1
   

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

 
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 06:49 pm
Wish we had one of those doomsday machines.
0 Replies
 
SCoates
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 06:52 pm
squinney wrote:
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


That contains an example of my fears. the old man who shot a 14 year old boy, because "he thought he was a burglar." And he went off scott free.

I don't know if I believe this is a bad bill, but I wouldn't be surprised if it ruins a few peoples lives.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 07:55 pm
boomerang wrote:
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.


First of all,I didnt say your opinion wasnt valid.
But,by giving him an ultimatum,you invalidated his opinion and wishes.
Doesnt that matter to you?

Second,my g/f is quite comfortable with guns,and is almost a better shot then I am.

Third,a gun is a tool,just like a hammer,screwdriver,or a kitchen knife.
They can all be used to kill someone,should we eliminate them?
A gun will do nothing unless someone picks it up.So,the argument that guns kill people is silly,guns do nothing.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 08:03 pm
I'm willing to bet that any shooting that takes place will still go through an investigation and the determination will take place whether to press charges or not. The police won't walk up on the scene and take the persons word for it. Plus you have to imagine that there will be witnesses for the most part.

On the house issue, if someone is in your house and you didn't ask them to be then there is something wrong. How many times have we heard the story about a man breaking not another mans house and getting beaten with a baseball bat? The crook turns around and sues the owner for breaking his arm and the owner gets put in jail or fined some huge amount. It has happened and will continue to happen. When a crook is safer in your house then you are, you know this world in wrong.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 08:14 pm
Its quite simple,if you break into a house,the home owner should be allowed to use whatever force he wants against you.
If you get hurt,shot,killed,or maimed,its your own fault.
Neither you nor your survivors should be allowed to sue the homeowner for anything.
If you are committing a criminal act,then whatever happens to you is your choice.
You CHOSE to break the law,you CHOOSE to accept the consequences,whatever they are.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 08:21 pm
Yeah yeah I know: Guns don't kill people, people kill people...

... usually with guns.

I lived with his gun for more than 15 years before delivering an ultimatum. He had a choice: keep the gun or protect this child and respect my opinion.

And here we go with the whole home invasion paranoia again......
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 08:27 pm
boomerang wrote:
Yeah yeah I know: Guns don't kill people, people kill people...

... usually with guns.

I lived with his gun for more than 15 years before delivering an ultimatum. He had a choice: keep the gun or protect this child and respect my opinion.

And here we go with the whole home invasion paranoia again......


If you dont like that scenario,then what about convenience store holdups? Those happen all the time,and a gun in the shopkeepers hand has made the difference several times.

If you fear guns and dont want them around,thats fine with me.But,dont sit there and tell me that guns are by themselves dangerous.
They arent.
A gun can do nothing till someone uses it.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 08:30 pm
boomerang wrote:
Yeah yeah I know: Guns don't kill people, people kill people...

... usually with guns.

I lived with his gun for more than 15 years before delivering an ultimatum. He had a choice: keep the gun or protect this child and respect my opinion.

And here we go with the whole home invasion paranoia again......


BTW,people also kill with knives,sticks,bricks,rocks,cars,pillows,rope,and everything you can possibly think of.
Guns are a relatively recent invention and people were killing each other with weapons long before guns came along.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 08:39 pm
The thread voiced concern over a law that encourages people in public to shoot instead of seeking ways to avoid violence. This has nothing to do with protecting the home or being confronted in a convenience store robbery. Those two scenarios are already situations where shooting is allowed and sometimes necessary. To start shooting in a crowd or something like that is stupid.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 09:07 pm
mysteryman wrote:
Third,a gun is a tool,just like a hammer,screwdriver,or a kitchen knife.
They can all be used to kill someone,should we eliminate them?
A gun will do nothing unless someone picks it up.So,the argument that guns kill people is silly,guns do nothing.


In 2000 there were 28,663 gun deaths in America, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. Overall there were about 10.4 gun deaths per 100,000 people in our country (for black males ages 15-19 that rate skyrockets to 62.2 per 100,000). For gun suicides the rate is about 6.0 per 100,000 people, and for gun homicides about 3.9 per 100,000 people.

I don't have the statistics on hammers, screwdrivers, or a kitchen knifes. But, a gun is a tool for what, exactly?
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 09:09 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.


I will admit to some discomfort with this law, but I have to wonder how the prior law, and the opponents of the new law, would define a threat which can be responded to legally.

It appears that the prior law defines it as an actual invasion by an unknown assailant.

Does this mean that it would not apply to a known assailant?

Does this mean that the invader must somehow reveal himself to be an assailant before he can be legally shot?

Is one an assailant if one merely invades and appears menacing?

Must the innocent victim, in fact, become an actual victim before he or she defends themself?

This, it seems to me is the gist of the issue.

If someone enters my home yelling incoherently, is it reasonable for me to assume that he means harm to me and my family or must we actually experience some physical harm before I can defend us with deadly force?

The new law would make no sense at all if before an assailant actually assailed, he made his intentions clear and with sufficient time for you to defend yourself. Obviously this doesn't happen.

If the first actual evidence I have that someone is threatening me is the act of him slicing my throat, any weapon I have on my person is not going to be of much value...to me.

It seems to me that requiring me to first try and flee before allowing me to defend myself puts an entirely undue burden on me. What if I can't possibly outrun my assailant? By attempting to do so I may lose whatever chance I have of defending myself.

There is a danger with this law that the real assailant will try to escape justice my alleging a perception of a threat.

There is a danger with the prior law that an innocent victim will never have the opportunity to actually defend himself.

Which is the greater danger?

If someone could provide reliable statistical evidence that one is a greater danger than the other it would be helpful, but I doubt such evidence exists.

Similarly the argument that the law endangers innocent passerbys is specious. In the absence of any evidence for one way or the other, it can just as reasonably be argued that by shooting and killing the armed man who is attacking me, that I have saved these passerbys from harm rather than putting them in jeopardy. After all, it isn't only the bad guys who are good shots.

If someone attempts to pervert the new law to get away with a crime, Floridians will have to rely on their judicial system to thwart the attempt, just as they had to rely on their system to protect someone who was truly defending himself against an actual threat, but chose not to try and resolve the conflict or flee.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 09:13 pm
Anyone ever take one of the self-defense programs offered by the police? (if you have, you'll know why I'm asking.)
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 09:35 pm
Gosh, you know now that you mention it I do recall reading about that kid that took his grandpa's rock collection to school and killed all those people with it.

And that kid who accidentally killed his friend by hitting him with a stick twenty times.

And there has been a huge uptick in screwdriver suicides around here lately.

So now I see your point. If a caveman or a handyman breaks into my house I shall shoot him dead.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 10:24 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
The thread voiced concern over a law that encourages people in public to shoot instead of seeking ways to avoid violence. This has nothing to do with protecting the home or being confronted in a convenience store robbery. Those two scenarios are already situations where shooting is allowed and sometimes necessary. To start shooting in a crowd or something like that is stupid.


It is funny how you guys want more protection for the crook then you do for the law biding citizen.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 10:37 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
Brandon you have swallowed the current doublespeak better than anyone I know in cyber space or the real world. I'm not trying to insult you because I can see you truly are sincere.

I stand in total jaw dropping awe of you.

And you, like most of the liberals I have observed, have declined to address the point I made, preferring name calling instead. My interpretation is that you have not addressed the substance of what I said because you cannot, and no amount of facility with complex insults will obscure that fact.


I was sincere in what I wrote. I was not resorting to insults. I really am truly amazed at your obviously sincere beliefs. They are beyond my ability to comprehend. I didn't say you were a bad man or anything so calm down. By the way, I am not a liberal I am a moderate.

And just to be perfectly clear I think even considering allowing people to open fire in public is insanity pure and simple, and coming from the same politicians who claim to err on the side of life, their words not mine, it is hypocrisy of Satanic proportions.,
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 11:00 pm
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
Brandon you have swallowed the current doublespeak better than anyone I know in cyber space or the real world. I'm not trying to insult you because I can see you truly are sincere.

I stand in total jaw dropping awe of you.

And you, like most of the liberals I have observed, have declined to address the point I made, preferring name calling instead. My interpretation is that you have not addressed the substance of what I said because you cannot, and no amount of facility with complex insults will obscure that fact.


I was sincere in what I wrote. I was not resorting to insults. I really am truly amazed at your obviously sincere beliefs. They are beyond my ability to comprehend. I didn't say you were a bad man or anything so calm down. By the way, I am not a liberal I am a moderate.

And just to be perfectly clear I think even considering allowing people to open fire in public is insanity pure and simple, and coming from the same politicians who claim to err on the side of life, their words not mine, it is hypocrisy of Satanic proportions.,

It isn't hypocrisy in the slightest, we do not mean to err on the side of life in any and all situations. We are really mostly talking about situations in which someone is being killed on the grounds that his life is worthless. This simply does not obligate us to be against all violence in all situations. If I were a vegetarian, the fact that I refused to eat meat would not obligate me to refuse bread.

So, following your logic, if you are assaulted outdoors by men who may well end up killing you, and you use a gun to defend yourself, you should go to jail. Therefore, your proper course of action is to let them assault you and see whether it ends in your death or maiming.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 11:06 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
Brandon you have swallowed the current doublespeak better than anyone I know in cyber space or the real world. I'm not trying to insult you because I can see you truly are sincere.

I stand in total jaw dropping awe of you.

And you, like most of the liberals I have observed, have declined to address the point I made, preferring name calling instead. My interpretation is that you have not addressed the substance of what I said because you cannot, and no amount of facility with complex insults will obscure that fact.


I was sincere in what I wrote. I was not resorting to insults. I really am truly amazed at your obviously sincere beliefs. They are beyond my ability to comprehend. I didn't say you were a bad man or anything so calm down. By the way, I am not a liberal I am a moderate.

And just to be perfectly clear I think even considering allowing people to open fire in public is insanity pure and simple, and coming from the same politicians who claim to err on the side of life, their words not mine, it is hypocrisy of Satanic proportions.,

It isn't hypocrisy in the slightest, we do not mean to err on the side of life in any and all situations. We are really mostly talking about situations in which someone is being killed on the grounds that his life is worthless. This simply does not obligate us to be against all violence in all situations. If I were a vegetarian, the fact that I refused to eat meat would not obligate me to refuse bread.

So, following your logic, if you are assaulted outdoors by men who may well end up killing you, and you use a gun to defend yourself, you should go to jail. Therefore, your proper course of action is to let them assault you and see whether it ends in your death or maiming.


Bingo. Only in political advantageous ones. I offer this.

Author Of Schiavo Memo Steps Forward

1 hour, 21 minutes ago Politics - washingtonpost.com


By Mike Allen, Washington Post Staff Writer

The legal counsel to Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) admitted yesterday that he was the author of a memo citing the political advantage to Republicans of intervening in the case of Terri Schiavo, the senator said in an interview last night.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Brian Darling, a former lobbyist for the Alexander Strategy Group on gun rights and other issues, offered his resignation and it was immediately accepted, Martinez said.


Martinez said he earlier had been assured by aides that his office had nothing to do with producing the memo. "I never did an investigation, as such," he said. "I just took it for granted that we wouldn't be that stupid. It was never my intention to in any way politicize this issue."


Martinez, a freshman who was secretary of housing and urban development for most of President Bush's first term, said he had not read the one-page memo. He said he inadvertently passed it to Sen. Tom Harkin (news, bio, voting record) (D-Iowa), who had worked with him on the issue. After that, other Senate aides gave the memo to reporters for ABC News and The Washington Post.


Harkin said in an interview that Martinez handed him the memo on the Senate floor, in hopes of gaining his support for the bill giving federal courts jurisdiction in the Florida case in an effort to restore the Florida woman's feeding tube. "He said these were talking points -- something that we're working on here," Harkin said.


The mystery of the memo's origin had roiled the Capitol, with Republicans accusing Democrats of concocting the document as a dirty trick, and Democrats accusing Republicans of trying to duck responsibility for exploiting the dying days of a brain-damaged woman.


Conservative Web logs have challenged the authenticity of the memo, in some cases likening it to the discredited documents about Bush's National Guard service that CBS News reported last fall.


The staff of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, at the request of a Democrat, spent a week trying to determine the memo's origin and had come up empty, said an official involved in the investigation.


The unsigned memo -- which initially misspells Schiavo's first name and gives the wrong number for the pending bill -- includes eight talking points in support of the legislation and calls the controversy "a great political issue."


"This legislation ensures that individuals like Terri Schiavo are guaranteed the same legal protections as convicted murderers like Ted Bundy," the memo concludes.


It asserts that the case would appeal to the party's core supporters, saying: "This is an important moral issue and the pro-life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue."


The document was provided to ABC News on March 18 and to The Post on March 19 and was included in news reports about congressional intervention in the Schiavo case. Bush returned from an Easter vacation in Texas and signed the bill shortly after 1 a.m. on March 21.


At the time, other Senate Republican aides claimed to be familiar with the memo but declined to discuss it on the record and gave no information about its origin.


In a statement issued last night, Martinez said that Harkin asked him for background information on the bill and that he gave him what he thought was a routine one-page staff memo on the legislation. "Unbeknownst to me, instead of my one page on the bill, I had given him a copy of the now infamous memo that at some point along the way came into my possession," the statement said.


Harkin said that when he read the part about the politics of the case he thought that was "rather out of line," but he said he did not discuss the matter with Martinez. Harkin said he has no complaints about Martinez.


"I really worked in good faith with Senator Martinez on this issue and I found him to be a decent, caring person to work with on this, and so I have a lot of respect for him," Harkin said.


Martinez said Harkin called him about 5 p.m. yesterday and told him that the memo had come from his office. Martinez said he then called in his senior staff and said, "Something is wrong here." He said that Darling later confessed to John Little, Martinez's chief of staff, and that he said he did not think he had ever printed the memo.





"It was intended to be a working draft," Martinez said. "He doesn't really know how I got it."

Efforts to reach Darling last night were unsuccessful.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (news, bio, voting record) (D-N.J.), a member of the Rules and Administration Committee, wrote to the panel's leaders last week to ask for an investigation into the "document, its source, and how it came to be distributed."

"Those who would attempt to influence debate in the United States Senate should not hide behind anonymous pieces of paper," he said.

A Republican Senate official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he is not a committee spokesman, said yesterday that an informal inquiry began almost immediately and is likely to be concluded within a week. He said that conversations with senators, aides and reporters have turned up nothing definitive and that the inquiry is likely to end with a letter to Lautenberg saying just that.

Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said in an interview Friday that he considered it "ludicrous" to suggest that his party created the document and said Republicans were using such talk to divert responsibility.

"I guess the best defense is a good offense -- that's their theory," he said.

In interviews at the Capitol yesterday, senators from both sides said they find the case perplexing, and a sign of the intense partisanship that permeates the building. Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (news, bio, voting record) (R-Utah) said that the torrent of accusations reflects the bitterness over the life-and-death issues in the Schiavo case, which he said were a proxy on both sides for what provokes "every other ugly political conversation -- that's abortion."

Sen. Joseph R. Biden (news, bio, voting record) Jr. (D-Del.) said he believed that the memo originated with the GOP because it is "totally consistent" with how the Republicans have operated for the past four years. "They just shouldn't lose their memos," he said.
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 11:32 pm
Listen to this quote very carefully:

Quote:
I just took it for granted that we wouldn't be that stupid. It was never my intention to in any way politicize this issue.


Hmmmm.... Let's see. O.K. Let's turn the stupidity meter on, now.

And here we go...

Quote:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Schiavo/story?id=600937

This is an exact, full copy of the document obtained exclusively by ABC News and first reported Friday, March 18, 2005, by Linda Douglass on "World News Tonight with Peter Jennings."

S. 529, The Incapacitated Person's Legal Protection Act

Teri (sic) Schiavo is subject to an order that her feeding tubes will be disconnected on March 18, 2005 at 1p.m.

The Senate needs to act this week, before the Budget Act is pending business, or Terri's family will not have a remedy in federal court.

This is an important moral issue and the pro-life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue.

This is a great political issue, because Senator Nelson of Florida has already refused to become a cosponsor and this is a tough issue for Democrats.

The bill is very limited and defines custody as "those parties authorized or directed by a court order to withdraw or withhold food, fluids, or medical treatment."

There is an exemption for a proceeding "which no party disputes, and the court finds, that the incapacitated person while having capacity, had executed a written advance directive valid under applicably law that clearly authorized the withholding or or (sic) withdrawl (sic) of food and fluids or medical treatment in the applicable circumstances."

Incapacitated persons are defined as those "presently incapable of making relevant decisions concerning the provision, withholding or withdrawl (sic) of food fluids or medical treatment under applicable state law."

This legislation ensures that individuals like Terri Schiavo are guaranteed the same legal protections as convicted murderers like Ted Bundy.


Holy cow. Not only is this stupid, but it truly reveals the neoconservative mindset in politicizing the tragedy of several families, as well as a sorry ass attempt to flip-flop the argument in some lame pitch in order to turn it back on the Democrats (same legal protections as convicted murderers like Ted Bundy).
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Apr, 2005 01:24 am
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
And just to be perfectly clear I think even considering allowing people to open fire in public is insanity pure and simple, and coming from the same politicians who claim to err on the side of life, their words not mine, it is hypocrisy of Satanic proportions.,

It isn't hypocrisy in the slightest, we do not mean to err on the side of life in any and all situations. We are really mostly talking about situations in which someone is being killed on the grounds that his life is worthless. This simply does not obligate us to be against all violence in all situations. If I were a vegetarian, the fact that I refused to eat meat would not obligate me to refuse bread.

So, following your logic, if you are assaulted outdoors by men who may well end up killing you, and you use a gun to defend yourself, you should go to jail. Therefore, your proper course of action is to let them assault you and see whether it ends in your death or maiming.

Bingo. Only in political advantageous ones.

Don't tell me my motives. We are opposed to taking life in certain situations, such as ones in which a person's life is ruled inherently lacking in value, such as a fetus, sick person, or handicapped person. This belief simply does not obligate us to be opposed to things like self defense or military action. You are trying to show a contradiction that just is not there.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Apr, 2005 04:29 am
old europe wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Third,a gun is a tool,just like a hammer,screwdriver,or a kitchen knife.
They can all be used to kill someone,should we eliminate them?
A gun will do nothing unless someone picks it up.So,the argument that guns kill people is silly,guns do nothing.


In 2000 there were 28,663 gun deaths in America, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. Overall there were about 10.4 gun deaths per 100,000 people in our country (for black males ages 15-19 that rate skyrockets to 62.2 per 100,000). For gun suicides the rate is about 6.0 per 100,000 people, and for gun homicides about 3.9 per 100,000 people.

I don't have the statistics on hammers, screwdrivers, or a kitchen knifes. But, a gun is a tool for what, exactly?


28,663 deaths out of a population of 200,000,000?
You are also ignoring part of what the NCHS said,so let me quote it for you..."NOTE: Firearms Statistics Include Gang Warfare, Self Defense Shootings and Criminals Killed by Police"

So,lets eliminate criminals killed by police,because that is justified,and Self Defense,also because those are justified shootings,and see what the number is now.

Here is a link to the numbers for anyone that wants to see for yourself...
http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/death_stats.html

When we look at the numbers,we see that Firearms accidents are the LOWEST cause of accidental death in this country,behing falls,accidental poisoning,and drowning.

So,the people worried about accidental deaths by firearms need to worry about a few other things first.
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 01:37:49