Is Florida's Stand Your Ground Law a Dangerous Step Backward?

[deckart]

Ok, I'm getting a little confuse as to where people stand here. Who here is against a citizen using deadly force to defend their life?

 

[GENIERE]

Ok, I'm getting a little confuse as to where people stand here. Who here is against a citizen using deadly force to defend their life?

I’m definitely in favor of shooting the other guy… or bashing his head in with a bat… kicking, stabbing, maiming, scalding; any and all methods are OK by me.

When my kids were young, even the hint of a threat to their well being would justify (in my mind) a violent attack on the perpetrator. I have absolutely no qualms about defending my family by any means legal or not, consequences or not. If I were a resident of Florida, the new law would be irrelevant to me.

I don’t own a gun, never have, but I have used them. I will buy the first of many guns when a law is passed denying my right to own one.

Non US citizens should be aware that the constitutional right to bear arms, the primary reason, is not to defend against foreign invasion, not to defend ones family, not to secure food…all those are considered natural rights; the primary reason was to allow the citizen to defend himself against his own government, the US government. Tyranny starts at home and today is nourished by Lenin’s “useful idiot” the liberal churl who seem to find great pleasure in posting nonsense in these forums. The insatiable liberal feeding frenzy goes on and on and on...


.

 

[Anttech]

Non US citizens should be aware that the constitutional right to bear arms, the primary reason, is not to defend against foreign invasion, not to defend ones family, not to secure food…all those are considered natural rights; the primary reason was to allow the citizen to defend himself against his own government, the US government. Tyranny starts at home and today is nourished by Lenin’s “useful idiot” the liberal churl who seem to find great pleasure in posting nonsense in these forums. The insatiable liberal feeding frenzy goes on and on and on...

Thanks for the heads up...

What a place the USA must be if you feel the need to "rise up" against a democratically elected goverment..

 

[GENIERE]

Thanks for the heads up...

What a place the USA must be if you feel the need to "rise up" against a democratically elected goverment..

Are you responding to me or to the loonies who claim the election was illegal?

The feeding frenzy goes on and on and on...

.

 

[Anttech]

Are you responding to me or to the loonies who claim the election was illegal?

You actually... :-)


Democracy and violence can ill go together. Gandi

 

[deckart]

oh, brother. It's bad enough when you have to debate with someone from your own country.

 

[Anttech]

oh, brother. It's bad enough when you have to debate with someone from your own country.

Nobody forced you to post.

 

[loseyourname]

The right to kill is not a civil liberty and its rather disgusting that so many people think they deserve it. It's also scary, but security is hardly the main opposition.

More after class...

Read the posts in context, Smurf. My reference to civil liberties vs. security was regarding the Rampart scandal, not any gun laws, nor even any killings.

 

[loseyourname]

I have a problem with exaggerations.

More news from LA that you don't pay attention to, I guess. I'm not going to look it up, but a burglar a few years back successfully sued a women when he cut himself badly breaking into her house through a window. It was about as infamous for a brief time as the woman who sued McDonald's because her coffee was hot.

 

[Anttech]

back successfully a women

Successfully 'whated' a woman.. sued?

 

[loseyourname]

You could discuss the other possible ramifications such as the implication that persons are less valuable than possessions? A possible theory on how consumerism has affected this mindset?

How about a possible theory on how Smurf doesn't know the law he's referring to. You're mistaking the debate that had taken place in this thread for the actual law. From what the article said, you are now allowed to kill someone who is attempting to kill you. It says nothing about being allowed to kill someone who is taking something of yours but is not a threat to your own life. If Pengwuino values his possessions over the life of a burglar, so be it. I'm pretty sure that the law does not.

You might actually realize that this law applies to you AND the criminal. That if you sneak up on someone you might get shot.

How Smurf? Someone sneaking up on you does not make them a threat to your life. Why on God's green Earth would you get the impression that this law gives a license to shoot anyone who sneaks up on you? You act like people are going to be pulling uzis out at surprise parties and the police will say "oh well."

 

[loseyourname]

Successfully 'whated' a woman.. sued?

Yes, I edited it. Sorry - the fingers don't keep up with the thoughts.

 

[pattylou]

More news from LA that you don't pay attention to, I guess. I'm not going to look it up, but a burglar a few years back successfully sued a women when he cut himself badly breaking into her house through a window. It was about as infamous for a brief time as the woman who sued McDonald's because her coffee was hot.

Did he sue her pants off? Was the cut worse than a splinter?

I am aware that there are some suits that are ridiculous. I would say that they are (1) not as ridiculous as getting your pants sued off over a splinter and (2) not frequent enough to warrant arming civilians. THe coffee thing happened about 15 years ago. One woman, one case, very stupid, hardly a trend.

 

[loseyourname]

Did he sue her pants off? Was the cut worse than a splinter?

I am aware that there are some suits that are ridiculous. I would say that they are (1) not as ridiculous as getting your pants sued off over a splinter and (2) not frequent enough to warrant arming civilians. THe coffee thing happened about 15 years ago. One woman, one case, very stupid, hardly a trend.

Frivolous lawsuits are a trend, and I'm sure I don't need to source that for you. They aren't all of the personal injury variety, but still. I don't think that Townsend was saying people should be armed because we live in a culture of frivolous lawsuits either, so you're likely arguing a moot point.

 

[Townsend]

Frivolous lawsuits are a trend, and I'm sure I don't need to source that for you. They aren't all of the personal injury variety, but still. I don't think that Townsend was saying people should be armed because we live in a culture of frivolous lawsuits either, so you're likely arguing a moot point.

You are correct...I wasn't trying to justify anything with that comment, I was just making a point about how well the criminals are being treated mean while the victims are treated like crap...I think it's disgusting.

 

[moose]

"
There is nothing at all wrong with my argument. The fact of the matter is that if you lived in America and someone broke into your house and got a splinter in their hand they could sue the pants off of you."

Maybe in California, but definitely not in Arizona... At least say the communist parts of america, and not all parts of it... :P

 

[moose]

The right to kill is not a civil liberty and its rather disgusting that so many people think they deserve it. It's also scary, but security is hardly the main opposition.

More after class...

If there is a criminal person with no future, and that person wants to kill you. Would you rather die, or kill that person?

Clearly you don't know what the real life effects of this law will be. In reality it will make almost no difference to anyone...

Exactly, I think that most people in such a situation don't have time to think "oh ****, will I get sued?? oh, that's right, i wont, ok bang!" It's more of a reaction than anything else it would seem.

If two people get in a fist fight and then suddenly one person pulls out a gun and kills the other one. Is that not illegal in florida?

If someone attacks you with a deadly physical force(or is about to ), only then can you use deadly force on that person... You would only be allowed to shoot if the other guy was actually trying to KILL you with his fists, but I doubt it would ge through court...

 

[pattylou]

You are correct...I wasn't trying to justify anything with that comment, I was just making a point about how well the criminals are being treated mean while the victims are treated like crap...I think it's disgusting.

I still have yet to see any references at all to criminals being "treated well" (defined as winning a lawsuit in the current discussion.)

I couldn't find the one LYN posted - about a cut hand - for all I know it is an urban legend like the one you posted.

So, frankly, I remain skeptical.

 

[loseyourname]

If someone attacks you with a deadly physical force(or is about to ), only then can you use deadly force on that person... You would only be allowed to shoot if the other guy was actually trying to KILL you with his fists, but I doubt it would ge through court...

Actually, if a man has been trained to kill with his bare hands, like a Marine Corps Special Forces operative or Kung Fu blackbelt, it's considered assault with a deadly weapon for him to attack you, even if he is completely unarmed. His body is legally treated as a deadly weapon. Con Air, one of the most ridiculous films ever made, revolved around an unjust prison term due to this law.

 

[Townsend]

I still have yet to see any references at all to criminals being "treated well" (defined as winning a lawsuit in the current discussion.)

I couldn't find the one LYN posted - about a cut hand - for all I know it is an urban legend like the one you posted.

So, frankly, I remain skeptical.

That's fine...you can be as skeptical as you want. The truth or falsity of any given proposition is independent of whether it is believed. Whether you change you mind or remain skeptical will not change anything anyways so I just don't see the point in going through the effort. If it was summer time and I didn't have 3 test to study for I might see a point to continue this but as it is we will just have to agree to disagree...or not, either way it makes no difference.

Cheers

 

[deckart]

Actually, if a man has been trained to kill with his bare hands, like a Marine Corps Special Forces operative or Kung Fu blackbelt, it's considered assault with a deadly weapon for him to attack you, even if he is completely unarmed. His body is legally treated as a deadly weapon. Con Air, one of the most ridiculous films ever made, revolved around an unjust prison term due to this law.

This is a complete myth. This is absolutely not true. I've trained in martial arts for 20yrs and with police officers. BTW, you can actually kill someone while defending yourself if you felt that your life was in danger, and not be charged with homicide.

 

[pattylou]

That's fine...you can be as skeptical as you want. The truth or falsity of any given proposition is independent of whether it is believed. Whether you change you mind or remain skeptical will not change anything anyways so I just don't see the point in going through the effort. If it was summer time and I didn't have 3 test to study for I might see a point to continue this but as it is we will just have to agree to disagree...or not, either way it makes no difference.

Cheers

Nothing personal, really. I'm simply much more outspoken since Bush got to office and started advocating faith over facts, and a polarised view of the world time and again. Hopefully my attitude will change back to friendly and non-aggressive in 2006 and more so in 2008. I miss being a happy camper.

Good luck on your tests. Three? Wow! I hope you ace them all.

 

[loseyourname]

This is a complete myth. This is absolutely not true. I've trained in martial arts for 20yrs and with police officers. BTW, you can actually kill someone while defending yourself if you felt that your life was in danger, and not be charged with homicide.

Sorry if that's the case. That'll teach me to learn law from Hollywood. Off-topic anyway.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

I can't say I'm surprised by such a law. After all the fear tactics the Republicans have been using, they have to give people something to make them feel more secure - especially when they are losing in Iraq. The law, of course, is just another comfort for people worried about death. It will lead to an increased murder rate and is unbeneficial. Canada has always had the right view when it comes to matters of crime and punishment.

In America you have fear propoganda. What do you think Canada has - peace propoganda? Just saying the phrase peace propoganda makes no sense. Canada looks at things from the correct perspective. Criminals turn to crime because of social and/or genetic issue that they cannot be blamed for.

 

[edward]

Florida, hmmm doesn't the prez have a brother there who might run for president and who would need the NRA vote.