1
   

Now That's What I Call Erring On The Side Of Life

 
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 05:45 pm
Home invasion paranoia.

I don't get it.

It is perhaps the rarest of crimes and the one everybody uses to justify having a gun.

And it's always men who use the argument!

Where most home invasions are rapes and there isn't a man present.

Well. Except for the rapist.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 05:46 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
Well, I'm not sure what the point was that you made, but I am a little concerned that there's nothing stopping someone from shooting someone on the street and claiming that they were attacked and in fear for their life. The "assailant" would tell no tales.

Are you not concerned that someone might be the victim of a violent attack, and upon defending himself, end up in jail because of unjust laws. Self-defense is a fundamental right.


I don't know, does this happen a lot right now? Is this legislation in response to a rash of arrests of good citizens who were acting in self-defense?

I'm all for self-defense in public or private, but where we're talking about guns, I don't believe I have the right to put others at risk in public.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 05:47 pm
boomerang wrote:
Home invasion paranoia.

I don't get it.

It is perhaps the rarest of crimes and the one everybody uses to justify having a gun.

And it's always men who use the argument!

Where most home invasions are rapes and there isn't a man present.

Well. Except for the rapist.

I am not saying that finding a burglar in your home or place of business, or being assaulted in public are common, only that you have the right to self-defense in these cases, provided it is proportional to the threat.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 05:51 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
Well, I'm not sure what the point was that you made, but I am a little concerned that there's nothing stopping someone from shooting someone on the street and claiming that they were attacked and in fear for their life. The "assailant" would tell no tales.

Are you not concerned that someone might be the victim of a violent attack, and upon defending himself, end up in jail because of unjust laws. Self-defense is a fundamental right.


I don't know, does this happen a lot right now? Is this legislation in response to a rash of arrests of good citizens who were acting in self-defense?

I'm all for self-defense in public or private, but where we're talking about guns, I don't believe I have the right to put others at risk in public.

So, to be very clear, if assaulted physically by large men at a gas station, and uncertain as to how far they might go, with no police officer or good samaritan in sight, you believe that pointing a gun at them and saying, "leave me alone," ought to land you in jail? And yes, I do know that if they continued to menace you, it might escalate. Do you have the right to use a gun for self defense in that situation, or must you be a martyr?
0 Replies
 
SCoates
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 05:59 pm
There's still sort of a "texas" mentality, that any criminal deserves to be shot and killed, until he's arrested, and then he deserves a trial.

You see someone in your house you don't know, you shoot them. Someone robs a bank, you shoot them.

What a horrible attitude. It overrides the justice system.

Of course, there ARE cases where there is imminant danger, but I have read to many accounts of "shoot first, ask questions later."

Recently someone posted a Darwin award winner, where a man tried to rob a gun shop, and was shot by at least 7 different people. Those people should have been prosecuted. He didn't deserve to die for robbery.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 05:59 pm
D'artagnan wrote:
There are those who believe that we should all be armed so as to be ready for any threat. That approach was used in the Old West, if memory serves, until cooler heads prevailed. And thus began what is now known as "gun control."

As in, "Check your guns at the door." How far we've advanced!


According to everything I have read,there was actually very little violence in the old west,because everyone was armed.
There were actually very few murders,and the bad guys were very careful who they bothered BECAUSE everyone was armed.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 06:02 pm
SCoates wrote:
Recently someone posted a Darwin award winner, where a man tried to rob a gun shop, and was shot by at least 7 different people. Those people should have been prosecuted. He didn't deserve to die for robbery.

Did he point a gun at the proprietor? If so, only a psychic could predict whether he would use it or not.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 06:03 pm
You know, we used to have a gun, Mr. B being an Oklahoma boy and all.

And then Mo moved in.

And we visited a pediatrician.

And she asked me "Do you have a gun in your home?"

And I said "Yes".

And she gave me a speech about how Mo was more likely to be killed by that gun than any stranger ever was.

And I told Mr. B that either the gun goes or we do.

And we're still here.....
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 06:03 pm
The gun should still be there.
0 Replies
 
SCoates
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 06:05 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
SCoates wrote:
Recently someone posted a Darwin award winner, where a man tried to rob a gun shop, and was shot by at least 7 different people. Those people should have been prosecuted. He didn't deserve to die for robbery.

Did he point a gun at the proprietor? If so, only a psychic could predict whether he would use it or not.


I don't really know. I'm just angry about the concept. I do that a lot, I picture something that it sure seems like someone might do, and then get all in a huff, whether or not it actually happened.

(But I bet it has)
0 Replies
 
SCoates
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 06:10 pm
Heh, heh... I actually looked into it, and it says he fired a few "wild shots." Sounds like justification. Wink
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 06:12 pm
Eventually, one will just mearly look at someone else in a funny way, and get shot.

I'm pretty angry at the concept, too, SCoates. Maybe if we instead put more money into our local law enforcement communities this wouldn't be such an issue.

But to be fair, Brandon does point out that NONE of us here actually know the specifics of the law. We have all mearly chimed in on it.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 06:16 pm
From the article:

Quote:
Florida's legislature has approved a bill that would give residents the right to open fire against anyone they perceive as a threat in public, instead of having to try to avoid a conflict as under prevailing law.


As we know, or should know, what someone percieves can be very subjective.

Quote:
Current state law allows residents to "shoot to kill if their property, such as their home or car, is invaded by an unknown assailant."


So the current law already allows for protection of property.


Quote:
But it also states that if a resident is confronted or threatened in a public place, he or she must first try to avoid the confrontation or flee before taking any violent step in self defense against an assailant.


Current law also apparently already covers allowing one to shoot to kill in self defense, so your argument, Brandon, is not relevent.

The only reason for the new law that I can see is to allow people to judge (percieve) for themselves whether or not they feel threatened and then shoot (provide their own justice) based on that perception without worrying about being punished.
0 Replies
 
SCoates
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 06:17 pm
Yes, I believe I've noticed Brandon state the same opinion in the past, several times, and it's usually accurate.

I've heard of so many court verdicts that sound outrageous, but had a unanimous jury. Chances are there were good reasons, that just didn't make very interesting news.
0 Replies
 
SCoates
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 06:20 pm
squinney wrote:
From the article:

Quote:
Florida's legislature has approved a bill that would give residents the right to open fire against anyone they perceive as a threat in public, instead of having to try to avoid a conflict as under prevailing law.


As we know, or should know, what someone percieves can be very subjective.

Quote:
Current state law allows residents to "shoot to kill if their property, such as their home or car, is invaded by an unknown assailant."


So the current law already allows for protection of property.


Quote:
But it also states that if a resident is confronted or threatened in a public place, he or she must first try to avoid the confrontation or flee before taking any violent step in self defense against an assailant.


Current law also apparently already covers allowing one to shoot to kill in self defense, so your argument, Brandon, is not relevent.

The only reason for the new law that I can see is to allow people to judge (percieve) for themselves whether or not they feel threatened and then shoot (provide their own justice) based on that perception without worrying about being punished.


However, it makes it sound they they would also be JUDGED on their perception, which is scary. If I was insane, and decided my neighbor was a threat, this law could protect me when I decide to shoot him. Of course, I don't believe it WOULD. I give judges a little more credit than that. I just think they need to be very careful with the way they word this law.
0 Replies
 
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 06:21 pm
My word. It's just the old guns and butter economic concept. I think it was dys who once observed that a person could walk into a bar with a six shooter showing, but couldn't smoke. Rolling Eyes

Anyway, I read the article and the headlines referred to gunfight at the OK Corral.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 06:29 pm
More info available:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=8092444

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/3/24/160309.shtml

Here's how the voting took place:

http://www.packing.org/news/article.jsp/10089/


And the actual text of the bill:

http://www.flsenate.gov/cgi-bin/view_page.pl?Tab=session&Submenu=1&FT=D&File=sb0436e1.html&Directory=session/2005/Senate/bills/billtext/html/
0 Replies
 
SCoates
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 06:35 pm
Most of it seems well-worded, but I don't like the "immune to prosecution" part. Maybe I'm being picky, but I don't think anyone should be "immune to prosecution."
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 06:40 pm
mysteryman wrote:
The gun should still be there.


I'm really glad I'm married to a man who considers my opinion valid and who is concerned about the well being of children living in our home.

I'm guessing that not all girls are so lucky.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 06:40 pm
This is a PDF file of the Florida Police Benevolent Assoc. See bottom of page 3 and all of page 4.


http://www.cfpba.org/newsletters/Capitol%20Report%20March%2025%202005.pdf
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/18/2024 at 12:32:44