of Florida citizens who decided to take matters involving law and order into their own hands and get embroiled in lethal combat. Tell me they couldn’t find any examples of “clean shoots” that validate the Sunshine state’s Stand Your Ground law. Tell me they looked.
frickin Australian’s….don’t we do nuclear testing down there?
No, that was the French (and they did it a bit to the east).
The other thing that they often ignore is the fact that simply claiming self defense along with the lack of a duty to retreat due to SYG does not exonerate anyone. In the end SYG does not change the circumstances that dictate justification for use of deadly force. Also, as advertised by media, wilding putting your hands up in the air (and waving them like you just don’t care) does not automatically exonerate anyone from any law.They are still subject to the law, and subject to being tried to validate their self defense claims. Every scenario is different and merits its own analysis.
My favorite part about this whole thing is that stand your ground is not applicable to either side’s version of what happened in the Zimmerman case.
I’m still trying to get over the fact that Australia has one of the worlds most successful handguns on the market but no Australian can own one.
I think you might be confounding “Australia” with “Austria”.
+1
Well g’day mate, lets throw another wurst on the barbie?
How so
If you are talking about the Glock then I’m afraid they are produced in Austria nor Australia
OK I see now IDK why I was thinking Glock was Australian thinks for the INFO. Although that seems like something I should have known already.
Keine Sorge, Kumpel.
I just posted four comments on the article, several because there’s a character limit. You also cannot reply to other people comments, just agree/disagree. I tried to provide some education on the SYG law and how it has no affect on the circumstances for justification for use of deadly force, explain the problems with duty to retreat, and explain how gun free zones are more targets than anything since prospective criminals don’t pay attention to “no firearms allowed” signs. We’ll see if they even get up there, the comments have to be submitted and don’t post automatically. I won’t be surprised if there’s some bais in the screening process, especially with quotes like “SYG promotes vigilante justice”…um no, if you initiate anything you can’t claim self defense.
From the quoted story above, SYG doesn’t even apply. Even before SYG, FL law have permitted victims to use deadly force against crimes classified as “forcible felonies.” As all of this is publicly available in the Florida State Statutes, newscasters have at least one of the following problems if not more: 1. They can’t read. 2. They have no comprehension skills. 3. They are purposely lying.
I’ll pick purposely lying by omission.
MSNBC is reporting – in my interpretation – that the UK has gone so extreme they are not letting an American into their queendom who has made the mistake of teaching civilian hand to hand combat along with the US military. It would probably be ok with the nanny-police if Tim Larkin just trained government SEALS, Army Special Forces, and others how to kill foreigners or enemies of the state. http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/09/11616723-kill-or-be-killed-self-defense-guru-tim-larkin-banned-from-uk?lite
Stick it where the kangaroo don’t hop. Let them worry about their own laws.
what was that phrase about a person in Nazi Germany who didn’t stand up for anyone that didn’t concern him, and when it was his time to burn, nobody stood up for him? Self-defense is a human right… not an American right…
You can’t force a certain way of thinking onto unwilling people. If Aussies are content being subjects to criminals and waiving their human rights, let them; once they try to force it onto our borders, that’s another story.
I doubt if most Aussies know what a SYG law is. I doubt if most of the younger ones have even seen a gun in person, and fewer have ever fired one.
Please go to the story and add comments of what you think. We need to EDUCATE our brainwashed brothers and sisters from down under.
Sorry for the posting delays and general commenting kerfuffle. Rest assured the commenting system’s suckage is a technical issue. Our man Malenshak on the case. Again. Still.
As someone who once lived in Australia, I can say with certainty that Australia is lost.
There are two common reasons why someone would not be in support of SYG:
1.) They have no clue what it actually is and are simply useful idiots of political puppetmasters. AKA, the majority of the American people.
2.) They harbor a deeply-rooted cowardice and slave complex, and the prospect of standing up to an aggressor and taking responsibility for their lives and choices terrifies them so much that they seek to drag everyone down to their level so that they feel better. AKA, most antis. Remember, people, freedom is an unnatural trait. Humans naturally seek masters and yearn to place the difficulties in their lives at another’s feet in exchange for skin-deep comfort and light chains. Americans today are proving themselves weak and unfit for the inheritance trusted to them. And it’s not going to get better.
This SYG thing is one of those times I find myself asking “My God…..are they all really this stupid?” Yup.
Based on this article, it sounds like “stand your ground” laws make old-school fist-fights obsolete. What’s so wrong with that? Casey’s mom thinks that the shooter should have instead been forced to endure a crunchy beating at the hands of her white-trash son. I say f**k that. Casey Trailer-Trash made the mistake of not bringing a gun to a gun fight. Well, if it ain’t worth a gun fight, it ain’t worth fighting over. Personally, I’m glad to see some of these bullies getting capped. Serves them right.
I think we should encourage the crime-prone population of the US to emigrate to Australia. Let’s see how long before a violent crime wave happens there…
A replay of the British in 1788 sort of.
“Deputies say Baker approached Browning’s vehicle aggressively. Browning stayed in his car, according to investigators.” Do you remembers the critics of George Zimmerman and Florida’s SYG law? “If Zimmerman had remained in his car, instead of aggressively pursuing Martin, nobody would have been hurt.” What are critics of Seth Browning and Florida’s SYG laws saying now? “If Browning had just driven away in his car, instead of defending himself, nobody would have been hurt.” What will quislings say about the righteous use of violence tomorrow? “Run away! Run away!” This is the “moving goalpost strategy” employed by the political Left. If you surrender to them on one small point, they promptly demand additional capitulation until you have nothing left to defend and no means of doing it. Three little words: Stand your ground. We will beat these amoral bastards if we can summon the courage. As free men, we have the necessary duty to protect our liberties; as well-armed citizens, we also possess the means.
Truly stunning how this is portrayed in OZ, makes George look like the big bad hunter
and who gives a shit about australia? they are not relevant in any sense and the only thing they are known for is their lead exports. LOL
Robert, I find an inconsistency in your position about retreating from a home invasion and your support of “stand your ground.” Haven’t you taken much flak from your commenters about the former? They call it “running away,” and say it’s the principle of the thing. Yet you seem to support the “stand your ground” nonsense, which really boils down to the same kind of macho, never-backing-down-even-when-it-makes-sense position.
I don’t suppose you’re concerned with the lives of the bad guys, as you should since all life is sacred, but yours is a pragmatic decision. Why then doesn’t it apply across the board?
The point of SYG laws is not to discourage retreat when it’s safe and practicable, it’s to prevent a Monday morning analysis of the situation leading to the arrest and prosecution of DGUs when the shooter reasonably believed that retreat was unsafe or impracticable. The reason the laws have to be so clear that there is no duty to retreat is that imposing any sort of collateral duties to the defending party, “in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving,”* while they make decisions about the amount of force necessary to stop the threat, could lead to people hesitating in situations where that hesitation could cost them their life****.
So it’s two different positions that are in no way incompatible. Practical advice is to retreat whenever possible and clearly safe. At the same time, the law can have no mention of retreat without inviting overly aggressive prosecution.
Anyway, the aggressor’s life has value before they create a deadly threat, and it has value after the threat is ended, but during the time that they have created a deadly threat against another person, any value their life may have should have no bearing on the appropriate response.**
After the threat is ended, a defensive shooter has a duty to provide what medical care they can safely and competently apply, has a duty to request an Ambulance for the attacker, etc. But until the threat is stopped, the defender’s only duty is to stop the threat in as little time as possible.***
*Justice Rehnquist, Majority Opinion, Graham v. Connor
**Roughly the stance of the Supreme Court on use of force in deadly force situations
***My semi-anonymous opinion
****This is a grammatically terrible sentence, but I don’t feel like fixing it, Sorry.
Comments are closed.