lklawson
Grandmaster
Branca's book is customized for each state.
True, most aren't. Ayoob is. But not just because he's a cop.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
UK home defence
- Thread starter pdg
- Start date
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
Just curious now, do people feel one law covering everyone would be easier to understand and work with or do people like different laws in different states?
lklawson
Grandmaster
Yes, to both.
Most people seem to feel that one overarching law would be "simpler" but they also do not want to give up the Independence of their own state. Basically, the general sentiment is, "if it's a law in my state that I like, I want the Federal government to force everyone else to do it our way, but if it's a law in someone else' state that I don't like, I don't want them telling me that my state has to do it their way."
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
dvcochran
Grandmaster
Correction, "OUR legal system. To be fair, some of our states are as big as some of your countries. The same is true, all legalities are clearly written down and are public domain on government sites. Good luck understanding everything that is written.
As far as travel, I have worked in every state but two (Hawaii & Alaska) , Canada extensively, Mexico, Central America, and Malaysia. The only place I have ever had trouble is Los Angeles. I just sucks. Don't go looking for trouble and usually you won't find any. It isn't like the laws are drastically different. Common sense applies to everything. You drive on the right side of the road everywhere I have worked.
Ah the drive on the right thing, nearly 60 countries in the world drive on the left including the American Virgin Islands as well as Japan.
Having been on MT a long time one of the things that is noticeable is when a self defence question comes up one American will answer then another will say 'but in my state...' then another will go ' no, in my state it's ...' hence making it appear there are very different laws on the same point so don't blame me.
dvcochran
Grandmaster
The "drive on the right thing" was simply an example I was sure you would be familiar with. Sure there are differences based on location, (because there is a bridge, or building or mountain for example)but there is much more commonality than differences. Your idea is just ridiculous.
I'm not sure what you think 'my idea' was? I asked a question, then said that on here that when the subject of self defence came up various people living in different states would post up their laws which were different from each other, is it my fault they are different? Of course not, if those posters are incorrect that's still not my fault. So I'm not sure still what you think my idea was that is ridiculous.
dvcochran
Grandmaster
Ok, let's go with condescending then.
Sigh. I'm not condescending I simply don't know what you are talking about. Self defence discussions come up a lot here and as I said people post up what the law is in their states, many seem different. If that 'idea' is wrong then the people who posted are wrong then. What am I supposed to think when Americans say things like that, I have to assume they are correct, why wouldn't I?
You are the one that chose to write 'correction' to my post instead of thinking about it, you also missed lklawson's answer to my question so how is it that I'm supposed to be condescending?
You didn't answer my question, which idea was just ridiculous?
Another question for you, what has the size of states and countries got to do with anything? And why bring up driving on the right/left, what has that got to do with anything as well?
dvcochran
Grandmaster
Sigh, I wasn't the first to bring up the states, just tried to justify your misunderstanding that size matters in many contexts. To be fair I will search for lklawson's posts as I am not certain about all the content.
@Tez3 Not sure which post to quote, so just tagging you.
So I have a couple different things to try to answer your questions. Some of it will be a bit of an extension on what lklawson already said.
So first, people have a tendency to conceptualize the united states as one country. Which makes sense, since it is one country. But, IMO, when you're trying to understand either US law or US culture, that conceptualization makes it confusing. For culture, it would be better to view the different areas as their own countries, and the US as sort of a union of countries: So you have the 'new england' northeast area as a country, the tristate as another, The midwest as one, the florida up to (I'm guessing) virginia upwards and mississippi westward as another, California gets to be its own, etc. Each of those areas have vastly different cultures, prejudices against one another, and lifestyles. As a whole, there's also a difference in their moralities that effects what they care about. As a result, the laws can get pretty different.
So imagining the US as a conglomerate of a bunch of different countries, you have the union stating the bare minimum rights and laws people of each 'country' have to follow, and then within those 'countries' each state gets to decide how far or little they will extend those rights/laws. A good example is the speed limit. The US as a whole has decided on no formal maximum speed limit, however each state sets its own maximum speed limit. So the 'union' decided that this is something the states can handle on their own, no need to have the union meddle with that, and each state chose it's own speed limit. If you look at a map of the different speed limits through the US, you can see a bit of how the 'countries' impact each states decision on that.
So you can see how even though each state chooses its own, they kind of get grouped together.
And most Americans I know prefer this. The people living on long island don't really agree on a lot with the people in texas politically, and wouldn't want the same rules governing texas to govern long island (I'm pretty sure the reverse is true, @CB Jones can probably confirm that if you want). So it extends to other things, like employment, gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, self defense, whatever. And if you travel to a different state that's not close by, it helps to treat it a bit like your going to a new country, and familiarize yourself on the basics. The good thing is, because of the union, we're still judged by the same minimum laws, and have the same rights and freedoms.
So when it gets to self-defense, it would be annoying to have to read about every state if you travel a lot. Instead, knowing the bare minimum of what you can do can help. So essentially, you can defend yourself if there's a legitimate threat to your life, and the defense will not be that you didn't commit a crime, but that you were justified in your actions. Proving that per the state is where the legal aspects will come in. It also helps to know some of the basic groupings: ie: Stand your ground vs. castle doctrine vs. duty to retreat.
(In that, green is stand your ground, orange is duty to retreat, blue treats car/vehicle with castle doctrine) So to go back to the texas vs new york idea. If you live in texas, in your mind standing your ground is okay. If you take a vacation in NYC, you should be aware that you have a duty to retreat. That's enough knowledge on that subject to worry about the rest of the consequences afterwards. If you want to take a weapon with you, check the laws of the place for a weapon, the same way you would if you wanted to travel to italy.
So I have a couple different things to try to answer your questions. Some of it will be a bit of an extension on what lklawson already said.
So first, people have a tendency to conceptualize the united states as one country. Which makes sense, since it is one country. But, IMO, when you're trying to understand either US law or US culture, that conceptualization makes it confusing. For culture, it would be better to view the different areas as their own countries, and the US as sort of a union of countries: So you have the 'new england' northeast area as a country, the tristate as another, The midwest as one, the florida up to (I'm guessing) virginia upwards and mississippi westward as another, California gets to be its own, etc. Each of those areas have vastly different cultures, prejudices against one another, and lifestyles. As a whole, there's also a difference in their moralities that effects what they care about. As a result, the laws can get pretty different.
So imagining the US as a conglomerate of a bunch of different countries, you have the union stating the bare minimum rights and laws people of each 'country' have to follow, and then within those 'countries' each state gets to decide how far or little they will extend those rights/laws. A good example is the speed limit. The US as a whole has decided on no formal maximum speed limit, however each state sets its own maximum speed limit. So the 'union' decided that this is something the states can handle on their own, no need to have the union meddle with that, and each state chose it's own speed limit. If you look at a map of the different speed limits through the US, you can see a bit of how the 'countries' impact each states decision on that.
And most Americans I know prefer this. The people living on long island don't really agree on a lot with the people in texas politically, and wouldn't want the same rules governing texas to govern long island (I'm pretty sure the reverse is true, @CB Jones can probably confirm that if you want). So it extends to other things, like employment, gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, self defense, whatever. And if you travel to a different state that's not close by, it helps to treat it a bit like your going to a new country, and familiarize yourself on the basics. The good thing is, because of the union, we're still judged by the same minimum laws, and have the same rights and freedoms.
So when it gets to self-defense, it would be annoying to have to read about every state if you travel a lot. Instead, knowing the bare minimum of what you can do can help. So essentially, you can defend yourself if there's a legitimate threat to your life, and the defense will not be that you didn't commit a crime, but that you were justified in your actions. Proving that per the state is where the legal aspects will come in. It also helps to know some of the basic groupings: ie: Stand your ground vs. castle doctrine vs. duty to retreat.
(In that, green is stand your ground, orange is duty to retreat, blue treats car/vehicle with castle doctrine) So to go back to the texas vs new york idea. If you live in texas, in your mind standing your ground is okay. If you take a vacation in NYC, you should be aware that you have a duty to retreat. That's enough knowledge on that subject to worry about the rest of the consequences afterwards. If you want to take a weapon with you, check the laws of the place for a weapon, the same way you would if you wanted to travel to italy.
Size? I really don't think I mentioned anything about size mattering at all in any context. You have just left me more confused than ever about your posts.
dvcochran
Grandmaster
Just let it go. This is going nowhere.
dvcochran
Grandmaster
@Tez3 Not sure which post to quote, so just tagging you.
So I have a couple different things to try to answer your questions. Some of it will be a bit of an extension on what lklawson already said.
So first, people have a tendency to conceptualize the united states as one country. Which makes sense, since it is one country. But, IMO, when you're trying to understand either US law or US culture, that conceptualization makes it confusing. For culture, it would be better to view the different areas as their own countries, and the US as sort of a union of countries: So you have the 'new england' northeast area as a country, the tristate as another, The midwest as one, the florida up to (I'm guessing) virginia upwards and mississippi westward as another, California gets to be its own, etc. Each of those areas have vastly different cultures, prejudices against one another, and lifestyles. As a whole, there's also a difference in their moralities that effects what they care about. As a result, the laws can get pretty different.
So imagining the US as a conglomerate of a bunch of different countries, you have the union stating the bare minimum rights and laws people of each 'country' have to follow, and then within those 'countries' each state gets to decide how far or little they will extend those rights/laws. A good example is the speed limit. The US as a whole has decided on no formal maximum speed limit, however each state sets its own maximum speed limit. So the 'union' decided that this is something the states can handle on their own, no need to have the union meddle with that, and each state chose it's own speed limit. If you look at a map of the different speed limits through the US, you can see a bit of how the 'countries' impact each states decision on that.So you can see how even though each state chooses its own, they kind of get grouped together.
And most Americans I know prefer this. The people living on long island don't really agree on a lot with the people in texas politically, and wouldn't want the same rules governing texas to govern long island (I'm pretty sure the reverse is true, @CB Jones can probably confirm that if you want). So it extends to other things, like employment, gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, self defense, whatever. And if you travel to a different state that's not close by, it helps to treat it a bit like your going to a new country, and familiarize yourself on the basics. The good thing is, because of the union, we're still judged by the same minimum laws, and have the same rights and freedoms.
So when it gets to self-defense, it would be annoying to have to read about every state if you travel a lot. Instead, knowing the bare minimum of what you can do can help. So essentially, you can defend yourself if there's a legitimate threat to your life, and the defense will not be that you didn't commit a crime, but that you were justified in your actions. Proving that per the state is where the legal aspects will come in. It also helps to know some of the basic groupings: ie: Stand your ground vs. castle doctrine vs. duty to retreat.
(In that, green is stand your ground, orange is duty to retreat, blue treats car/vehicle with castle doctrine) So to go back to the texas vs new york idea. If you live in texas, in your mind standing your ground is okay. If you take a vacation in NYC, you should be aware that you have a duty to retreat. That's enough knowledge on that subject to worry about the rest of the consequences afterwards. If you want to take a weapon with you, check the laws of the place for a weapon, the same way you would if you wanted to travel to italy.
Great work.
Except I shall spend the next few hours wondering how I managed to upset you. Though I'm told men always worry about size...……………….
Just rechecked all my posts, I said nothing about size, I've had my question answered nicely by others and am still perplexed.
lklawson
Grandmaster
A lot of times they don't actually know what they're talking about. Frequently, they're basing their belief on second hand info and misunderstandings of Black Letter law without the understanding of how Case Law has impacted it. As an example in Texas, the Black Letter Law allows for the use of Deadly Force to protect property in some instances. But most of the time, shooting someone on his way out of your house with your TV is still going to get you in prison.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
lklawson
Grandmaster
Are you new here?
TANG! A 78 year old man isn't going anywhere; and would be easy to find if a warrant had to be served. IMHO, it's absurd to think anyone in their own home would be required to take a bullet or stab wound before defending themselves. If someone comes into my house and points a knife or gun at me, I can swear in court that it doesn't indicate a romantic attempt.
Similar threads
