Forums | MacLife

iBubba wrote:

Camp David wrote:

Pundit Guy wrote:

Under this bill, if I'm walking down the street and some redneck perceives me as a threat, he can shoot me.

Then if you were you, Pundit Guy, I would be extra courteous to every Redneck you meet! Especially in Florida!

Hint: Complimenting their truck goes far toward making friends in Dixie!

This is a joke to you? Jesus Christ, in and of itself...

Actually yes... Whenever I see someone outraged that mere citizens, in this case in Florida, have greater gun ownership rights, yes I do laugh! Sometimes I chuckle silently but yes, on occasion I laugh!

You see, with the same passion that you and others defend the 1st Amendment many Americans, myself included, defend the 2nd! And more gun rights mean that citizens won't have to bear the hardship of criminals having there way with commom citizens, since the judiciary can't seem to lock up repeat offenders!

"A joke to you"? No... crime is no joke... but bombast and pontification over granting citizens more rights! Yes... I'm laughing now.

iBubba wrote:

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..

Gee... imagine letting citizens determine their own future and their own security! Next they will want to vote and run for Congress!

It's good to be crazy, it seems. Laugh away, moonbat.

So what prompted this need to allow people to shoot those they perceive as threatening? A constant upswing of people who, because of the current law, found themselves unable to defend their persons when attacked in public? Has there been a particular increase in people being arrested for defending themselves from attackers?

What is the need here? Why isn't the current law acceptable? Note that as it stands CURRENTLY(at least according to the article) you're still allowed to use force: "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."

This new law simply removes the requirement to avoid the confrontation and allows you to jump straight ahead to shooting.

So what is wrong with the law that it needs the "try to avoid or flee" part out?

This has already been nicknamed the "kill bill".

Camp David wrote:

iBubba wrote:

i'll directly address you again with an earlier post I made outlining some possible issues.

iBubba... I'll be honest... you cite some real concerns! However, they worry me not a bit, as the scale of government involvement in citizen affairs has for too long been too obtrusive... you are alarmed because you see areas of the new law that might be abused, I am joyous as I see new found citizenry freedom... perhaps we'll both be wrong!

I've travelled extensively throughout the South, especially Florida, in some real backcountry gator country and in areas of Louisiana and Georgia, North Carolina and here in Virginia.... you know what? I feel safer on the back roads and among the private citizens armed to the teeth than I would at a Law Enforcement Convention in New York. Why?

It's not the armed private citizen that's out to kill you. That simple. That clear.

I certainly hope all will be well. I'm not going to hold my breath.

It is not the citizen out to kill me that frightens me, Camp. It's the citizen that waxes me because of mistaken preception of threat!

ShnickyShnack wrote:

I don't think I'll ever understand the whole "property is worth gunplay" thing.

\

Then you must have some crappy stuff.
In seriousness, its not just property. If someone has the werewithal to actually invade and break into someone's property we have no way of knowing their intentions, or whether they are armed and planning to kill or simply to rob, but the fact that they are brave enough to risk capture and or a standoff with occupants makes one err on the side of assuming the worst.

My apartment was robbed in NYC (years ago) when I had fallen asleep watching tv. I was a young kid at the time and our apt was on the second floor and the window above an awning. And I had been lying on the living room floor watching tv and actually fell asleep. When I woke up the next morning the tv was gone. That meant that while I slept a thief climbed in through the window, walked over me took the tv and left through the door without me or anyone else waking up. Now if I were a parent and had a gun and did wake up to see a thief breaking in, I wouldn't risk his good intentions if my child were involved and simply assume that he had our best interests at heart. The guy broke in, is a threat to my family and may or may not have a weapon, and may or may not try to kill us.

Luckily the thief didn't do anything to me, but the fact that he was able to get in and do all that without me even being aware it was occuring in the very spot I was sleeping in is really scary. Think of Richard Ramirez; here he's breaking in specifically to kill people. How would someone know the thiefs motivation; to simply steal the tv or to inflict bodily harm, especially without being able to read minds and with having limited info to begin with. i.e. waking up and hearing a noise. having your family in the house and a burglar who may steal your stuff or worse, or may not want to harm anyone and just steal stuff but is perfectly willing to harm someone if he is discovered and now has to protect himself from going to jail. The thief is putting himself into a desparate situation by invading someone's home and both parties are perhaps acting out of panic and not behaving utterly rationally.

So if someone says, they don't understand the whole property is worth gunplay thing they are assuming that all the thief wants is the tv, that all sides can read the others intentions, that all sides are behaving perfectly rationally without panic, that no family members have any risks associated with a prowler being in the house, that the thief might not want to be captured and is as desperate as the homeowner and might similarly panic etc etc etc etc. Its not the property that's at issue, its that a prowler has broken in and as we do not read minds do not know the full extent of the danger, only that a prowler has broken in and now threatens someones life and someone's families life.

And that's assuming that the prowler is breaking in for the tv. What if the prowler is a pedophile and finds an open door and breaks in and kidnaps a little girl while the grandparents are sleeping. If the grandfather walked out before the prowler got to the girls room how would he even know what the prowlers intent was. Was he going for the girl or the tv or something else? And how is he going to react to having the homeowner getting the drop on him? Is he going to be perfectly rational and accept that now he has to go to jail quietly?

Camp David wrote:

iBubba wrote:

It is not the citizen out to kill me that frightens me, Camp. It's the citizen that waxes me because of mistaken preception of threat!

perception I believe you mean. If it is, then relax. Citizens in these here United States have been takin their liberties just nicely thank yee kindly! If it helps, though, I have a suggestion for you... learn all the words to "Dixie"... learn how to whisle it at the quick step!!!!!

The right way to defend your self is if  someone has the ability to harm you, the opportunity to harm you and you must be in immediate jeopardy and even then you can only respond on the same force level. Perception is going to get someone killed who shouldn't be, and it won't be pretty.

Camp David wrote:

iBubba wrote:

It is not the citizen out to kill me that frightens me, Camp. It's the citizen that waxes me because of mistaken preception of threat!

perception I believe you mean. If it is, then relax. Citizens in these here United States have been takin their liberties just nicely thank yee kindly! If it helps, though, I have a suggestion for you... learn all the words to "Dixie"... learn how to whisle it at the quick step!!!!!

WTF? Dumb it down for me please. I have no idea what the hell you're trying to say.

everlong205 wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

I don't think I'll ever understand the whole "property is worth gunplay" thing.

\

Then you must have some crappy stuff.
In seriousness, its not just property. If someone has the werewithal to actually invade and break into someone's property we have no way of knowing their intentions, or whether they are armed and planning to kill or simply to rob, but the fact that they are brave enough to risk capture and or a standoff with occupants makes one err on the side of assuming the worst....

I understand what you're saying here. In my state, a person who is threatened in public is obligated to find options to flee or find safety before fighting. But a person threeatened in their residence has no obligation to do so, the assumption being that a person has no safer place than their home and castle. A self-defense shooting has more justification here.

In my state, shooting a person is justifiable only as self-defense of one's life or another person's life. That is, a person has to be immediate threat of death before a shooting is justifiable. That does not say that shooting a person is justifiable because you catch in a parking lot breaking into your car. In this last scenario, no person's life is threatened, only property, and therefore not self-defense.

The new Florida legislation here seems to make that last scenario -- killing in defense of property -- legal, and that concerns me. Repealing one's obligation to find lesser violent solutions concerns me.

Last edited by Robert B. (2005-04-07 1:20 pm)

Camp David wrote:

iBubba wrote:

i'll directly address you again with an earlier post I made outlining some possible issues.

iBubba... I'll be honest... you cite some real concerns! However, they worry me not a bit, as the scale of government involvement in citizen affairs has for too long been too obtrusive... you are alarmed because you see areas of the new law that might be abused, I am joyous as I see new found citizenry freedom... perhaps we'll both be wrong!

I've travelled extensively throughout the South, especially Florida, in some real backcountry gator country and in areas of Louisiana and Georgia, North Carolina and here in Virginia.... you know what? I feel safer on the back roads and among the private citizens armed to the teeth than I would at a Law Enforcement Convention in New York. Why?

It's not the armed private citizen that's out to kill you. That simple. That clear.

Yea, we got outback people armed to the teeth too. you wanna walk in their back woods. Some pigboy will ass rape you blind.

MrJ in OZ wrote:

How would you feel if you accidently shot and killed an inocent man? And what about the gateway to vigilantism here?

http://captainincredible.com/images/arc … ronson.jpg

I'd feel bad about it.  However, if he's in my home without my permission, he's not an innocent man.  I don't know if he's innocent or not.  In most states, landlords are required to give notice if someone is going to be in your apartment for some reason.  If you walk in or wake up in the middle of the night to find a stranger in your home, are you really going to take the time to interrogate them and find out why they're there before taking action?

Consider it assumption of risk.  If you're going to be in someone else's home without permission (a crime), then you assume the risk that they may be armed and will respond by killing you.  You assume that risk when you break in - no liability on the part of the homeowner/renter.  Actions have consequences.

As for everyone becoming gun-toting vigilantes, let's not go down that slippery slope.  This is why I stated that the situations where the use of deadly force is authorized are clearly specified.

I personally choose not to own or carry a gun (it's difficult in this state), however I do believe strongly in the 2nd Amendment.  I have no issue with people owning guns - including handguns and using them for personal protection.  They should be responsible and accountable however.

Camp David wrote:

iBubba wrote:

Camp David wrote:

Then if you were you, Pundit Guy, I would be extra courteous to every Redneck you meet! Especially in Florida!

Hint: Complimenting their truck goes far toward making friends in Dixie!

This is a joke to you? Jesus Christ, in and of itself...

Actually yes... Whenever I see someone outraged that mere citizens, in this case in Florida, have greater gun ownership rights, yes I do laugh! Sometimes I chuckle silently but yes, on occasion I laugh!

You see, with the same passion that you and others defend the 1st Amendment many Americans, myself included, defend the 2nd! And more gun rights mean that citizens won't have to bear the hardship of criminals having there way with commom citizens, since the judiciary can't seem to lock up repeat offenders!

"A joke to you"? No... crime is no joke... but bombast and pontification over granting citizens more rights! Yes... I'm laughing now.

Oh man, we totally need the Zombie Terri "I am the NRA" poster now....

MrJ in OZ wrote:

gheez... why dont you people just cary a tazer or smt.

MrJ in OZ: We like Diversity...