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

[Smurf]

Seriously, does anyone in this thread actually care about any of the real affects this law will have? If someone actually does please let me know I'd love to try and gain some insight if someone will be even slightly intellectual about it.

 

[Townsend]

No... it's not. This is the kind of appeal to emotions and over-simplification that gets these laws passed in the first place.

GAH! I can't respond to that. I NEVER SAID ANYTHING OF THAT SORT - THAT'S ALL COMPLETE BULL****.

**** this, is there any sense at all in trying to argue a legal matter with a bunch of trigger-happy yanks? Any what so ever? Have any of you even considered the legal and social ramifications of this law?

THIS BILL IS CHALLENGING THE RULE OF LAW BUT YOU'RE ALL SO HAPPY YOU GET A BIGGER CHANCE TO KILL PEOPLE YOU DON'T ****ING CARE HOW DYSFUNCTION YOUR GOVERNMENT BECOMES. God forbid should they limit your killing rights. ****** ******.

Go take a prozac you freak-a-zoid...

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. All this law is suppose to do is to protect the victim...

This law is really simple...if you believe you should not be able to kill someone to prevent them from killing you then it is a bad law. If you believe you should be able to kill someone so you are not going to be killed by them then this is a good law.

What else is there to say?

 

[Townsend]

Seriously, does anyone in this thread actually care about any of the real affects this law will have? If someone actually does please let me know I'd love to try and gain some insight if someone will be even slightly intellectual about it.

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...

 

[deckart]

I don't understand what the issue is. The law simply lays out some common sense self-defense issues that probably held up the courts because it was not defined before the law was passed.

If you don't want to protect yourself, then don't. If someone has to shoot an intruder in their own home to protect themselves, what's the issue? I don't get it?

These kind of laws will help to prevent such situations in the first place. When criminals realize that entering a citizens home in a way that threatens that citizen could cost them their life, it may very well deter them from even considering it.

 

[Smurf]

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. All this law is suppose to do is to protect the victim...

Does it though? You could get sued for injuring a burglar before even if they were getting convicted of armed robbery at the same time. This is a criminal law, will it affect civil courts at all? And of course, is it the most effective way to do it?

This law is really simple...if you believe you should not be able to kill someone to prevent them from killing you then it is a bad law. If you believe you should be able to kill someone so you are not going to be killed by them then this is a good law.

Again, this over-simplification is the kind of corrupt argument that is the reason your country has these problems in the first place. If your policy makers think the same way you do it's no wonder these bills get passed.

What else is there to say?

Hmmm maybe that self defence was already a legal defence? 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? Was there even any cases where a person was convicted for killing in self defence before? You might actually ask yourself wether this law was even necessary?

YOU MIGHT EVEN CONSIDER that this law undermines the judicial position. That it takes power from appointed, trained, impartial courts with tried and true methods of determining innocents and puts it into the hands of the same individuals that shout "Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!" Every time they see someone get punched in the face? You might actually realize that this law applies to you AND the criminal. That if you sneak up on someone you might get shot. That, by your own insistance, it is more likely you will get shot by a "criminal" than by anyone else, and that this law protects them if they do?

Considering it's affects on civil law is another one of course pointed out by yourself.

Stop being daft this is unnecessary simplification and you should know that.

 

[Anttech]

If you don't want to protect yourself, then don't. If someone has to shoot an intruder in their own home to protect themselves, what's the issue? I don't get it?

The issue, my friend, is that America is getting more and more lax towards guns and killing, not more strick... Thats the issue

Because you would not be free, you would be ruled by whoever had the biggest guns

You are really a closet solcialist arent you mmmhhuuaaaaa, I have warped Towsends mind

 

[Smurf]

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...

Okay. Good, we're getting somewhere. Now why?

Here's my argument. I'll start simple.

The State Attorney's Office investigated and filed no charges, which critics of the new law cite as evidence that self-defense provisions already were sufficient. Peaden said Workman should have been spared the investigation.

Peaden is the guy who pioneered the bill. It stands to reason that the intent of this bill is to eliminate the investigation al-together. This undermines the court's and the police's ability to ensure law and order.

Respond!

 

[Townsend]

Okay. Good, we're getting somewhere. Now why?

Here's my argument. I'll start simple.


Peaden is the guy who pioneered the bill. It stands to reason that the intent of this bill is to eliminate the investigation al-together. This undermines the court's and the police's ability to ensure law and order.

Respond!

I agree that current laws were sufficent and I see no point to this in general. However don't see how anything is different. I am pretty sure there would still have to be an investigation to make sure that the person was in fact acting in self defense but that is pretty much what happens now, right? So there it seems like there is no net change...

 

[Townsend]

You are really a closet solcialist arent you mmmhhuuaaaaa, I have warped Towsends mind

No...I want people to have as much freedom as possible. I see the purpose of government as being there to protect the individual from those who would violate their rights.

 

[deckart]

Okay. Good, we're getting somewhere. Now why?

Here's my argument. I'll start simple.


Peaden is the guy who pioneered the bill. It stands to reason that the intent of this bill is to eliminate the investigation al-together. This undermines the court's and the police's ability to ensure law and order.

Respond!

Undermine the courts? The courts interpret the law. This is a law we are talking about. The courts no longer have to debate this issue. The difference here is that in the US a person has right and the responsibility to come to his own conclusions concerning his personal safety.

 

[edward]

Most states require that a person must feel that he is in immenent danger of death or great bodily harm before that person may use lethal force or a deadly weapon to defend himself/herself.

There are vague areas because the threatened person must make that deciscion. And not all people percieve threats in the same, or in a consistent manner.

The laws do not just apply to firearms. A knife, a baseball bat, or even a big old rock are considered to be lethal weapons.

 

[Smurf]

I agree that current laws were sufficent and I see no point to this in general. However don't see how anything is different. I am pretty sure there would still have to be an investigation to make sure that the person was in fact acting in self defense but that is pretty much what happens now, right? So there it seems like there is no net change...

Like I said, in Canada we have something called "Excessive Force". Self defence is not a liscence to kill - this law appears to be giving people this liscence.

 

[deckart]

Like I said, in Canada we have something called "Excessive Force". Self defence is not a liscence to kill - this law appears to be giving people this liscence.

No one here is disputing the self defense laws of Canada. We are talking about US law and the rights of people to protect themselves in their own home. Being in Canada, you don't have to like it, and you don't have to live here.

 

[Smurf]

Obviously. But I was under the impression there would be something similar in the US. Is this not true?

 

[deckart]

It depends on how the victim perceives the situation.

If an investigation finds that the victim went above and beyond what was required, for example... he reloaded and continued to "defend" his life then, of course, he would be in a little trouble.

 

[Smurf]

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?

 

[Townsend]

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?

Of course it's illegal in Flordia...that person would be charged with murder. I can't believe that you would think it's otherwise.

 

[Smurf]

Hell no...that person would be charged with murder. I can't believe that you think that..

Good, I'd expect them to be charged with murder. In Canada that principle is called "Excessive Force".

 

[Townsend]

Good, I'd expect them to be charged with murder. In Canada that principle is called "Excessive Force".

Whatever you want to call it is fine but it's murder either way.

 

[deckart]

Actually, I've heard the term "Excessive Force" used but usually referring to police.

 

[pattylou]

Seriously, does anyone in this thread actually care about any of the real affects this law will have? If someone actually does please let me know I'd love to try and gain some insight if someone will be even slightly intellectual about it.

Yeah. I do.

 

[pattylou]

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.

Reference please. Thanks Townsend.

 

[deckart]

Reference please. Thanks Townsend.

------------>

 

[Smurf]

Whatever you want to call it is fine but it's murder either way.

Exactly self defence is not an excuse for murder.

 

[deckart]

Exactly self defence is not an excuse for murder.

But it can excuse an incidental death caused by one defending their life and in some states, their property.

 

[pattylou]

------------>

I have a problem with exaggerations.

 

[deckart]

I have a problem with exaggerations.

exaggerations like "1000x"?

 

[0TheSwerve0]

The right to bear arms is a right our country was founded on. And that will never change.

It's also based on racism and "othering" in general. Can you see a connection between the two? Perhaps if we didn't have an extremely stratified society based on race, sex, and economic class, we wouldn't have to deal with this problem in the first place. If this cycle of oppression were snuffed out, gang violence would probably decrease...cause there wouldn't be so many people born into it. It's like the laws on education - high schools that have higher SAT scores get more funding. Those who are poor (usu with low SAT scores) to begin with get poorer and less able to educate their students while the rich get a better education and consequently richer. How about some social changes first?

 

[deckart]

It's also based on racism and "othering" in general. Can you see a connection between the two? Perhaps if we didn't have an extremely stratified society based on race, sex, and economic class, we wouldn't have to deal with this problem in the first place. If this cycle of oppression were snuffed out, gang violence would probably decrease...cause there wouldn't be so many people born into it. It's like the laws on education - high schools that have higher SAT scores get more funding. Those who are poor (usu with low SAT scores) to begin with get poorer and less able to educate their students while the rich get a better education and consequently richer. How about some social changes first?

Our country is based on racism?

As far as the rest of your rant, I'm not even going to comment. You've completely gone off the subject.

Maybe start another post concerning your "social changes". I'll gladly debate you there.

 

[pattylou]

exaggerations like "1000x"?

Indeed. Which is why I asked for feedback on that quote, which was not anything I personally ever said.

I have a problem with exaggerations. Thank you for pointing out my consistency between these two different threads.

This is also why I have a problem with posters saying things like (for example) environmentalists claim that we'll need to spend billions to fix the climate problem etc.

It's beyond a gross mirepresentation. It's playing on emotions, and has no basis in fact.

 

[deckart]

Indeed. Which is why I asked for feedback on that quote, which was not anything I personally ever said.

I have a problem with exaggerations. Thank you for pointing out my consistency between these two different threads.

This is also why I have a problem with posters saying things like (for example) environmentalists claim that we'll need to spend billions to fix the climate problem etc.

It's beyond a gross mirepresentation. It's playing on emotions, and has no basis in fact.

just giving you a hard time, patty

 

[Archon]

Our country is based on racism?

Remember slavery? Where do you think almost all of the labor in the South came from until the Civil War? Why do you think we needed to amend the Constitution to grant equality to African-Americans? (Hint: Because initially, they were counted as 3/5 of a person. And of course, most of the founding fathers had slaves...)

So yes, to some extent it certainly is.

 

[deckart]

Our country "certainly" is not based on slavery. period.

 

[Archon]

Our country "certainly" is not based on slavery. period.

Is that the extent of your argument, or are you going to say why? It is, after all, customary for a debate to have two different sides attacking and counterattacking. It's now your turn to counterattack by addressing my points and perhaps even making a few of your own.

I could say "I *certainly* am not composed of atoms. Period." But this doesn't make it true.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Our country is based on racism?

As far as the rest of your rant, I'm not even going to comment. You've completely gone off the subject.

Maybe start another post concerning your "social changes". I'll gladly debate you there.

It's not a rant, it's an deconstruction of our culture. Manifest destiny mean anything to you? I agree that it is off your own arguments, but that doesn't mean that it isn't an important point. I guess you'd rather debate for the sake of debating instead of acknowledging anything useful. I'm not interested in debating you.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Our country "certainly" is not based on slavery. period.

It may not be based on slavery, but it is structured around Western dualism with some neato excuses for why white males should be allowed to control everyone else they deem "inferior." Which in turn led to slavery...

 

[Townsend]

Reference please. Thanks Townsend.

BURGLAR SUES HOMEOWNER

Terrence Dickson of Bristol, PA finished burglarizing a house and left through the garage. The door to the house locked behind him and the automatic door opener in the garage wasn’t working so he was stuck. The family was on vacation and Dickson was trapped in the garage for 8 days. He lived on dog food and Pepsi (and you thought it wasn’t good for you!). When he got out, he sued the homeowner for mental anguish. A jury awarded him $500,000.

http://www.wellsinsagency.com/articles/do_it_yourself.htm

Should trespassers and burglars be able to sue if they're hurt while
committing a crime?

We look at the decision handed down in Sydney last week where a drunken teenager who entered onto private property and was beaten up by the occupant was awarded $50,000 in damages.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/lawrpt/stories/s664402.htm

Fearon, 33, hopes to sue Martin for a reported £15,000 following his wounding during a break-in at the farmer's home in Emneth Hungate, Norfolk, in August 1999.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/norfolk/2987642.stm

Traditional distinctions based upon a person's status on your property have given way to a general obligation to all persons entering upon your property. Under this trend, you may be responsible for personal injuries sustained by anyone who is on your property, regardless of status. Thus, some states even will hold you responsible for personal injuries suffered by trespassers who come on your property. It could be possible in some states for you to be held responsible for the personal injury suffered by a burglar who comes on your property.

http://injury.freeadvice.com/injury_help.php/144_10_366.htm

Are you happy? Finding links is such a waste of time...

 

[edward]

Exactly self defence is not an excuse for murder.

Unless the offending person is about to beat your brains out with a baseball bat. It depends on the situation. If faced by someone whom you are convinced is going to kill you, you might be surprised at what you would do to save your own life or the life of a loved one.

If you see or hear an intruder in your home and it is obvious that you can make it out of the door and run for help, definitely do that.

If some one has a weapon and demands the keys to your car, give him the keys, the car is covered by insurance.

On the other hand if you are awaked in the middle of the night by a stranger standing over you with a weapon in his hand, there are only two options.
Beg for mercy, or fight for your life.

 

[solutions in a box]

I don't think that most people can even begin to comprehend what it is like to have to kill someone, whether it is in self defence or in combat. Yet many drive recklessly on the highways which can cause death in an instant.

Do you people think that you have a fairy god mother who is going to protect you?

Not to freighten anyone, but the latest tactic used by burglers to defeat your alarm system is to cut your phone line on the outside of the house. The alarm still sounds when it is triggered, but unless you have an expensive system that uses a cell phone, the alarm company is not called. When the bad guys enter the house they rip the squealing alarm off of the wall and stuff it inside of your refrigerator and close the door.

I could also describe the home invasion tactics that the meth freaks are statrting to use but you might not be able to sleep for a week.

 

[pattylou]

http://www.wellsinsagency.com/articles/do_it_yourself.htm



http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/lawrpt/stories/s664402.htm



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/norfolk/2987642.stm



http://injury.freeadvice.com/injury_help.php/144_10_366.htm

Are you happy? Finding links is such a waste of time...

Thank you Townsend.

No, I'm not happy, for two reasons. I realize I'm being a pain, but I'm sticking to my guns.

First, anyone of those situations is more damaging than getting a splinter. You were exaggerating. If it is OK to be able to *shoot someone in public,* in self defense, then an argument to be able to do so should not need to rely on exaggeration. (I'm sorry for singling you out, nothing personal.)

Second, yes, it is unreal that the guy in pennsylvania won his case... What the hell kind of garage door opener doesn't have a latch to turn it off and open the door manually? In fact, the story was so bizarre I went to snopes. Turns out it never happened.

http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp

The second story is from Australia, the third from England, the fourth from a injury attroneys website, presumably trying to drum up business. IOW, there's nothing in those four sources that indicate the need for more lax gun laws.

 

[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?