Posts Tagged ‘gun

12
Aug
13

Arizona: Stand Your Ground Law

What does Arizona’s Stand Your Ground law allow you to do and not do?

Original by Russell Richelsoph found here.

There has been a lot of publicity regarding Stand Your Ground self-defense laws since the unfortunate events in Sanford, Florida on February 26, 2012 involving George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin.  The news media repeatedly cited Florida’s Stand Your Ground self-defense law and as a result, these same self-defense laws have come under attack.  Arizona has very similar self-defense laws to Florida.

Unfortunately, the attack on Stand Your Ground, using the Zimmerman case as ammunition, has been mostly based on misinformation about the facts of the case and what Stand Your Ground Laws do and do not allow you to do.

So what are these Stand Your Ground self-defense laws that the news media is making such a fuss about? 

Arizona Self-Defense

In Arizona you are justified in threatening or using physical force to defend yourself against another to the extent that a reasonable person would believe it is immediately necessary to protect themself against another person’s use of unlawful physical force against them.  For example, if someone is punching you, or attempting to punch you, you may use just enough physical force against them to stop them from punching you.  You may not punch them until they fall to the ground and then start kicking them.

Arizona Self-Defense with Deadly Force

In Arizona, you are justified in threatening or using deadly physical force against another if a reasonable person would believe that deadly physical force is immediately necessary to protect yourself against the other’s use, or attempted use, of unlawful deadly physical force against you.  For example, if someone is threatening you with deadly force, such as a knife, bat, or a gun, you may use a level of physical force which may kill them in order stop them from harming you.  However, deadly physical force does not require a weapon.  If someone has you pinned down and is choking you, you would probably be justified in using deadly force to protect yourself.

The police and prosecutors look at many factors when deciding whether or not the use of deadly force is justified in a self-defense situation.  If a lone 140 pound woman is being physically attacked by a 250 pound unarmed man, the woman may be justified in using deadly physical force to defend herself.  The prosecutor is going to consider the reasonableness of the use of force in deciding whether to prosecute.  If a reasonable person would believe that the use of deadly force was necessary for the woman to protect herself, then it would be justified.

Arizona Stand Your Ground

Here is the supposedly controversial part of the law.  You do not have a duty to retreat before threatening or using deadly physical force if you are in a place where you may legally be and you are not engaged in an unlawful act.  Surprised?  All that Stand Your Ground means is that you do not have to run away if you would be otherwise justified to use deadly force.  This was not even an issue in the Zimmerman case.  Zimmerman was accused of provoking the situation and escalating it all the way to deadly force.  Stand Your Ground does not allow this.

Arizona Limitations on Self Defense

Arizona does place some limitations on the use of self-defense.  You are not justified in using physical force against another person in response to a verbal provocation.  If someone insults your mother, you are not justified in physical attacking them.

Likewise, you are not justified in using physical force to resist an arrest by a police officer, even if that arrest is unlawful, unless the police officer’s use of physical force exceeds that allowed by law.  If Officer Friendly is arresting you and you do not believe the charge is justified, you may not fight with Officer Friendly to try to prevent the arrest.  On the other hand, if Officer Friendly has you handcuffed and is bashing your head against the hood of his car, then you may be justified in using physical force to stop him and to protect yourself.  Keep in mind that in these situations, the prosecutor reviewing the case is going to give the police officers the benefit of the doubt.

Also, Arizona law does not permit you to use physical force if you were the one who provoked the encounter unless you withdraw from the encounter, or clearly communicate it is your intent to withdraw from the encounter, and the other person still attempts to use unlawful physical force against you.  If you go up to some big guy, punch him, and insult his mother, and the big guy starts beating you up, you are not justified in using physical force unless you attempt to leave and withdraw from the encounter and the other person continues attacking you.

You Have Been Involved in a Self-Defense Situation, What Should You Do?

Your goal in any self-defense situation should be to stop the threat.  The first thing you should do if you have been involved in a self-defense shooting is get to a safe place if you fear there may be other assailants who could attack you.  The next thing you should do is call 911 or have someone call 911 for you.  Make sure you give a good physical description of yourself and clearly state that you feared for your life, that you acted in self-defense, and give the dispatcher the location of where you defended yourself as well as your current location.  This is all you should say with regards to what happened.

If you are involved in a situation involving deadly physical force, do not be surprised if the police come to the situation with their guns drawn and they aggressively handcuff you.  This is routine.  When the police arrive, you should immediately place your weapon on the ground where they can clearly see it.  Cooperate with the police commands. This may involve you lying on the ground with your hands away from your body. 

DO NOT place your firearm back in your safe before police arrive unless you want the police to confiscate every weapon you have in the safe.

DO NOT try to explain yourself or what happened.  You should not answer any questions until you have had an opportunity to consult with an attorney.  Politely tell the police that you are not going to answer any questions until you have had a chance to speak with an attorney.  Even police officers involved in a shooting speak to an attorney from their union before they agree to be questioned about it.  You should exercise this same right even if it means you have to spend the night in jail.  It is better to spend one night in jail, than to spend years of your life in prison because you did not consult with an attorney before trying to explain your actions to police.

Our criminal department at Davis Miles McGuire Gardner would be happy to assist you if you are ever placed in a situation where you are required to defend yourself or your loved ones.  Do not hesitate to contact us (Davismiles.com or 480.733.6800) if you ever need our help.  We will represent you discreetly and professionally.

07
Aug
09

How the Criminal IRS works

If someone accuses you of something, the burden of proof is on them, right?

For instance, if someone accuses me of murdering someone via a gun they need to prove this fact beyond a doubt. They need to provide video surveillance of me doing the deed, the weapon I used and my fingerprints on it, ballistics, witnesses, and so on. What they cannot do, at least not in America, is to say that I committed 1st degree murder and then throw me in the slammer (that is what happens commonplace in Communist countries, of which, unfortunately, we are quickly becoming). They also cannot show generic data and say that it proves me guilty – such as saying that I own a gun and therefore I shoot people or that I was in the same city at the time of the murder therefore I did it.

If that is indeed the case, then why is the IRS allowed to provide evidence against you which doesn’t even include my name, my SSN, or any of my specific account data? If you have no idea what I am talking about, check these two pictures out below.

Federal2007_RACS006_1

Federal2007_RACS006_2

I know the documents are small but please notate that I didn’t black out anything on these forms. This is a RACS006 (aka, Summary Record of Assessments or RACS Report 006) that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) gave to me to “prove” that I filed my 2007 tax year return in a frivolous (incorrect and unlawful) manner.

So how is it that my guilt is being proven by a form which does not even mention me in any way? What this form IS, is a computer printout of thousands of returns that were processed that day. If you look at the first page on the first full line and you should be able to see that 337,122 items were processed for withholding for a total of $22,002,348,789.51 in tax.

So again, obviously since this is dealing with billions of dollars, where is MY information? Where are MY specifics on what I did wrong? Where is MY guilt? Of course, I’ve asked for my specifics and they state that they are right there in the RACS006. So if anyone can find my data and my guilt and my liability in the above documents, I will send you money via Paypal for your concerted efforts (no joke).

Let’s face it folks. When your government takes your money and then accuses you of being a fraud and won’t tell you how they came to that determination, you are living in a power-hungry Communist State. A place where freedom is shunned and the State has the right and the privledge to call its citizens (aka, slaves) to whatever it wants and do whatever it wants for the “betterment of the State.” Only in a freedom loving State is the government responsible for doing what not only is lawful, but what can be understood by it’s people. Only in a freedom loving State are the citizens innocent until proven guilty – even if the big bag government or the scary IRS says something negative against them.

I don’t like the income tax. Every time we talk about these taxes we get around to the idea of ‘from each according to his capacity and to each according to his needs’. That’s socialism. It’s written into the Communist Manifesto. Maybe we ought to see that every person who gets a tax return receives a copy of the Communist Manifesto with it so he can see what’s happening to him. – T. Coleman Andrews, Comissioner of the IRS from 1953 to 1955 who resigned after coming into opposition to the income taxes as we know it.

Of course, along with the RACS006 report, I asked for the evidence that was used to support their claim. I was sent a form (which I am not going to post due to too much sensitive data) that now shows my name and that they are assessing a penalty against me. It says nothing of how much I actually owed or how I should have filled out my 1040. All it says is that I have been penalized. The equivalent of this for the murder example scenario above would be the official document that has been pencil whipped saying that you have been determined as the murderer, but has no evidence to incriminate you.

So again, where is it that you get my liability, Uncle Sam? And for you people out there, when are you going to wake up and learn the truth about the IRS and start reclaiming your property like these people here ($10M returned to it’s owners who decided to find out what the tax laws said)?

27
Apr
09

I am an Individual, Are You?

stripedpajamas

Everyone would tend to agree that what happened against the Jews (and others) by Nazi Germany to be an attrocity. It was at this time that humanity demonized a people and felt privledged to do what they pleased to them – enslave them, talk to them like dogs (actually, better then dogs), strip them of their posessions, and kill them at will.

And, we should remember these events as if they happened yesterday.

We should remember them because this same mindset continues today. The mindset that we can negate the fact that people are individuals. Today, it is called collectivism.

Think about it. During the general election we heard a lot about collectivism and individualism. Barack wanted to cut taxes for 95% of Americans. What about that 5%? Aw, screw em! They make too much anyways right? This is a fine example of collectivism – he essentially is saying “Mob rule, baby! Forget the rich, they can afford to pay more.” Of course, forget the fact that the “rich” already pay 96% of our tax burden while the bottom 50% of people pay <4%. It is the “rich” vs “everyone else” – collectivism folks.

How about Obama’s church pastor – Rev Wright – of which he listened to for years. (Yes, I am going here). In this church Barack heard how the white man is out to get the black man. Sure Rev Wright, there are some white people that hate you because you are black. However, I’m sure there are plenty of black people that would do the same to a white man. But not all white people are like this just like not all black people are like this. Honest! To put me, a white man, into this “black hater group” is dispicable. I happen to be friends with many black people – I was even out having fun out on the town with a few last night. They were fun individuals. Why is it OK for Obama to sit in on this [collectivist] racist garbage and be given a pass but if I happened to sit in on a church sermon where my white pastor said something about blacks that I would be a racist? Bologna.

Face it, the Left loves to bring race up. They brought it up against Clinton when she was running against Obama. And recently they brought it up with the Tea-Parties. Jane Garofalo said it best, “This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up.” Nope Jane, it is about a bunch of individuals being tired of getting their money, their government, and their rights taken away. Guess what, the tea parties drew in all sorts of individuals – Democracts, Republicans, Independents, black, white, yellow, smart, ignorant, young and old. This is another fine example of the collectivist ideals – if you don’t tow line with us and Obama and our current politicians, then you are just a “teabagging redneck” or a “white power activist.”

Abortion? Well here, the individual life is less important then the collectivist group of “women” (even though, shouldn’t the choice be made by women and men, both before and after conception?). And who supports abortion (and thus does not support the individual life) – the Left.

Gun control? Take guns away from everyone and let the governement protect us. Don’t let individuals protect themselves because individuals are too incompetent to safely handle firearms. And who supports more gun control (and thus does not support the individuals right to protect themselves) – the Left.

Health care? Give the health care to the government. Don’t let individuals chose who they want to see. Don’t let individuals chose what procedures/operations they want to receive. And who supports Universal Health Care (and thus removes the privledge of doing what the individual wants to their body and by who) – the Left.

Unions? You can’t represent yourself, bucko. You need a Union to show your boss (of whom you work with every day) to come in and tell them how good you are doing! And who wants to make sure that Unions stay alive even when the workers don’t want them (and thus removes the individuals option to represent and vouch for themselves) – the Left.

And the list really goes on and on.

I know I’ve gone way far off base with the movie, but what I’ve said is something that just drives me nuts. I cannot stand collectivism. I don’t ever want anyone to put me in some group and judge me as such. I want everyone to meet me and decide what they think of me. The movie does a fine job of showing how bad collectivist ideas/actions are. Unfortunately, many people, like in the movie, don’t realize how bad it is until it directly affects them.

Wake up people. Be an individual. (And go watch the movie!)

17
Feb
09

Gun Control History

gun-control-extermination2

02
Jan
09

DeTroit Columnist Thinks He Knows Better Than Founding Fathers

Detroit News columnist Robert Smith, Jr apparently is one pretty smart guy. He knows better than our Founding Fathers, who were wrong to give citizens the right to bear arms.

The Founding Fathers of our country made a mistake when they said we had the right to bear arms. They did not know we would be allies with the British and no longer have to worry about them coming over to oppress and colonize us. The British found greater spoils in Africa and India and never looked back on the United States after the Revolutionary War.

The right to bear arms is killing all of us. In 2005 the Center for Disease Control and Prevention reported 3,006 children and teens killed by gunfire, most of them young, black men in inner-city neighborhoods. And CNN reported yesterday that black-on-black murder of young black men is up 40 percent from last year. The harder the times get, the higher these statistics will go.

Yet again, we have another instance of an idiot bleeding heart liberal with no concept of the FACT that guns do not miraculously start flying around, shooting people at random with no one pulling the trigger!

Guns do not kill people. PEOPLE kill people. When will liberals ever get that through their thick skulls? Banning guns does not end crime, as the British could tell you. They banned guns, and guess what happened? Stabbing deaths skyrocketed. If someone wants to murder someone, they’re going to find a way to do it. They likely won’t care about breaking one more law to get a gun, either. Banning guns takes guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens and yet, criminals will continue to have them.

But the main thing that’s interesting here is the assertion that the Founding Fathers strictly gave us the right to bear arms so that we could fight the British. God, is this guy brain dead? We were given the right to bear arms not only to protect our homes and families, but also so that the citizenry could fight back against a tyrannical government. And that’s any tyrannical government, not just the British government.

Look, I get it. Liberals hate seeing astronomically high rates of inner-city violence, especially when guns are involved. So do the rest of us. However, the rest of us understand that the GUN is not responsible. The man holding the gun is. An unloaded gun sitting on a table is not going to spontaneously fire itself unless someone loads the weapon and pulls the trigger. A gun by itself is harmless. A gun in a person’s hands, however, is dangerous, and it is the people using them to commit acts of violence that should be held accountable, not the weapon. But then, that would require liberals to believe in people actually taking responsibility for their own actions, and they couldn’t cry over criminals sitting in prison anymore, could they? After all, it’s never the murderer’s fault, is it? It’s the fault of that nasty, nasty gun.

(Reblogged. Original here)

19
Mar
08

Federal court overturns D.C. handgun ban

It’s about time…

WASHINGTON – In the most important ruling on gun control in 70 years, a federal appeals court Friday for the first time used the Second Amendment to strike down a gun law.

In a 2-1 decision, the court overturned the District of Columbia’s long-standing handgun ban, rejecting the city’s argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applied only to militias.

The majority held that the activities protected by the Second Amendment “are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s enjoyment of the right contingent” on enrollment in a militia. Continue reading ‘Federal court overturns D.C. handgun ban’




Quotes:

"We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth... For my part, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst; and to provide for it." - Patrick Henry

"Politicians and diapers both need to be changed, and for the same reason." - Anonymous

"Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it." - William Penn

"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country" - Hermann Goering

"I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do this I keep on doing." - Romans 7:18-19

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." - Mark Twain

Categories