"If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon."

[TeeDub]

but it should be very clear that if you can reasonably retreat you should

No.   The law in Oklahoma states very clearly that I do not have any duty or obligation to retreat.

[Conan71]

It should be a significant disruption to your life if you shoot and kill a person. This is not a trivial thing we're talking about here. In very clear cut cases where the castle doctrine applies, it's not as important, but it should be very clear that if you can reasonably retreat you should, even if you do have the right to defend yourself with deadly force if you are under threat of deadly force or great bodily harm.

Nobody is saying they should all be circus trials that take months, for crying out loud. If the case is clear cut, it can be disposed of quickly, even with a trial. If it's not, that's precisely when these things need to go to trial. If you don't trust juries to do the right thing, that's another problem entirely.

Who decides it's "clear cut"?

The court system simply does not move that fast and cannot be compelled to for murder or manslaughter.  Take a look how long Kenneth Gumm's case dragged out: nearly a year.  Had he not pled, it likely could have been a two year ordeal.  Homicide trials frequently take less than a week.  It's all the pre-trial hearings and motions which eat up time and add to the stress of the defendant.

By all accounts, in the Gumm case, he tried to retreat while holding his weapon and the guy he killed kept on coming at him saying he was "going to end him".

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/GetCaseInformation.asp?submitted=true&viewtype=caseGeneral&casemasterID=2030913&db=Tulsa

If you don't remember the details, Gumm was in his late '60's at the time. Turnidge (I think that was the tweaker's name) was in his 40's and apparently under the influence of alcohol and meth.  It was a road rage incident where supposedly Gumm cut off whomever was driving the car Turnidge was in.

Gumm never served a day in prison, but he's now a convicted felon.  This should have fallen under the stand your ground law, but our DA doesn't seem to understand the concept of self defense.  I've also been told that Gumm refused to heed the advice of an attorney the NRA provided for him, so he bears some of the blame.

You and I are simply going to disagree on this one.  I hardly view taking another's life lightly.  However, I don't see any reason to punish someone for using deadly force when it's warranted.  There is always a review process after something like this.  Sometimes it results in charges, often times it does not. That's the way it should stay.

Your idea tramples all over the basic Constitutional concept of liberty.

[Teatownclown]

Who decides it's "clear cut"?

The court system simply does not move that fast and cannot be compelled to for murder or manslaughter.  Take a look how long Kenneth Gumm's case dragged out: nearly a year.  Had he not pled, it likely could have been a two year ordeal.  Homicide trials frequently take less than a week.  It's all the pre-trial hearings and motions which eat up time and add to the stress of the defendant.

By all accounts, in the Gumm case, he tried to retreat while holding his weapon and the guy he killed kept on coming at him saying he was "going to end him".

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/GetCaseInformation.asp?submitted=true&viewtype=caseGeneral&casemasterID=2030913&db=Tulsa

If you don't remember the details, Gumm was in his late '60's at the time. Turnidge (I think that was the tweaker's name) was in his 40's and apparently under the influence of alcohol and meth.  It was a road rage incident where supposedly Gumm cut off whomever was driving the car Turnidge was in.

Gumm never served a day in prison, but he's now a convicted felon.  This should have fallen under the stand your ground law, but our DA doesn't seem to understand the concept of self defense.  I've also been told that Gumm refused to heed the advice of an attorney the NRA provided for him, so he bears some of the blame.

You and I are simply going to disagree on this one.  I hardly view taking another's life lightly.  However, I don't see any reason to punish someone for using deadly force when it's warranted.  There is always a review process after something like this.  Sometimes it results in charges, often times it does not. That's the way it should stay.

Your idea tramples all over the basic Constitutional concept of liberty.

[nathanm]

No.   The law in Oklahoma states very clearly that I do not have any duty or obligation to retreat.

Yes, that is what the law presently says. I think that should not be the case. It's absolutely freakin' ridiculous that a person who has the option of safely retreating is not required to do so. We aren't in the effing wild west.

And your example is precisely why all such cases should go to trial. If the situation was as you say it was, it is a travesty of justice that Gumm is now a convicted felon. If Gumm was retreating and his assailant was following, that should, under any reasonable construction of a duty to retreat, fulfill the requirements.

Again, I'm completely for strong construction of the right to self defense. However, I am also against self help in the form of killing other human beings when it is not strictly necessary.

[Conan71]

Yes, that is what the law presently says. I think that should not be the case. It's absolutely freakin' ridiculous that a person who has the option of safely retreating is not required to do so. We aren't in the effing wild west.

And your example is precisely why all such cases should go to trial. If the situation was as you say it was, it is a travesty of justice that Gumm is now a convicted felon. If Gumm was retreating and his assailant was following, that should, under any reasonable construction of a duty to retreat, fulfill the requirements.

Again, I'm completely for strong construction of the right to self defense. However, I am also against self help in the form of killing other human beings when it is not strictly necessary.

Whether you care to acknowledge it or not, your concept that everyone who kills someone else should stand trial serves to criminalize self-defense.

[BKDotCom]

Whether you care to acknowledge it or not, your concept that everyone who kills someone else should stand trial serves to criminalize self-defense.

Wouldn't they self-defender only be a criminal if found guilty?   If it was self defense they've got nuttin to worry about.

[Gaspar]

Wouldn't they self-defender only be a criminal if found guilty?   If it was self defense they've got nuttin to worry about.

Except perhaps jail and legal expenses while they wait for trial.  Nothin much.

[Hoss]

Except perhaps jail and legal expenses while they wait for trial.  Nothin much.

So, are you inferring that everyone who makes the claim 'self-defense' gets a free pass and shouldn't have to face the process?  I'm sure that's not the case, but some of the statements I see on here from people make that inference.  That's the point I'm making.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Wouldn't they self-defender only be a criminal if found guilty?   If it was self defense they've got nuttin to worry about.

Now THAT is probably the most naive comment I have ever read on this board....

[heironymouspasparagus]

Yes, that is what the law presently says. I think that should not be the case. It's absolutely freakin' ridiculous that a person who has the option of safely retreating is not required to do so. We aren't in the effing wild west.

I have stated before that I will always run from a fight, if given the chance.

But...

It's absolutely freakin' ridiculous that a person who has intruded into my close personal space and attempted to do, or has done, me serious bodily harm or death should not just be eliminated at that exact time and place, if at all possible.

The vast majority of self-defense cases are instances where running away is not an option.  In one's home.  Standing at a gas pump sandwiched between two thugs on each end of vehicle threatening - example from family files.  Man and wife/girlfriend walking down the street, approached by a couple of criminals with knives - classic TV cop show scenario.  Or the ones we see on TV all the time where some clown or two or three comes in the door of a convenience store and robs the place - usually standing near the front door to "screen" who goes in or out - I guess I could just try to sneak out behind him while his attention is diverted.  Pick the scenario of choice and think about how to handle it.  Most will not involve successful running away.  You gonna stand there thinking about escape plans - where you might go - when someone pulls out a knife?

I can just see me trying to waddle down the street to get away from some thug trying to mug me at knife/gun point.  I could get a step or two space between us, maybe, but then I must be ready to defend or it's all over.

What this law does is gives people immunity from unjust prosecution when they react to defend themselves in these deadly situations.

[DolfanBob]

Since we are on the self defense talk. A few years ago wasn't there a man who was arrested when he shot a man climbing through his window and the man staggered out to the driveway and died ? Because he shot the man before he fully entered the home, he was arrested. Not sure if he was charged.

And also the young Mother who was on the phone with 911 giving full account to them while the intruder was busting in her front door. And I can't remember if she shot him through the door or had to wait for him to enter. She was not arrested or charged and became somewhat a National hero for the make my day law.

Let me touch on one other thing. The two ORU students a white female and male jogging, that was killed by two black men by being shot from behind(Cowards) To qualify that as a racist killing. What is the criteria ? Talk amongst yourselves.

[Gaspar]

So, are you inferring that everyone who makes the claim 'self-defense' gets a free pass and shouldn't have to face the process?  I'm sure that's not the case, but some of the statements I see on here from people make that inference.  That's the point I'm making.

As with any incident, law enforcement must make a determination of whether or not a crime was committed.  If there is no clear evidence of assault, and the officer or prosecutor can not establish that you or those you were protecting faced any danger, than it is their duty to detain you pending an investigation.

In most cases of self defense the circumstances are very clear.  In a small percentage, a more in-depth investigation will be necessary.  It is unfair to simply detain and prosecute everyone.  To do so would criminalize self-defense and make people reluctant to use deadly force when necessary.  It would also create an atmosphere where criminals would face far less resistance, and therefore embolden them to be less fearful of retaliation.

As we see in some communities with strict gun laws, the criminals have grown very skilled at profiling their victims.  A woman approaching her apartment late at night represents an easy target for a criminal, because he knows that she is unarmed.  That same women in Oklahoma is less likely to face a criminal looking for an easy target.  She represents as much of a threat to the criminal as anyone else licensed to carry a firearm.  She is also willing to protect herself because she understands that she has the right to without fear of imprisonment.

[heironymouspasparagus]

To do so would criminalize self-defense and make people reluctant to use deadly force when necessary.  It would also create an atmosphere where criminals would face far less resistance, and therefore embolden them to be less fearful of retaliation.

As we see in some communities with strict gun laws, the criminals have grown very skilled at profiling their victims.  A woman approaching her apartment late at night represents an easy target for a criminal, because he knows that she is unarmed.  That same women in Oklahoma is less likely to face a criminal looking for an easy target.  She represents as much of a threat to the criminal as anyone else licensed to carry a firearm.  She is also willing to protect herself because she understands that she has the right to without fear of imprisonment.

You have just defined the UK and Australia due to events in recent years.

[Hoss]

As with any incident, law enforcement must make a determination of whether or not a crime was committed.  If there is no clear evidence of assault, and the officer or prosecutor can not establish that you or those you were protecting faced any danger, than it is their duty to detain you pending an investigation.

In most cases of self defense the circumstances are very clear.  In a small percentage, a more in-depth investigation will be necessary.  It is unfair to simply detain and prosecute everyone.  To do so would criminalize self-defense and make people reluctant to use deadly force when necessary.  It would also create an atmosphere where criminals would face far less resistance, and therefore embolden them to be less fearful of retaliation.

As we see in some communities with strict gun laws, the criminals have grown very skilled at profiling their victims.  A woman approaching her apartment late at night represents an easy target for a criminal, because he knows that she is unarmed.  That same women in Oklahoma is less likely to face a criminal looking for an easy target.  She represents as much of a threat to the criminal as anyone else licensed to carry a firearm.  She is also willing to protect herself because she understands that she has the right to without fear of imprisonment.

But shouldn't the consequence of having liberal firearms laws be the notion that you will be investigated and possibly charged if you engage in such action?  Self-defense is absolutely a person's right, but having the right to self-defend yourself to the fullest extent, especially when in conjunction with a firearm shouldn't be something taken lightly.  I think just glazing over it and inferring that it's an inconvenience to have to incur legal fees if you take someone's life as part of self-defense marginalizes the system.  Shouldn't there be some responsibility to being a gun owner?

[Conan71]

Wouldn't they self-defender only be a criminal if found guilty?   If it was self defense they've got nuttin to worry about.

You completely missed my point.  I'm not talking about whether or not the self-defender becomes a criminal.

By having to face trial every time someone exercises self-defense, the prosecutor must bring criminal charges.  Ergo, that is criminalizing self-defense if everyone who has been in that situation must stand trial for homicide.  Any time someone is killed there is ALWAYS an investigation of the death.  If that investigation clearly shows the shooter was acting within the law, no charges are brought and there is no need for a trial.  Same as any other investigative process of any other crime or potential crime.  

I agree with Gaspar's point- there's supposed to be a deterrent factor in any of these laws which preserve the right to and clearly defines self-defense.  The police cannot be everywhere at once.

An automatic penalty for defending one's self simply sends the wrong message as to who really has the rights.

But shouldn't the consequence of having liberal firearms laws be the notion that you will be investigated and possibly charged if you engage in such action?  Self-defense is absolutely a person's right, but having the right to self-defend yourself to the fullest extent, especially when in conjunction with a firearm shouldn't be something taken lightly.  I think just glazing over it and inferring that it's an inconvenience to have to incur legal fees if you take someone's life as part of self-defense marginalizes the system.  Shouldn't there be some responsibility to being a gun owner?

Hoss, that mechanism is already in place for review and possible criminal charges to be brought if you defend yourself.  It WILL be investigated.  Anyone who has a CCL is well aware there's the possibility you could end up with manslaughter or murder charges if you act inappropriately.  I personally don't know anyone who carries who does not take that responsibility seriously.