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

[Anttech]

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

http://www.hdcentre.org/datastore/S...AMA_article.pdf

Correct!

As I have stated twice already, the UK has a higher crime rate that the US, but a FAR lower muder rate. The reason is simply becuase a would be criminal in the UK is far less likely to carry a gun, because they are far less likely to rob/mug/do other illegal stuff towards an armed person...

It follows that having very tough gun laws (including shooting people in self defence) and removing a "Gun culture" from a country decrease the deadly faitality rate...

The only problem with implementing this in America is that you crossed the line many years ago, and Guns and gun culture is engrained into your Psyche.

 

[devil-fire]

i don't think i understand the thinking of these law makers, even after reading all these posts. the former law said you first had to try to avoid being killed before killing your aggressor (if you hear someone break into your house maybe hide under your bed and shoot if they find you instead of stand in the hallway with a gun pointed, waiting for them to pop their heads around the corner?) but now you can really kill first and think later. in some situation it may save your life to shoot at the dark figure in the night but in most cases its your daughter who dropped a glass of water and was coming to your bedroom to ask you to clean it up.

on the point of criminals being crazy and will kill anyone without hesitating, it sounds like they are defending themselves while they rob stuff. i mean the guy must be thinking "i'm liable to get shot in here by granny or by 6 year-old-bill so i might as well kill anything that moves or breaths first thing". moral or otherwise, those robbers have an interest in killing people instead of running since it'll just get them shot in the back.

if someone is in my house ill first call 911 with the hope the police will arrive while the criminal is in my house and save me from confronting the criminal at all. i Could take one of the sharpened swords off my cabinet and try to slice his head off soon as i can (where i live, i don't think a punk would carry a gun, but maybe a knife instead so i think i would trump him with the katana) but I'm concern about missing and getting stabbed in return, killing my dog instead, hurting the guy and later finding out it was a family member and most of all, I'm concern that i might kill someone who dosn't need to die. someone may think its completely agreeable to shoot someone as they walk away with my tv but i duno, i kind of respect human life more then my tv. i mean if i really put more value on a tv then the life of some chump, i would be stealing tvs.

 

[devil-fire]

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?

the best thing to do is norrow technicalities so obviously guilty heinous criminals don't get off on them. its a lot more work then giving up civil liberties but i think its worth it in the long run.

 

[Smurf]

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...

 

[Townsend]

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...

I don't think I have a right to kill but I do have a right to not be killed and if one of two people MUST be killed then it should be the person who WANTS to do the killing that should be killed and not the person who just wants to live.

I suppose it's just a matter of perspective...from your perspective I guess that a person should just sit there while their murderer kills them and then hope that the police catch the person and that they are put in prison so they don't continue to kill other people. And that is fine if you believe that Smurf. You are entitled to act on your beliefs, all that I am asking is that you take a reasonable look at my beliefs and then tell me that you're perspective is the correct one that everyone should have to follow.

 

[Townsend]

Correct!

As I have stated twice already, the UK has a higher crime rate that the US, but a FAR lower muder rate. The reason is simply becuase a would be criminal in the UK is far less likely to carry a gun, because they are far less likely to rob/mug/do other illegal stuff towards an armed person...

I believe that tiny little increased risk of being killed is more than worth it if it means I can keep the right to bear arms. If you took away all the guns in the world it really doesn't give me a much better chance to live...it hardly makes any difference at all.

If freedoms mean nothing to you and all you want is to save lives then why take away a freedom that hardly kills very many people at all? You could take away people's right to eat whatever they want...Americans are fat and we have a very high risk of death due to it. Make America leaner and you will save many more lives than taking guns out of our homes. Make smoking illegal and you will save many times the number of people who die from guns.

The point is, is guns are a liberty...they are something we would have a right to unless the government took it away. It is not something that we have because of the government. More restrictions on Fast food, cigarettes, man crushing SUV's, more difficult to impossible drivers license test are all liberties that can be taken away to save lives. What gives a person more right to kill me in one way but not another? If it has any thing to do with the probability of me being killed then guns should be the last thing to go...

Regards

 

[deckart]

Correct!

As I have stated twice already, the UK has a higher crime rate that the US, but a FAR lower muder rate. The reason is simply becuase a would be criminal in the UK is far less likely to carry a gun, because they are far less likely to rob/mug/do other illegal stuff towards an armed person...

It follows that having very tough gun laws (including shooting people in self defence) and removing a "Gun culture" from a country decrease the deadly faitality rate...

The only problem with implementing this in America is that you crossed the line many years ago, and Guns and gun culture is engrained into your Psyche.

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

 

[Anttech]

I believe that tiny little increased risk of being killed is more than worth it if it means I can keep the right to bear arms. If you took away all the guns in the world it really doesn't give me a much better chance to live...it hardly makes any difference at all.

This is almost propogander... all evidence points the other way, there isn't a "tiny little increased risk" there is a much larger posibilty of being shot at. Just think logically for one moment. If everyone in a country of 100Million is armed, and in another country of 100Million hardley anyone is armed, do you think there is a larger or small chance of being shot?

Anyway I also have the right to not be shot, which is a very much larger right that to bear arms... Its an outdated right, and there is no need for it...

Towsend, why not just have anarchy then? then you will be totally free to do whatever you like...

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

Not disputing it...

 

[Townsend]

This is almost propogander... all evidence points the other way, there isn't a "tiny little increased risk" there is a much larger posibilty of being shot at.

I believe it was somewhere between 15 to 20K people killed last year. I cannot say for sure but I do know it pales in comparison to the risk I have of dieing due to the other things I mentioned here.
Here is an anti-gun look at the numbers and you can see even from a pessimistic point of view the risk is almost non-existent.
http://www.hpjc.org/issues_guncontrol.html
I actually have a better chance of winning 10,000 dollars on a scratch ticket than I do of being killed by a gun. It's hardly even a risk at all. I have no fear of being shoot...non at all and everyone around me has guns, guns and more guns. Thousand upons thousand of guns and yet I have no fear. I am however scared to death of the idiot kids they let drive these jacked up monster trucks. I have had to do some fancy driving to avoid being crushed twice this year already. Yet during no time of my life have I ever had to worry about being shot. So being killed by a gun is something that is so unlikely that I just don't worry about it.

Just think logically for one moment. If everyone in a country of 100Million is armed, and in another country of 100Million hardley anyone is armed, do you think there is a larger or small chance of being shot?

Sure, but since the chances of being shot are so small already that it hardly makes any difference at all. Does it even add up to one half of one percent difference?

Anyway I also have the right to not be shot, which is a very much larger right that to bear arms... Its an outdated right, and there is no need for it...

That is why it is not legal to shoot people. And whether or not guns are legal does not mean that you will or will not be shot.

Towsend, why not just have anarchy then? then you will be totally free to do whatever you like...

Because you would not be free, you would be ruled by whoever had the biggest guns. As it is we have guns and I am much safer with them than I am with fast food or kids driving or drunk drivers and what have you. Guns pose so little risk to me that except for the fact that I would lose my favorite sport, I wouldn't even notice if they were gone. I would still be scared of teenage idiots racing around town at 40 mph over the speed limit in a residential area where kids play and are killed by the tens or thousand each year. And banning guns would have done nothing about the real risk of being killed, nothing at all.

 

[Smurf]

I suppose it's just a matter of perspective...from your perspective I guess that a person should just sit there while their murderer kills them and then hope that the police catch the person and that they are put in prison so they don't continue to kill other people. And that is fine if you believe that Smurf. You are entitled to act on your beliefs, all that I am asking is that you take a reasonable look at my beliefs and then tell me that you're perspective is the correct one that everyone should have to follow.

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. ****** ******.

 

[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.