- #121
pattylou
- 305
- 0
Yeah. I do.Smurf said:
Is Florida's Stand Your Ground Law a Dangerous Step Backward?
Click For Summary
Discussion Overview
The discussion revolves around Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, which allows individuals to use deadly force in self-defense without the obligation to retreat. Participants explore the implications of this law on personal safety, legal accountability, and societal norms regarding violence and self-defense.
Discussion Character
- Debate/contested
- Conceptual clarification
- Exploratory
Main Points Raised
- Some participants express concern that the law may lead to an increase in justifications for lethal violence, questioning how one can prove a threat after an incident.
- Others argue that the law is necessary for personal safety, particularly in dangerous environments, and that individuals should have the right to defend themselves without the requirement to retreat.
- There are claims that the law could be abused by individuals with malicious intent, potentially leading to unjustified killings.
- Some participants highlight the moral implications of valuing property over life, suggesting that lethal force should only be used when there is a clear and immediate threat to life.
- A few participants reference the legal context of self-defense, noting that self-defense has historically been a legitimate defense in murder cases, and express skepticism about the law changing much in practice.
- Concerns are raised about the potential for civil lawsuits following a self-defense claim, indicating a belief that legal repercussions should follow any use of deadly force.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants express a range of views, with no clear consensus on the implications or morality of the law. Some support the law as a necessary measure for self-defense, while others see it as a dangerous step that could lead to increased violence and legal loopholes.
Contextual Notes
Participants discuss the complexities of assessing threats and the potential for legal consequences following the use of deadly force. There are references to differing cultural attitudes towards property and personal safety, particularly contrasting views between American and Canadian perspectives.
- #122
pattylou
- 305
- 0
Reference please. Thanks Townsend.Townsend said:
- #123
deckart
- 106
- 4
pattylou said:
------------>
- #124
Smurf
- 441
- 3
Exactly self defence is not an excuse for murder.Townsend said:
- #125
deckart
- 106
- 4
Smurf said:
But it can excuse an incidental death caused by one defending their life and in some states, their property.
- #126
pattylou
- 305
- 0
I have a problem with exaggerations.deckart said:------------>
- #127
deckart
- 106
- 4
pattylou said:
exaggerations like "1000x"?
- #128
0TheSwerve0
- 195
- 0
deckart said:
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?
Last edited:
- #129
deckart
- 106
- 4
0TheSwerve0 said:
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.
- #130
pattylou
- 305
- 0
Indeed. Which is why I asked for feedback on that quote, which was not anything I personally ever said.deckart 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.
- #131
deckart
- 106
- 4
pattylou said:
just giving you a hard time, patty
- #132
Archon
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...)deckart said:
So yes, to some extent it certainly is.
- #133
deckart
- 106
- 4
Our country "certainly" is not based on slavery. period.
- #134
Archon
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.deckart said:
I could say "I *certainly* am not composed of atoms. Period." But this doesn't make it true.
- #135
0TheSwerve0
- 195
- 0
deckart said:
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.
Last edited:
- #136
0TheSwerve0
- 195
- 0
deckart said:
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...
- #137
Townsend
- 232
- 0
pattylou said:
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...
Last edited by a moderator:
- #138
edward
- 64
- 165
Smurf said:
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.
- #139
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.
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.
- #140
pattylou
- 305
- 0
Thank you Townsend.Townsend said:
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
- #141
deckart
- 106
- 4
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?
- #142
GENIERE
deckart said:
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...
.
- #143
Anttech
- 233
- 0
Thanks for the heads up...
What a place the USA must be if you feel the need to "rise up" against a democratically elected government..
- #144
GENIERE
Anttech said:Thanks for the heads up...
What a place the USA must be if you feel the need to "rise up" against a democratically elected government..
Are you responding to me or to the loonies who claim the election was illegal?
The feeding frenzy goes on and on and on...
.
- #145
Anttech
- 233
- 0
You actually... :-)
Democracy and violence can ill go together. Gandi
- #146
deckart
- 106
- 4
oh, brother. It's bad enough when you have to debate with someone from your own country.
It's bad enough when you have to debate with someone from your own country.- #147
Anttech
- 233
- 0
Nobody forced you to post.
- #148
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
- 1,829
- 5
Smurf said:
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.
- #149
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
- 1,829
- 5
pattylou said:
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.
Last edited:
- #150
Anttech
- 233
- 0
Successfully 'whated' a woman.. sued?