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

[pattylou]

You don't even need to draw your gun. Any sensible thief will spring away as soon as he knows he's been sighted.

Our house alarm recently went off. The man who was trying to get into the garage, left immediately. He spun off in his car, and I seriously doubt that this car belonged to someone else.

We didn't have to kill this guy, and he hasn't been back, he knows we have a house alarm that will wake the entire neighborhood.

This law is just stupid. Let's transform our society inot something even more violent than it already is. *That'll* teach those thieves! </sarcasm>

 

[pattylou]

LA is a big city...I could point you to parts of town where you wouldn't last more than 5 minutes before being beaten, robbed and rapped if not killed just because of who you are. That is a FACT and no one seems to be thinking about it.

Yes, please do. Please cite the specific neighborhoods. I'd like to get some statistics, rather than one conservative individual's opinion.

References would be nice too, but I'll dig those up if you provide the locations.

If you *can't* identify specific parts of LA where people are beaten up within 5 minutes, then I'll assume you were shooting you mouth off for no productive reason, just to incite anger.

So? Where would I be beaten up within 5 minutes, raped and so on, because I am a white woman?

 

[Anttech]

Right well I don't mean drugs by themselves but the entire drug industry within America. I mean the organized crime, the gangs and what have you...

I'm not really talking about just the end users here but also the suppliers...I don't think the UK has massive gangs and the same level of organized crime as the US does

Who do you think makes all that XTC? Europe has just as much organised crime as the US, its just our movie business is smaller so it hasnt been as highlighted as in the US.

London has many Jamican Gangs, Russian Mafia, Croatian, Romainian Gangs even Tri-ads ... We have it all...

The reason again why we have more crime but less deadly crime is because our "Culture" has way more respect for Guns, and it seems life... If someone here desides to be a "Bad Boy" he doesn't need a Gun typcialy because he knows that the person he is going to rob won't have one either... It is the opposite in the States

http://www.mcrkba.org/Letters/38.html

London gangs' £25bn profits

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/uk/2001/life_of_crime/crime.stm

52 murders (33 in London) in 1999 were thought to be linked to organised crime

 

[Townsend]

Yes, please do. Please cite the specific neighborhoods. I'd like to get some statistics, rather than one conservative individual's opinion.

I'm Libertarian...geez... then nerve of some people...

References would be nice too, but I'll dig those up if you provide the locations.

How about videos of it the things that happen...would that be enough? I have seen some very graphic ones so if your interested Ill post those.

If you *can't* identify specific parts of LA where people are beaten up within 5 minutes, then I'll assume you were shooting you mouth off for no productive reason, just to incite anger.

Pacoima, certain street in compton, Pomona...I'll think of more later on.

Here is an quick link to get you started.http://lang.dailynews.com/socal/gangs/articles/dnp3_gang3.asp

So? Where would I be beaten up within 5 minutes, raped and so on, because I am a white woman?

I never said it was because you were a white woman. I said it was because of who you are...you could be a white woman and safe but you could not be you and be safe.
(and of course 5 minutes was obviously an embellishment)

 

[Anttech]

Pacoima, certain street in compton, Pomona...I'll think of more later on.

Here is an quick link to get you started.http://lang.dailynews.com/socal/gan.../dnp3_gang3.asp

And you still don't think there is a coralation between your total lack of respect for Guns and Gun crime...

 

[hitssquad]

Crime and the g factor of human mental ability

sensible thief is pretty much an oxymoron.

No it's not

http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/robbery_types.html

"It is [...] a serious misconception that ALL criminals are stupid.
[...]
You [...] know who is NOT going to rob you. Older, smarter, slicker, hard working criminals, who know that the rewards are not worth the risk, generally aren't the ones doing robberies.

And that leaves you facing the dregs of the criminal world.
[...]
Most often robbers are the youngest, stupidist, laziest of all criminals. These individuals are the most pathological, sociopathic and dysfunctional morons of the criminal world and they are the most violent. These are the guys who are so stupid and lazy that they only pry themselves up 'to work' to engage in the least well paying, most violent and most risky of crimes."

 

[McGyver]

CA Gov. Schwarzng's Handling of Violence in Movie "Twins"

There are many ways to view this new legislation. It is often very difficult while out in public to discern HOW and WHAT one might define as a perceived THREAT to life and health, and, what OPTIONS for response and recourse might be available to the victim. Age, physical strength, mental alertness and quickness, and any training in engagement all will play a major role in the victim's ableness to respond, and the CHOICES he/she might choose. I'm sure I agree with "blanket legislation" such as this - because it will likely lead to some potential victims resorting to the last form of defense, deadly force, rather than exhausing other less extreme options. In my experience, if at all possible, it is better to talk rather than fight. A few wise words at the right moment can diffuse a potentially tragic incident.

Yet, I have no doubt there are occassions out in public that access to deadly force would be proper. However, those that use it will required to demonstrate substantial proof in a police investigation, and even if they successfully meet this burden, they could later be found "at fault" for monetary damages in a civil trial. Be aware!

I can't help but think how now CA-Governor Arnold used negitiations, superior logic and alertness, and eventually his size and training to defeat assailants in the movie, "Twins."

Well, perhaps a best case scenario! It was a movie.

 

[pattylou]

I'm Libertarian...geez... then nerve of some people...

Sorry...

How about videos of it the things that happen...would that be enough? I have seen some very graphic ones so if your interested Ill post those.

No, that wouldn't address the issue at all. I am pretty sure people don't keep video of the hours and hours and hours of nonviolence that occurs in these more dangerous neighborhoods. The gist of your post was that you walk into a part of town and BOOM you're dead. That's wrong.

Pacoima, certain street in compton, Pomona...I'll think of more later on.

Here is an quick link to get you started.http://lang.dailynews.com/socal/gan.../dnp3_gang3.asp

Thank you. I'll look up some crime and violence statistics.

(and of course 5 minutes was an obviously embellishment)

Thank you for acknowledging that. :)

 

[pattylou]

I have been surprised to see most violent crimes in LA down 50% since 1992. It isn't because the citizens are given permission to shoot "threatening" people; it's because the police force has reorganised their beats and numbers on the street (according to the LAPD.) It would seem we can reduce crime ... without telling citizens to arm themselves!

http://www.lapdonline.org/pdf_files/crime_stats/wkly_stats/2005_crime_summary.pdf

Haven't found the specific staitistics that i was looking for, but I'll keep at it - later.

 

[moose]

Why not just ban Guns outright---

Ohh wait that's against the 1st amemnent, American's right to walk up to people and shoot them, if they look at them wrong then pay top noch lawers to get them out of jail scot free... And Pengwuino thinks Candains are cute.. haha

An armed society is a polite society

Countries which completely ban firearms usually have much higher crime rates...

 

[moose]

and carrying a concealed weapon should always be illegal.

I hope you are joking!

Criminals won't care if carrying concealed weapons is legal or not.

Second of all, crime rates went down drastically in Arizona after concealed weapon permits were more easily attainable because criminals weren't sure if someone has means of defending themselves anymore...

I don't know, I'm not familiar with the American situation. But from the sounds of this thread none of you yanks have any faith in your police force. Suggest a few reformations perhapse?

Ok, the police force in my area is good, but there are times when you cannot rely on police. For example, if someone is about to kill you, there is no way you can call the police and wait a few minutes etc...

Also, if something is stolen, chances are you will never get it back. No matter how good the police is, how in the world would they find what the person stole if the criminal is even somewhat smart?

 

[loseyourname]

I have been surprised to see most violent crimes in LA down 50% since 1992. It isn't because the citizens are given permission to shoot "threatening" people; it's because the police force has reorganised their beats and numbers on the street (according to the LAPD.) It would seem we can reduce crime ... without telling citizens to arm themselves!

http://www.lapdonline.org/pdf_files/crime_stats/wkly_stats/2005_crime_summary.pdf

Haven't found the specific staitistics that i was looking for, but I'll keep at it - later.

Remember the Rampart Scandal? In large part, the violent crime rate in Los Angeles went down because the LAPD was violating the civil rights of known gang members, planting evidence to put away criminals who kept slipping through the system.

It's nice of you to be a martyr, patty, but there is nothing natural or civilized about a person that would rather die than kill. Yours is simply one point of view. Ethically speaking, it has been almost universally accepted in western civilization that the use of deadly force to protect oneself from deadly force (kill or be killed) is acceptable. I don't see how you can call your perspective more respectful of life, either. How is allowing your own life to end any more respectful than ending someone else's life? Especially when that person legally and morally deserved it and you did not.

 

[loseyourname]

An armed society is a polite society

Countries which completely ban firearms usually have much higher crime rates...

DC is the only US city I can think of that banned firearms a while back. San Francisco may have done so recently. DC also happened to be the murder capital of the country for a very long time until it was finally overtaken by St. Louis several years ago. The firearms ban didn't seem to help them a whole lot.

 

[pattylou]

For example, if someone is about to kill you...

Come on. Get real. How many times has this happened to you?

How many times has this happened to someone you know?

How many times have you heard about this sort of scenario on your local news?

(I'm guessing the number is pretty small.)

I have a sister who was raped in her house. Let's say she had shot the guy as he was leaving (I'm pretty sure she wouldn't have the gun on her as a matter of course when she's in the house, and the rape would not have been prevented.)

In that case she would have *two* traumatic events to overcome. She was never in danger of being killed, either, although I am sure she feared for her life.

And yes, he was caught. IIRC, before any more women were raped. He was a barbarian, and there but for the grace of God go any of us. You might wish that she had killed the guy, but she has never expressed such a desire to us.

Yes, the world is a mess. The question is whether this measure helps overall.

 

[moose]

DC is the only US city I can think of that banned firearms a while back. San Francisco may have done so recently. DC also happened to be the murder capital of the country for a very long time until it was finally overtaken by St. Louis several years ago. The firearms ban didn't seem to help them a whole lot.

I said countries, but you can also look at where gun laws a stricter, such as california.

 

[pattylou]

Remember the Rampart Scandal? In large part, the violent crime rate in Los Angeles went down because the LAPD was violating the civil rights of known gang members, planting evidence to put away criminals who kept slipping through the system.

No, I don't remember that.

It's nice of you to be a martyr, patty,

Thanks. I'm not saying it to be nice, but because I'd rather defend the *part* of my *self* that I care about. If you care more about the physical working of your anatomy, than about your ideals and ethics, then fine. Kill other people. Your anatomy should survive it. Your sense of self *won't.*

Yours is simply one point of view.

As is Pengwuinos. How should we deccide which POV should govern law?

Ethically speaking, it has been almost universally accepted in western civilization that the use of deadly force to protect oneself from deadly force (kill or be killed) is acceptable.

No, it has been a POV that has governed which laws are passed.

I don't see how you can call your perspective more respectful of life, either. How is allowing your own life to end any more respectful than ending someone else's life? Especially when that person legally and morally deserved it and you did not.

I said it was more respectful of self.

 

[Art]

Remember the Rampart Scandal? In large part, the violent crime rate in Los Angeles went down because the LAPD was violating the civil rights of known gang members, planting evidence to put away criminals who kept slipping through the system.

It's nice of you to be a martyr, patty, but there is nothing natural or civilized about a person that would rather die than kill. Yours is simply one point of view. Ethically speaking, it has been almost universally accepted in western civilization that the use of deadly force to protect oneself from deadly force (kill or be killed) is acceptable. I don't see how you can call your perspective more respectful of life, either. How is allowing your own life to end any more respectful than ending someone else's life? Especially when that person legally and morally deserved it and you did not.

You appear to be assuming that all criminals intend to kill while perpetrating a crime?

I am sure most criminals and the vast majority of crimes are to do with plunder rather than murder.

As theft is wrong there are laws against it and a police force to enforce those laws. Encouraging people to 'defend' themselves through the use of firearms changes a relatively minor crime into a major incident where somebody ends up dead.

In the worst case that dead person is the robbery victim, killed whils defending him / herself but it is also a travesty if some kid ends up being killed for committing a crime that the law has proscribed is only punishable by a few months or years in gaol.

To me the answer is not more guns but better crime prevention and detection.

 

[pattylou]

Other parts of the world see a reduction when bans are in place:

http://www.hdcentre.org/datastore/Small%20arms/JAMA_article.pdf

 

[loseyourname]

You appear to be assuming that all criminals intend to kill while perpetrating a crime?

How so? I haven't mentioned any crime other than assault with a deadly weapon. I am assuming that when someone assaults you with a deadly weapon, they intend to kill, or at least likely will kill, whether intentional or not.

As theft is wrong there are laws against it and a police force to enforce those laws. Encouraging people to 'defend' themselves through the use of firearms changes a relatively minor crime into a major incident where somebody ends up dead.

Great. When did I mention anything about theft?

 

[loseyourname]

No, I don't remember that.

How on Earth do you not remember that? How long have you been living in Southern California? It was the biggest story in the news for a long time.

Thanks. I'm not saying it to be nice, but because I'd rather defend the *part* of my *self* that I care about. If you care more about the physical working of your anatomy, than about your ideals and ethics, then fine. Kill other people. Your anatomy should survive it. Your sense of self *won't.*

Wrong, patty. Your sense of self would be damaged. I don't define my self by the fact that it has not yet ended a human life. If it should do so, and the act is justified, I will lose nothing.

As is Pengwuinos. How should we deccide which POV should govern law?

You two are representing rather extreme points of view. This law, and pretty much every other law that exists in this country regarding matters like these, are governed by points of view that lie somewhere in between.

No, it has been a POV that has governed which laws are passed.

The only ethical philosopher in the western tradition who is part of the 'canon' that I can think who does not agree that killing in self-defense in justified is Kant. It is more than just a legal point of view. You might argue that Jesus seemed to say we shouldn't, but the Christian tradition itself, and the Judaic tradition before it, never seemed all that squeamish about killing for a multitude of reasons.

I said it was more respectful of self.

Is your self going to live on after your body dies? If you believe that, then so be it. Not all of us do.

 

[Art]

How so? I haven't mentioned any crime other than assault with a deadly weapon. I am assuming that when someone assaults you with a deadly weapon, they intend to kill, or at least likely will kill, whether intentional or not.
Great. When did I mention anything about theft?

Silly of me I mistakenly thought your post was related to the OP wherein a new law is cited whereby people are being given the right to shoot people who 'threaten' their personal space.

However as you have now made it clear you were referring only to homicidal maniacs and serial killers do you really think that given the very small odds of meeting one of them, carrying a firearm is really justified?

 

[edward]

So? Where would I be beaten up within 5 minutes, raped and so on, because I am a white woman?

Actually South Central Las Angeles is a good place to get beaten and robbed. At night it is almost guaranteed. The is a particularly nasty area in Miami to avoid. Nearly every major city has a section where it is not safe to visit or walk alone.

Biological researchers at the University Of Arizona are not allowed to do field work within 40 miles of the Border unless they are accompanied by an armed guard. Drug runners and people smugglers are now carrying automatic weapons.

At my request ICE agents did surveillance on the house across the street from mine. It is on a hill top and surrounded by a heavy metal fence. Just after dark one evening I got a call telling me to keep low. A swat team came down the street in an armored personnel carrier, they flew up the driveway to the house and crashed through the metal gate.

They quickly smashed in the door and tossed in a flash bang grenade, of course I wasn't keeping low I was watching the whole thing. When it was all over they had seized 4000 lbs of pot, 20 lbs of meth and 43 lbs of cocaine. The part that really concerned me was that they also seized 4 AK 47,s and 450 rounds of ammunition. Three men were arrested.

About two weeks later an ICE agent came to talk to me. He told me that a judge had set the bail too low and that the guys had made bail and skipped out of town. Later I found out that this is typical when a Mexican gang is involved. The judges don't want to have to deal with any possible reprisals.

Do I live in a high crime area? No I live in an upper middle class area. Am I armed? Yes at all times.

 

[deckart]

Generally, as Americans, we have the right to defend ourselves with deadly force. It's a basic right. Most people, in their right mind, will kill before being killed. Even if it lands them in jail. But, it most certainly is not murder to defend yourself. That's rediculous.

 

[pattylou]

How on Earth do you not remember that? How long have you been living in Southern California? It was the biggest story in the news for a long time.

I ...don't. Moved here in '94. Possibly I didn't watch the news, or possibly I have forgotten it. I don't remember "The Rampart Scandal." Sorry.

Wrong, patty. Your sense of self would be damaged. I don't define my self by the fact that it has not yet ended a human life. If it should do so, and the act is justified, I will lose nothing.

Why would my sense of self be damaged? I can easily accept that to kill someone is within your ethics. It isn't within mine.

You two are representing rather extreme points of view. This law, and pretty much every other law that exists in this country regarding matters like these, are governed by points of view that lie somewhere in between.

I agree with that.

The only ethical philosopher in the western tradition who is part of the 'canon' that I can think who does not agree that killing in self-defense in justified is Kant. It is more than just a legal point of view. You might argue that Jesus seemed to say we shouldn't, but the Christian tradition itself, and the Judaic tradition before it, never seemed all that squeamish about killing for a multitude of reasons.

I've always been more fond of Jesus than Christianity in general, or the OT in particular.

Is your self going to live on after your body dies? If you believe that, then so be it. Not all of us do.

I don't hold a belief one way or the other. I'm agnostic. I think the fact that we *can't know* what happens when we die, is sufficient reason to behave as though we do survive it, even though I put the odds of survival of death at close to zero.

But it doesn't matter. You survive the choice to kill someone. Whether you survive it for a second or thirty years, if you make the choice to kill someone you can never unmake that particular choice. You can decide that you were wrong, perhaps, in hindsight. There's always redemption, after all.

 

[Townsend]

You survive the choice to kill someone. Whether you survive it for a second or thirty years, if you make the choice to kill someone you can never unmake that particular choice. You can decide that you were wrong, perhaps, in hindsight. There's always redemption, after all.

As I have said before...I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by six. However I no desire to kill anyone. If someone were to break into my house they can take whatever they want. The only thing I would care about is my own safety and that of friends and family in the house with me. As long as the burglars don't try to harm anyone he or she wouldn't have to fear me.

But how do I know if this person would be willing to hurt someone? I don't so I get everyone together in one room and lock the door. I train the muzzle at the door and wait...if they leave I call the police and report the crime. If they decide to come through that door, that person is dead. It's not something I would want to happen but I would rather kill them than be killed.

 

[motai]

But how do I know if this person would be willing to hurt someone? I don't so I get everyone together in one room and lock the door. I train the muzzle at the door and wait...if they leave I call the police and report the crime. If they decide to come through that door, that person is dead. It's not something I would want to happen but I would rather kill them than be killed.

It seems like criminals, when doing an invasion of a home, will be willing and able to use violence on the people that they are raiding. Especially if they had a history of violent behavior.

If only those criminals knew what destruction they do to families of the victims when they turn a regular robbery into a homicide or murder.

 

[deckart]

They know, they just don't care.

 

[Entropy]

I don't understand how a gun can help you if you get ambushed. You'd think someone would just walk behind you then stick the gun to your head. You wouldn't be able to pull out your gun. Or if he pulls the gun out first (which is probably the case), how could you shoot him before he shoots you?

The only ethical philosopher in the western tradition who is part of the 'canon' that I can think who does not agree that killing in self-defense in justified is Kant. It is more than just a legal point of view. You might argue that Jesus seemed to say we shouldn't, but the Christian tradition itself, and the Judaic tradition before it, never seemed all that squeamish about killing for a multitude of reasons.

Jews can kill under strict criteria. Christians cannot kill, period. The crusades and stuff are not part of the bible.

 

[loseyourname]

Silly of me I mistakenly thought your post was related to the OP wherein a new law is cited whereby people are being given the right to shoot people who 'threaten' their personal space.

I think you're mistaking what Pengwuino wants the law to be for what it actually is. From what I remember, it says that you can legally kill someone who is a threat to your life, not someone who is invading your personal space.

In fact, this is already what murder laws everywhere in the country state. The difference is that, in most cases, the killer would have to prove self-defense in court. If I can put forth a guess, this law in Florida is probably trying to reduce waste in the legal system by not prosecuting people who they know are going to get off because they are not guilty of any crime to begin with. To he honest, I'm not entirely sure why this is necessary, because it seems to me that the prosecutor can already decide not to file a charge if it is obvious that the person was acting in self-defense, but perhaps I am wrong.

However as you have now made it clear you were referring only to homicidal maniacs and serial killers do you really think that given the very small odds of meeting one of them, carrying a firearm is really justified?

Come on, Art, how are we supposed to engage in meaningful discussion if we intentionally misrepresent each other's arguments? You know I'm not talking about coming across a homocidal maniac. All I've said is that, in the instance where a person is a direct threat to your life, you are justified in killing that person before they kill you. I don't care if you do it with a gun, a knife, your bare hands, or your terrible looks. This is in response to patty's contention that one should never kill under any circumstances. It isn't in response to the OP or to the Florida Law.

 

[loseyourname]

I ...don't. Moved here in '94. Possibly I didn't watch the news, or possibly I have forgotten it. I don't remember "The Rampart Scandal." Sorry.

Fair enough. You must have been really busy at the time. Anyway, you should look it up, because I get the feeling that rogue police tactics like the kind uncovered in this scandal had a lot to do with reducing the violent crime rate in Los Angeles. It just raises that age-old question: Which do we value more? Civil liberties, which can often take the form of obviously guilty heinous criminals getting off on technicalities, or security?

Why would my sense of self be damaged? I can easily accept that to kill someone is within your ethics. It isn't within mine.

I meant that your sense of self would be damaged if you killed someone. At least, that seemed to be what you were implying when you said that I would lose my sense of self if I were to kill. I'm pretty certain that I would not. My sense of self would be altered, but it is hardly a static thing to begin with. I don't mind having to re-evaluate what it means to be Adam.

I've always been more fond of Jesus than Christianity in general, or the OT in particular.

Still, you get my point. I'm mostly working in the secular tradition here. Our legal system does derive from older ethical theories as well as from British Common Law. For the most part, western ethicists have agreed that it is justified to kill to protect oneself from being killed.

But it doesn't matter. You survive the choice to kill someone. Whether you survive it for a second or thirty years, if you make the choice to kill someone you can never unmake that particular choice. You can decide that you were wrong, perhaps, in hindsight. There's always redemption, after all.

There are plenty of choices I can never unmake, and even the bad ones I don't regret. What would be the point? And again, why would I regret or even feel bad about doing something that I think is justified? As far as I am concerned, a person forfeits his own life when he makes the decision to attempt to take mine. It is his choice to die as much as it is mine to kill him.