REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Defense of Home

POSTED BY: STILLFLYIN
UPDATED: Tuesday, May 9, 2006 21:32
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 6223
PAGE 1 of 2

Thursday, May 4, 2006 3:39 PM

STILLFLYIN


Florida has recently introduced a new law that removed the "duty to retreat" in situations that involve home invasion and burglary, allowing homeowners to use deadly force to protect their home . What do you think of this new law?
P.S.
Here's the URL to the Florida Statutes containing the new law. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute
&Search_String=&URL=Ch0776/SEC013.HTM&Title=-%3E2005-%3ECh0776-%3ESection%20013#0776.013



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 4, 2006 4:21 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!


"Necessity" has always been a valid legal defense.

Quote:

"A person is justified in threatening or using force against another person when and to the degree the person reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The person must have a reasonable belief that there is imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. The danger creating the belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury must be real, or honestly believed to be real at the time, and must be founded upon reasonable grounds. There is no duty to retreat before a person threatens or uses force."
—Tennessee Code 39-11-611(a)

"A private citizen, in making an arrest authorized by law, may use force reasonably necessary to accomplish the arrest of an individual who flees or resists the arrest; provided, that a private citizen cannot use or threaten to use deadly force except to the extent authorized under self-defense or defense of third person statutes, §§ 39-11-611 and 39-11-612."
—Tennessee Code 39-11-621. Use of deadly force by private citizen.

citizen's arrest.
an arrest made not by a law officer but by any citizen who derives the authority to arrest from the fact of being a citizen. Note: Under common law, a citizen may make an arrest for any felony actually committed, or for a breach of the peace committed in his or her presence.
—Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law ©1996



Everyone should read the law in their state on self defense and citizen's arrest. Handgun Carry schools also teach a little about the legal repurcusions for using a firestick for self defense, but don't teach anything about citizen's arrests.

Last week a man shot and killed a suspected burgler OUTSIDE his home, lurking in his yard. Apparently his yard was not fenced, nor posted with No Trespass signs. He apparently did not attempt a citizen's arrest. He was not under attack. The alleged trespasser apparently was not armed with a weapon. He was arrested for second-degree murder, under Tennessee law.
http://wbir.com/news/archive.aspx?storyid=33914

Illiteracy of the law is very expensive. That's why it's a good idea to always defend oneself pro se in traffic ticket and parking ticket trials. If you can't win those little cases, how can you win a "real" defense, such as self defense? It costs at least $100,000 cash in advance for a competent, motivated lawyer for a murder case, not counting appeals. It's cheaper to read the law, buy some pro se books and attorney textbooks, and go watch some real trials, instead of Judge Judy and Cops on TeeVee.


It's not all together wise to sneak up on a man when he's handlin his weapon.
-Mal, Heart of Gold

FIREFLY SERENITY PILOT MUSIC VIDEO V2
Tangerine Dream - Thief Soundtrack: Confrontation
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2006/03/8912.php

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 4, 2006 4:43 PM

REAVERMAN


For once, I agree with Piretenews 100%. If you don't know the law, you'll likely be screwed by it at some point.

As for the new law, good for Florida. As far as I'm concerned, everyone has the right to defend themselves, others, and their property. I'm glad to see that Florida agrees.

You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 5, 2006 5:00 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by reaverman:


As for the new law, good for Florida. As far as I'm concerned, everyone has the right to defend themselves, others, and their property. I'm glad to see that Florida agrees.


Do I endanger my rep as a 'liberal' with the more 'conservative' peeps on this board if I agree you, Reaverman?
Well, I do anyway.

Chrisisall Libertarian-like

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 5, 2006 3:20 PM

REAVERMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Do I endanger my rep as a 'liberal' with the more 'conservative' peeps on this board if I agree you, Reaverman?
Well, I do anyway.

Chrisisall Libertarian-like



It doesn't make you totally illiberal (is that a word?), it just makes you a moderate. Of course, that also means you are liable to be snarked by both sides...

You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 5, 2006 4:10 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important



Hi all,

I lived in Florida most of my life. (28 years) When I applied for a Concealed Weapons permit, (9 years ago) it was explained to me in excruciating and painful detail when I could and could not legally use lethal force to defend myself.

There were two scenarios I remember being discussed in class.

Scenario 1) I have a pocket knife. I am walking down the street and a man jumps me, and starts pounding me with his fists. I am battered and bruised and bloodied, and as he straddles me and pounds me, I whip out my pocketknife and eviscerate the SOB. Result? I am likely to be arrested and sent to jail and possibly convicted of a crime.

Scenario 2) I am in a parking lot. A man approaches me with a knife and threatens my life. I am armed with a concealed pistol. What am I allowed to do? I am allowed to either give him my life (no, thank you) or I can run. Now, running isn't a bad idea in this situation, especially if it gives me time to get to my gun. But I'm not allowed to do that. I am allowed to run. And run and run and run. I can hide behind cars. I can cry out for help. If he pursues me, I must run and run and run until I am physically incapable of evading him any longer. Then I can shoot him.

I thought these two scenarios were the most intrinsically stupid ideas I'd ever heard in my life. I felt like it gave the criminal who was attacking me more rights and freedoms than it gave me.

I am glad the obligation to flee has been removed. I will be equally glad when use-of-force restrictions are removed for situations where an attacker clearly intends you 'grievous bodily harm.' I don't want to have to moderate my response. He might be better at combat than I am, and treading on eggshells in my reaction is likely to make an omelette out of me.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 5, 2006 4:43 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!


For schools on how to make citizen's arrests, sign up with the international Guardian Angels.
www.guardianangels.org

It's founder, Curtis Sliwa, is a talk radio and TV host in NY City, who was kidnapped by John Gitti Jr is a stolen taxicab, then gunmen opened fire on him while locked in the back seat. Sliwa fought his way out of the cab by climbing out a front window past the gunmen, then falling out of the car on the crowded street. Gotti Jr "won" TWO temporary mistrials thanks to bribery and jury nullification, after prosecutors dropped the charge of attempted murder!
www.wabcradio.com/showdj.asp?DJID=1726
http://radio.about.com/b/a/247297.htm
www.ganglandnews.com/gottijr.htm
www.ganglandnews.com/column336.htm

That's the problem with NY City's "Victim Disarmament Zone", since only the criminals and copsters have guns (same thing). This scam also protects gangsters in Gangsta Govt from mass arrest and/or lynching, as proven in the mass citizen's arrests of an entire sheriffs dept for election fraud, in the Battle of Athens, Tennessee in 1947.
www.geocities.com/redneckelectiondeathmatch

So making an unarmed citizen's arrest is a bad idea, unless the perp is also disarmed. Gotti's sleazy sister Victoria gives new meaning to Media Mafia with her network TV show "Growing Up Gotti".

Citizen's arrest powers MUST be combined with firearms. Only disarmed slaves live in NY City and Washington DC, as the slaves discovered on 9/11/2001. Compare to Kennesaw, Georgia, where city ordinance REQUIRES every adult resident to own a gun, just like during the American Revolution.

Quote:

Gotti Jr. Dodges Legal Bullet with Second Mistrial

by Nancy Solomon
All Things Considered
March 10, 2006

In New York, a federal jury deadlocks in the racketeering trial of accused mob boss John "Junior" Gotti. It's his second mistrial in eight months. Prosecutors say they'll try Gotti a third time, and the judge indicates she'll set a new trial date on Monday.

www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5257064&ft=1&f=1001
www.courttv.com/talk/chat_transcripts/2005/0812gotti-bloom.html


Junior Don Behind Curtis Sliwa Shooting

By Jerry Capeci
Gangland News
June 26, 2003

As an act of revenge for badmouthing his old man on talk radio, John A. (Junior) Gotti ordered the 1992 shooting of Guardian Angels founder and radio host Curtis Sliwa, according to new evidence obtained by federal authorities.

The sensational shooting is one of several acts of mob violence that the feds have now tied to the younger Gotti, (right) Gang Land has learned.

Sources say the feds have evidence that Junior ordered crew members “to teach (Sliwa) a lesson” for his repeated portrayals of the late Dapper Don as a low life gangster who deserved to be jailed for life for his April 1992 racketeering and murder conviction.

Sliwa was shot and critically wounded by two gangsters who picked him up in a stolen taxi cab outside his East Village apartment as he left for his early morning talk show at about 5 A.M. on June 19, 1992 – four days before Gotti was sentenced to life.

Shot in the back and both legs, Sliwa underwent two operations, and spent three weeks in Bellevue Hospital. On his release, Sliwa resumed his show – co-hosted at the time with his then-wife Lisa Evers – and accused associates of Junior Gotti with being responsible for the attack.

No one has been charged in the case, and until today, none of the alleged participants has ever been named.

Sliwa often refers to the shooting on his WABC radio show – now co-hosted by radical left-wing attorney Ron Kuby. Yesterday, for example, during a promo for a health plan, Sliwa recalled how he was “shot full of lead by the Gambino family” in 1992 when he failed to practice “preventive medicine….and keep my mouth shut.”

Turncoat capo Michael (Mikey Scars) DiLeonardo, (left) who began cooperating with the feds last fall, has given the feds the lion’s share of the information concerning the several violent accusations against Junior, including the shooting of Sliwa, sources said.

DiLeonardo, a former partner with Junior in several topless bar extortion scams, has told the feds that Junior, angered by Sliwa’s continued attacks instructed his charges to “put Sliwa in the hospital” for constantly haranguing his father, as well as him and his sister Victoria on his show, in the newspapers and on guest appearances on other shows, sources said.

Here’s Junior’s cast of characters, and their roles, according to DiLeonardo’s account to the feds, sources say.

The wheelman in the plot was Joseph D’Angelo, a onetime protégé of Salvatore (Sammy Bull) Gravano. Three months earlier, D’Angelo had rattled Gravano during his testimony at John Gotti’s trial by standing up and slowly walking out and back into the courtroom shortly after the superstar turncoat took the stand.

The Ice Man

Philip Carlo
To Kill the Irishman

Rick Porrello

D’Angelo, 34, has 10 months left of a four year sentence for extortion.

The shooter was Michael (Mikey Y) Yannotti, a member of a crew headed by capo Nicholas (Little Nick) Corozzo. Yannotti, 30, and D’Angelo, have both become “made men” since the shooting.

Seconds after Sliwa (right) got into the cab at St. Marks Place and Avenue A, a man who had been crouched down in the front passenger’s seat, rose and began firing down at Sliwa who bounced from side to side trying to open either door, which were both jury-rigged shut, Sliwa said shortly after the attack.

Two blocks away, as the cab careened around the corner on Ave B and East 7th St, Sliwa dove towards the driver’s side open window – the partition between front and back seats had been removed – screaming “Code Red, Code Red” into his Guardian Angel radio. He got stuck, but was shot in the back and tumbled out into the street.

As Guardian Angels, police and an ambulance responded to his cries for help, the cab sped away and was recovered a few blocks away, where the getaway driver had waited to pick up D’Angelo and Yannotti, sources said.

Contacted yesterday, Sliwa told Gang Land: “The guys should go straight to hell without an asbestos suit. I’ve been right about this all along. This is the way the Gottis have been doing business ever since the beginning. Thank goodness that it’s starting to change. I won’t be happy though until they’re all either in jail or pushing up daisies.”

The Sliwa shooting was one of several mounted by the budding young mob leader, sources say.

Six months after the Sliwa attack, Junior was on a three capo panel running the Gambino family for his dad that authorized the Christmas Eve execution of a daring husband and wife team that had robbed several Gambino and Bonanno family social clubs in Brooklyn and Manhattan, sources said.

Sources said that the feds have determined that Gambino soldiers Dominick (Skinny Dom) Pizzonia (left) and Ronald (Ronny One Arm) Trucchio were the gunmen who executed Thomas Uva, 28 and his wife Rosemary, 31, as they did their Christmas shopping in Ozone Park, Queens.

During their brief lived success, Thomas wielded an Uzi submachinegun and Rosemary served as getaway driver as the Bonnie and Clyde pretenders rolled up scores against victims who did not report their losses to the cops.

Sources said the Bonanno family – a Bath Ave. social club operated by then consigliere Anthony Spero (right) was the first to be hit by the Uvas – had the contract to whack them, but “the work was done by the Gambinos.”

Pizzonia, 61, currently serving time for extortion, is set for release from federal prison in February. Trucchio, 51, recently pleaded guilty to state gambling charges and faces 1-to-3 years when he is sentenced next month.

As Gang Land reported last August, the FBI and Queens cops have also targeted Junior in a Mar. 13, 1983 murder during a wild barroom brawl that young Gotti allegedly started by smashing a glass in one patron’s face and finished by stabbing another one to death.

The Manhattan U.S. Attorney’s office, which obtained racketeering charges in 1998 that led to Gotti’s current incarceration – he is scheduled to end his 77-month prison term next year – is looking to make a new case against Junior, sources said. A spokesman for U.S. Attorney James Comey declined to comment about the case.

“Junior is turning out to be a chip-off-the-old block,” said one law enforcement official. “He may not be coming home as soon as he thinks he is.”

His attorney, Richard Rehbock ripped the government “for leaking this old and stale information for the sole purpose of creating a very negative atmosphere about my client. This leak speaks volumes about their intent.”

www.ganglandnews.com/column336.htm



Read the Communist Manifesto to see that Victim Disaramament Zones and abolition of the Death Penalty are designed to ESCALATE violence, in order to overthrow a nation (USA). Especially when combined with invasion by a Fifth Column of 30-million (soon to be 100-million) criminal aliens, many of them waving Communist Party flags. Mexican hitmen and gangmembers can kill any US citizen then drive back to Mexico via the non-existant border, where they are safe from extradition, since Mexico has no death penalty.

Quote:

VIDEO DOWNLOAD: NATION OF AZTLAN
A "guest worker" bill is estimated to bring in 200 million workers in the next 50 years to compete with Americans in all sectors of the job market. Stop them! Demand workplace enforcement. Demand a border fence. Call your elected officials. Make a visit to their office and give them a brick. fairUS.org has their contact information. You can email their entire staff at OutsourceCongress.org Send free faxes to congress at NumbersUSA.com F.I.R.E. has a listing of National anti-illegal immigration events that you should attend.
www.immigrationwatchdog.com

Exclusive: The Truth About 'La Raza'
by Congrssman Charlie Norwood
Apr 07, 2006
www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=13863


The point being, knowing how to make a legal citizen's arrest is an EXCELLENT legal defense to arrest for justifiable homicide in self defense. And Sliwa should have been wearing a bullet-resistant vest, tho Kevlar vests weren't cheap back then.


Pretty cunning, don't cha think?
-Jayne, The Message

FIREFLY SERENITY PILOT MUSIC VIDEO V2
Tangerine Dream - Thief Soundtrack: Confrontation
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2006/03/8912.php

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 5, 2006 4:48 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


There is no citizen's arrest in Florida.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 5, 2006 5:09 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!


Quote:

AnthonyT wrote:

There is no citizen's arrest in Florida.



ALL states have citizen's arrests. That's the ONLY way a private security guard can make an arrest of a shoplifter, and the only way a cop can make an arrest in pursuit outside his jurisdiction or off-duty. It's the only way a citizen can stop a burgler.

Quote:

A Private Investigator is, as the name implies, a private individual engaging in investigative work. The Private Investigator is not a public law enforcement officer or federal agent. A Private Investigator has no rights of arrest or detention beyond the rights given all citizens under common law (popularly known as a "citizen's arrest.").
www.floridadetectives.com/art_hiring.htm

Supreme Court of Florida:
We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 12 Fla. Const. The charges brought by the JQC stem from conduct exhibited by Judge Cope while attending an out-of-state judicial conference in April 2001. The investigative panel accused Judge Cope of (1) being publicly intoxicated on two nights; (2) stealing a hotel room key belonging to two women; (3) engaging in inappropriate conduct of an intimate nature with one of the women; (4) prowling and attempting to forcibly enter the women's hotel room; (5) making a material false
statement to the police after being placed under a citizen's arrest; and (6) failing to
disclose his citizen's arrest upon returning to the bench.
www.law.fsu.edu/library/flsupct/sc01-2670/op-sc01-2670.pdf


Gangsta Govt serial killer Colonel Bo Gritz attempted citizen arrest, but judge and homicidal hubby spent $100,000 of Terri's "rehab" settlement on hiring off-duty cops to kill her!

Bo Gritz Radio Show
www.theamericanvoice.com

Citizen's arrest attempt of Schiavo, judge. Green Beret Bo Gritz intervened in Ruby Ridge to escort family to safety. Former Green Beret Commander Bo Gritz is trying to conduct a citizen's arrest of Terri Schiavo's husband and the judge who ordered the brain-damaged Florida woman's feeding tube removed so she can be legally starved. The 66-year-old retired Army Lt. Colonel with his wife, Judy, arrived in Florida from their home in Nevada yesterday with the intent of arresting anyone involved in removing the life-sustaining tube.
www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43347



Govt cops are FORBIDDEN from making any arrest for a misdemeanor crime that they are not eyewitness to. In those cases, the eyewitness citizen complainant actually makes the citizen's arrest, and the cop just takes custody and delivers the alleged perp to jail. This is what happens in shoplifting cases with private security guards.

Citizen's arrest is a Common Law right in every state that hasn't already written a statute for it. Common Law existed long before USA, and was incorporated by all the state constitutions.

Society would cease to exist without citizen's arrest authority, since the vast majority of "cops" are actually corporate security guards. Govt copsters are too busy carjacking and extorting safe drivers by a hundred million bogus traffic tickets every year, to worry about catching thieves and muggers, since there's no profit in that.

The Media Mafia and Gangsta Govt want ignorant disarmed slaves, who can be robbed via extortion by taxation. Citizen's, on the other hand, know they have the right to make citizen's arrests, and know how to lawfully use a firearm for justifiable homicide in self defense.


I've been shot too many times to be scared of a gun. That hat makes you look like an idiot.
-Womac, Alliance copster

FIREFLY SERENITY PILOT MUSIC VIDEO V2
Tangerine Dream - Thief Soundtrack: Confrontation
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2006/03/8912.php

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 5, 2006 5:28 PM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Hi all,

I lived in Florida most of my life. (28 years) When I applied for a Concealed Weapons permit, (9 years ago) it was explained to me in excruciating and painful detail when I could and could not legally use lethal force to defend myself.

There were two scenarios I remember being discussed in class.

Scenario 1) I have a pocket knife. I am walking down the street and a man jumps me, and starts pounding me with his fists. I am battered and bruised and bloodied, and as he straddles me and pounds me, I whip out my pocketknife and eviscerate the SOB. Result? I am likely to be arrested and sent to jail and possibly convicted of a crime.

Scenario 2) I am in a parking lot. A man approaches me with a knife and threatens my life. I am armed with a concealed pistol. What am I allowed to do? I am allowed to either give him my life (no, thank you) or I can run. Now, running isn't a bad idea in this situation, especially if it gives me time to get to my gun. But I'm not allowed to do that. I am allowed to run. And run and run and run. I can hide behind cars. I can cry out for help. If he pursues me, I must run and run and run until I am physically incapable of evading him any longer. Then I can shoot him.

I thought these two scenarios were the most intrinsically stupid ideas I'd ever heard in my life. I felt like it gave the criminal who was attacking me more rights and freedoms than it gave me.

I am glad the obligation to flee has been removed. I will be equally glad when use-of-force restrictions are removed for situations where an attacker clearly intends you 'grievous bodily harm.' I don't want to have to moderate my response. He might be better at combat than I am, and treading on eggshells in my reaction is likely to make an omelette out of me.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner



I always thought that this sort of thing was ridiculous, as someone else pointed out, the criminals have more rights than the victims in this country. For the most part I am proud to consider myself a liberal, but the rampant destruction of our justice system (you shouldn't have fought back you hurt him, his childhood was bad, if society had just cared more) is something that ROYALLY pisses me off.

On a lighter note, anybody else wondering how much hard drive space Piratenews's posts take up? I would bet that even with the people on this board who post constantly Piratenews probably takes up the largest chunk of space.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 5, 2006 8:00 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Piratenews,

There is no citizen's arrest in Florida.

I was a Security Guard in Florida, and Security Guards do not have any arrest authority. They do have a rather vague authority to 'detain' someone until law enforcement arrives. Ordinary citizens in Florida have no such explicit right.

Unless you can point me to the Florida law that says otherwise?

--Anthony



"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 5, 2006 10:17 PM

OLDENGLANDDRY


PIRATENEWS

You were SO close to actualy having an intelegent opinion but here you go off on the raving looney trail again.
What the hell does the Communist Manifesto have to do with Citizens arrest?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 6, 2006 9:43 AM

RIGHTEOUS9


Well, I don't get it. Maybe somebody could explain to me where I'm misreading.

Explain to me this. How, according to the provisions laid out by the law, if I understand it, does somebody, as an example, punching another person in the face...

a stupid and violent act in itself, warrant getting shot? How does the law protect him from being shot, for that matter?

We're talking about a midemeanor crime, beig dealt with with deadly force, legally. And really, that's the change here right? Before you had to do everything you could to avoid a conflict...now you can just be pissed that some guy hit you in the face. Is that what I'm reading?

I mean, come on, do we really need to change the law to keep people safe? I don't think so. A person fearing for his life is not going to consider the law when acting. He's going to take the action he feels is necessary. The law will sort that out later, and I bet its a rare rare thing where people are found guilty in cases of actual self defense.

That's my take so far...but maybe I'm wrong here.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 6, 2006 10:40 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hey there Righteous,

How many punches to the face should I absorb before I can defend myself? 2? 4? 6?

Perhaps I have to sustain X amount of broken bones before I can defend myself?

Maybe it's a weight issue. Maybe my opponent has to outweigh me by X pounds before I can defend myself?

Or maybe I have to be outnumbered? How many attackers would authorize a response?

Let me ask you another question. If there is a man on top of me, punching me in the face, how do I know when he's going to decide to stop? What if he goes too far?

What if he decides not to stop till I'm dead?

You know what the easy solution to this problem is? Don't f*cking attack people. Attacking someone should risk any consequence up to and including death.

I am not happy with gambling my life on the judgement of an attacker.

I'd rather the attacker gambled his life on my judgement.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 6, 2006 10:50 AM

RIGHTEOUS9



Completely understood,

except that I just don't buy it that anybody who fears for their life is looking at the law at the time. NOr do I buy it that many people who protect themselves from attacks legitimately, with deadly force, are very often found guilty for their part. If you have figures to prove otherwise, I'd like to see them.

Nobody is really saying you should be trying to measure these things. I think the former law was explicit because it didn't want abuse of the right to use handguns. It didn't want people to be able to legitimately use them for any reason but for honest self-defense.

Give me a practical reason why this law had to change.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 6, 2006 10:56 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


I will look for specific incidents of lawful defense causing people to be tried in court. I am not a lawyer, however, and this will take time.

In the mean time, I submit to you that any law which allows someone to subvert my rights needs to be abolished or changed, regardless of whether such infringement has actually occurred.

I do not want to have to run laps around a parking lot before I can legally respond with lethal force, regardless of whether I think I'd actually be convicted by any jury.

How would you feel about a law that said you could be arrested and sent to jail for chewing gum? Would it matter if no one actually arrested you for chewing gum? Isn't the law wrong anyway?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 6, 2006 10:56 AM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by Righteous9:
Well, I don't get it. Maybe somebody could explain to me where I'm misreading.

Explain to me this. How, according to the provisions laid out by the law, if I understand it, does somebody, as an example, punching another person in the face...

a stupid and violent act in itself, warrant getting shot? How does the law protect him from being shot, for that matter?



While your point about the guy punching you then getting killed is somewhat valid, it is an overstatement of what will generally happen. Most of the time if you get punched in the face killing the guy who did it won't be on your mind (beating the s*** out of him maybe). Additionally if someone initiates violence then they should expect violence, if he punches you then he should expect you to fight back.

On the other hand without the law if someone pulls a gun on you, then you cannot fight back. This means that while you are fulfilling your civic duty by running away you will get shot in the back, sound like fun to you? didn't think so.

Quote:


We're talking about a midemeanor crime, beig dealt with with deadly force, legally. And really, that's the change here right? Before you had to do everything you could to avoid a conflict...now you can just be pissed that some guy hit you in the face. Is that what I'm reading?



Once again you are using a weak (though valid) example, the law will doubtless be used in the capacity (though once again if you initiate violence you should expect, and accept, violence in return), the law is intended to be used in situations where your well-being is in serious, persistant danger.

Personally I don't want to have to run, I would prefer that that be an option. Besides if the other guy is looking for conflict it is unavoidable and the expectation that you avoid it is really absurd.

Quote:

I mean, come on, do we really need to change the law to keep people safe?


Yes.

Quote:


I don't think so. A person fearing for his life is not going to consider the law when acting. He's going to take the action he feels is necessary. The law will sort that out later, and I bet its a rare rare thing where people are found guilty in cases of actual self defense.

That's my take so far...but maybe I'm wrong here.



I would not be so sure about how rare a conviction is, besides they will still have to spend time in jail while the law "sorts it out". And I have seen many, many cases where people defending their homes or their persons were convicted of assault against the people who were assaulting or robbing them. Many times the settlement in those cases is worth more than a robber would have taken in the first place.

In short, if someone attacks you, there should never be a question of the legality of you protecting yourself. Now there isn't, and I applaud the lawmakers and hope that hte rest of the states catch on.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 6, 2006 11:02 AM

OLDENGLANDDRY


PIRATENEWS SAID:

"Read the communist Manifesto to see that victim dissarmament zones and abolition of the death penalty are designed to ESCALATE violence"


O.K. so I've got a copy of the Communist Manifesto right in front of me now (which you must have read to have made that statement right? So don't tell me I'm a commie for having one).
Kindly point out to me the passage to which the above statement refers (just so you can prove yourself right).
It must be in there otherwise you would'nt have said it right?


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 6, 2006 11:03 AM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by Righteous9:
Nor do I buy it that many people who protect themselves from attacks legitimately, with deadly force, are very often found guilty for their part. If you have figures to prove otherwise, I'd like to see them.



In my experience reading about incidents online, it is usually not a criminal conviction and there is usually not deadly force involved. A typical case involves a home invader who attacks the homeowner, gets beaten up and then sues the homeowner. I have seen incidents where criminal charges were filed (no I did not keep the links), but they are relatively rare.

Quote:

I think the former law was explicit because it didn't want abuse of the right to use handguns. It didn't want people to be able to legitimately use them for any reason but for honest self-defense.


The former laws included any sort of retaliation, not just handguns, and according to the law even self-defense was not a legitimate use of a gun unless there was no other option. That to me means that I have to place my life on the line to avoid hurting the person who is attacking me, that is absurd.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 6, 2006 11:11 AM

RIGHTEOUS9



But I'm sure you would accept at least the possibility that those convictions didn't result by some technicality where a person didn't follow the procedure to the letter. Could it be possible that any of these convictions were warranted because they were the excessive use of force?

I've got no love for the idea of burglary...and its a particularly invasive frightening crime. But it's not just done by the very dangerous, it's done by the young and stupid and its done by the desperate(which could be very dangerous but not neccesarily suicidal). Given a choice, the person with the home should be the one left standing if somebody were going to get hurt, but I want to know that somebody wasn't killed unnecesarily.

I want to know that the person with the gun didn't overreact...a gun is usually a pretty good deterrent in and of itself without having to discharge.


What about a perceived threat now though? What if you just thought somebody was looking to harm you. He came too close, too threateningly...his dimeanor too angry. Does the new law force a situation where you had to be attacked? Or is it just enough to think you are?

I do want to be pragmatic about this...not so compassionate that I give the person breaking the law a pass at the expense of law and order and the citizen's own safety. So far though, there's nothing about this bill that I think makes people safer...I think it does the opposite, actually.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 6, 2006 11:26 AM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by Righteous9:

But I'm sure you would accept at least the possibility that those convictions didn't result by some technicality where a person didn't follow the procedure to the letter. Could it be possible that any of these convictions were warranted because they were the excessive use of force?


I would accept that possibility if you will accept the possibility that that does not apply to every case.

Define excessive use of force. If someone is going to attack me, tells me so, and then we sit down and talk about the ground rules for our fight then we have an agreement as to what constitutes excessive force. If he just attacks me then I have to assume that he is going to try to kill me in which case NO amount of force is excessive.

Quote:


I've got no love for the idea of burglary...and its a particularly invasive frightening crime. But it's not just done by the very dangerous, it's done by the young and stupid and its done by the desperate(which could be very dangerous but not neccesarily suicidal).



And how do I know what category they fall into? Once again if they are interested in talking it out ahead of time...but rarely is that an option.


Quote:

Given a choice, the person with the home should be the one left standing if somebody were going to get hurt, but I want to know that somebody wasn't killed unnecesarily.


I agree, but the way the law was before the homeowner could not defend themselves without risking legal retaliation. I would rather have the right to fight back and risk excessive force then the right to cower and be killed.


Quote:

I want to know that the person with the gun didn't overreact...a gun is usually a pretty good deterrent in and of itself without having to discharge.


True, but once again, in an unknown situation who is to decide what contitutes overreaction? If someone is attacking me I have to assume that they intend to kill me, otherwise I run the risk of being killed myself.

Quote:

What about a perceived threat now though? What if you just thought somebody was looking to harm you. He came too close, too threateningly...his dimeanor too angry. Does the new law force a situation where you had to be attacked? Or is it just enough to think you are?


Not sure, and that is a good point, technically whenver you feel threatened it is a case for assault, and that will probably be a situation that the lawmakers will have to deal with sooner or later.

Quote:

I do want to be pragmatic about this...not so compassionate that I give the person breaking the law a pass at the expense of law and order and the citizen's own safety. So far though, there's nothing about this bill that I think makes people safer...I think it does the opposite, actually.


Are you planning on threatening anyones life? Then there shouldn't be any reason to worry about it. This law is almost certainly more likely to save your life then end it, unless you act against someone with criminal intent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 6, 2006 11:49 AM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by Righteous9:
But I'm sure you would accept at least the possibility that those convictions didn't result by some technicality where a person didn't follow the procedure to the letter.



A P.S. to my comment on this, should we be proud of a system that puts victims in jail because of technicalites?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 6, 2006 1:46 PM

FLETCH2


Isn't the point here that self defence is a defence from charges of murder or manslaughter. People still go to trial, still face a jury and would still have to prove that they acted to defend themselves. It's not like you can just tell the cops it was self defence and walk. Also I'm assuming that the Florida law still has an appropriate force requirement, so if a 6ft man with a busted lip claims he shot a 5ft man because the smaller man punched him it will be hard to make a self defence claim work in court.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 6, 2006 2:10 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by fredgiblet:
A P.S. to my comment on this, should we be proud of a system that puts victims in jail because of technicalites?


No...

But not too long ago there was a case where a guy got pissed off because he's been burgled several times. It happened again and he came down stairs and shot a kid in the back with a shotgun while the kid was running away.

He played the big victim card because he was just defending his property. I'm sorry there's a big difference between defending oneself and shooting someone in the back while they're running away.

To be fair there's also been cases where burglars have sued the home owner because they injured themselves 'on the job' so to speak, but if you don't make it clear too people that they have to do everything to get away before they even think about using deadly force you get people shooting each other in the back.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 6, 2006 6:58 PM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
But not too long ago there was a case where a guy got pissed off because he's been burgled several times. It happened again and he came down stairs and shot a kid in the back with a shotgun while the kid was running away.

He played the big victim card because he was just defending his property. I'm sorry there's a big difference between defending oneself and shooting someone in the back while they're running away.



True, and that is a darker-side-of-gray area there. But once again, if you are going to commit a crime you should be prepared to face the consequences. The guy probably shouldn't have shot the kid in the back, but if the kid hadn't been robbing his house...

Quote:

To be fair there's also been cases where burglars have sued the home owner because they injured themselves 'on the job' so to speak...


Which is completely ridiculous.

Quote:

...but if you don't make it clear too people that they have to do everything to get away before they even think about using deadly force you get people shooting each other in the back.



Just trying to understand here, you are saying that the people should run away from their home because a burglar was there?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 6, 2006 7:14 PM

CHRISISALL


No one should break into another's home without EXPECTING to slip on a skate, be bitten by a dog, trip on an unfinished science project, or be shot by a nervous aggrivated bi-polar insomniac.

Am I just trippin' here?

Just say no, I won't be a d**k Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 12:00 AM

OLDENGLANDDRY


PIRATENEWS

I take it that you are not going to answer my Communist Manifesto question?

So that makes me right and you WRONG.
Again.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 1:55 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by fredgiblet:
The guy probably shouldn't have shot the kid in the back, but if the kid hadn't been robbing his house...


And if he hadn't decided to shoot people in the back he wouldn't of gone to prison .

Robbing a house hardly warrants a death sentence, a prison term perhaps, but not a death sentence.
Quote:

Just trying to understand here, you are saying that the people should run away from their home because a burglar was there?

If the choice is shoot people in the back or run away then yeah.

When people pickup a weapon in these situations most often you find that the weapon is used against them. If you don't want to get hurt the best thing to do is make you presence known and ensure the intruder has a clear exit path.

It's just like cornering an animal, they'll try to flee and if your between them and freedom they'll flee through you.

I've practiced various martial arts since the age of five, I'm well aware that if someone hits me I don't get to break their neck. Point is it doesn't matter whether your weapons are your hands or a Glock 9mm, lethal force is always the last resort and only used when it's you or them and you don't have the opportunity to escape.

Saying "they started it" is playground stuff, you choose the level and ferocity of your own response and if that's too strong and unwarranted in the situation then you should be held accountable.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 5:00 AM

DIETCOKE


All for it.

NY/NJ/CT Browncoats: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/firefly_nyc

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 6:53 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
No one should break into another's home without EXPECTING to slip on a skate, be bitten by a dog, trip on an unfinished science project, or be shot by a nervous aggrivated bi-polar insomniac.

Am I just trippin' here?

That’s pretty much the way I see it should be. Unfortunately, I think to many criminals are expecting homeowners to roll over and die, or possibly just cower in the corner. There was a story I read in the news several years ago about a woman who had her house invaded and was attacked by a man who expected to rape her, instead she latched onto his sensitive side and explained things to him in a way that will probably make it impossible for him to ever become a father. Which killed two birds with one stone. I don’t know if that was the best thing to do, because she could have gotten killed, but I do know that if there was ever a deterrent for rapist that had to be it.

I think I would have advised her to have just gotten a gun and shot the guy, but her way worked too.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 7:03 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

"Saying "they started it" is playground stuff, you choose the level and ferocity of your own response and if that's too strong and unwarranted in the situation then you should be held accountable."


I am not a martial artist. I don't know if my opponent is. If someone hits me more than once, I'm going to assume they mean me grievous injury.

I'm not a boxer. I wasn't in the military. How about the other guy? He obviously felt competant enough to attack me. So what am I going to do in my defense?

I am going to punch. Kick. Bite. Claw out his eyes. Break his knees. Rip out his scrotum. Crush his windpipe.

Not because I want to kill him. Rather, because I want him to stop hurting me. And so I will employ every attack I can think of until he stops.

While I will not be thinking, "Break his neck" I think that might happen as I struggle to survive. As might any other of myriad injuries.

This isn't playground stuff. I don't go around inciting people to beat me up. If they do, their motives are dark. My response will be frenzied and desperate.

I can't be sorry and I won't apologize for any injury someone may incur when they decide to cause me harm. They should leave me the f*ck alone and let me live in peace.

--Anthony


"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 7:13 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Saying "they started it" is playground stuff, you choose the level and ferocity of your own response and if that's too strong and unwarranted in the situation then you should be held accountable.

There’s a difference between holding someone accountable for excessive force and persecuting the victim. If a criminal made the choice to break into a house, then that is a choice he made. The homeowner should be given the benefit of the doubt, not the criminal, and a person should not be required by law to cower in his own house.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 8:11 AM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:

Originally posted by fredgiblet:
The guy probably shouldn't have shot the kid in the back, but if the kid hadn't been robbing his house...


And if he hadn't decided to shoot people in the back he wouldn't of gone to prison .



True. And if the kid hadn't robbed his house the kid would be alive AND the guy would not be in jail, everyone wins.

Quote:

Robbing a house hardly warrants a death sentence, a prison term perhaps, but not a death sentence.


True, but if the kid runs the cops may not catch him and he gets away free to do it again. Given the choice between freedom or the death penalty for a criminal I would choose the death penalty. If the homeowner had a reliable way of subduing the burglar then he should have done that, otherwise...

Quote:

Quote:

Just trying to understand here, you are saying that the people should run away from their home because a burglar was there?

If the choice is shoot people in the back or run away then yeah.

When people pickup a weapon in these situations most often you find that the weapon is used against them. If you don't want to get hurt the best thing to do is make you presence known and ensure the intruder has a clear exit path.

It's just like cornering an animal, they'll try to flee and if your between them and freedom they'll flee through you.



So you would not move to protect your belongings if someone was robbing your house? You would say that you were there and then step out of the way and let them leave with whatever they wanted? What was your address again? Do you have a big TV? A fast computer? Expensive jewelry? I'll be right over.

I do agree with the cornered animal thing, but once again if someone comes into my home uninvited, to take my stuff and\or threaten my life, violence should be expected to ensue.

Honestly even if I could subdue the invader and keep them until police arrived I have little faith in our justice system doing their job. I have seen far to many cases where obviously guilty people go free because of technicalities\racism charges (O.J.?)\sympathy card (his is an alcoholic), to trust the judicial system to give them a fair sentence.

Quote:

I've practiced various martial arts since the age of five, I'm well aware that if someone hits me I don't get to break their neck.


What if they are trying to kill you? Do you get to defend yourelf then? Isn't that the main point behind taking martial art classes?

Quote:

Point is it doesn't matter whether your weapons are your hands or a Glock 9mm, lethal force is always the last resort and only used when it's you or them and you don't have the opportunity to escape.


Disagree, I don't want to find out that I can't run faster than bullet the hard way, and I surely do not want to find out who is faster, me or the guy with the knife. I agree that lethal force should not be the first resort, kneecaps are good too, but I can't agree with it being the last resort. in a confrontation there are too many variables to risk going through all the other possible actions before useing force to defend yourself/your house/your family.

Quote:

Saying "they started it" is playground stuff...


Nevertheless, it is true. Have you ever heard the saying "don't do the crime if you can't do the time"? If you commit a crime, IMHO you are saying that you are ready to accept any consequences of that crime. If someone commits a crime against me then they must be prepared for the consequences, right now I am living on five acres in the country and I have a tractor with a backhoe.

Quote:

you choose the level and ferocity of your own response and if that's too strong and unwarranted in the situation then you should be held accountable.


Agree completely. However, the standards of excessive force should take the circumstance into account. In your example the homeowner probably should not have shot the kid in the back, but if the kid did not run then IMHO he was completely justified in killing the kid.

I do agree that lethal force should not be the first resort, and that any case involving lethal force should be closely examined, but in the end criminals should not have the ability to do what they please and get away with it just because the victims are too afraid of the law to do something.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 8:14 AM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I can't be sorry and I won't apologize for any injury someone may incur when they decide to cause me harm. They should leave me the f*ck alone and let me live in peace.



Agree completely. But ripping out the scrotum? Damn man thats harsh

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 8:32 AM

SEVENPERCENT


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Claw out his eyes. Break his knees. Rip out his scrotum. Crush his windpipe.

Not because I want to kill him.



I've been reading this thread with some interest, and I think the problem is that people are actually arguing two separate issues, which is a major problem in how the particular law is written.

The first issue seems cut and dried, and (though loath to say it) I agree with Finn. Someone breaks into your house or puts you into a situation in which they absolutely, 100% mean to cause loss of you or your family's life (gun drawn, knife out, gas can in hand, etc.), then the appropriate response is the use of lethal force to defend yourself.

BUT - And here's why I highlighted AnthonyT's quote -

The second issue is more problematic. What do you do in a situation in which the attacker's goal is not to end your life? Being threatened is not an excuse for the use of lethal force. I'm sorry, someone hitting you a couple times is not an excuse to "crush their windpipe," or shoot to kill, as the Fla. law seems to allow.

Someone has a bad day, thinks you spit on his car, keyed it, eyed his girl, whatever, and takes a swing; the idea I get from AnthonyT and others in this thread is that if you have a gun, it's acceptable to use lethal or near-lethal force in a situation in which the odds are your life is not in danger because you feel threatened? That's ridiculous.

Two guys have a traffic accident, one gets out of his car with fists raised and yelling, it's acceptable to "defend yourself" with a gun (or a thumb to the eyesocket) instead of walking away? Bullshit. That's why the law/issue is problematic - There's no absolute line of what constitues a dangerous threat. It seems to me that the first option should always be leaving the problem unless unable to do so. The impression I'm getting from this board is that you should only leave after you've made them a corpse. Am I getting the incorrect impression? AnthonyT?

{EDITED TO ADD - And I realize that the law in question from the initial post just applies to home invasion, but I believe- IIRC - that there is another Fla. statute involving the "retreat issue" in public, which is more what my 2nd point addresses}

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 8:49 AM

CHRISISALL


When you choose to put yourself in a dangerous, and somewhat unknown situation, you are responsible for yourself. The person you choose to rob, in their house or outside of it, can't know what you have in mind, or how far you'll go to get what you want. They might fight you or not, they may kill you or kiss you (if they ain't mentally right, of course).
You can also jump off a cliff, or enter a lion cage unprotected; but to expect everything to end up nice for you is unreasonable.

No matter how angry I ever get at anyone out there, I have never thrown the first punch, even when I knew they were gonna. If you ain't that civilized, don't expect a civilized response to your, er, un-civilized-ness...
...you know what I'm sayin'...

I got words Chrisisall
they just ain't flowing...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 9:09 AM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by SevenPercent:
I've been reading this thread with some interest, and I think the problem is that people are actually arguing two separate issues, which is a major problem in how the particular law is written.



I see what you mean and agree.

Quote:

The first issue seems cut and dried, and (though loath to say it) I agree with Finn. Someone breaks into your house or puts you into a situation in which they absolutely, 100% mean to cause loss of you or your family's life (gun drawn, knife out, gas can in hand, etc.), then the appropriate response is the use of lethal force to defend yourself.


Agree.

Quote:

BUT - And here's why I highlighted AnthonyT's quote -

The second issue is more problematic. What do you do in a situation in which the attacker's goal is not to end your life? Being threatened is not an excuse for the use of lethal force. I'm sorry, someone hitting you a couple times is not an excuse to "crush their windpipe," or shoot to kill, as the Fla. law seems to allow.

Someone has a bad day, thinks you spit on his car, keyed it, eyed his girl, whatever, and takes a swing; the idea I get from AnthonyT and others in this thread is that if you have a gun, it's acceptable to use lethal or near-lethal force in a situation in which the odds are your life is not in danger because you feel threatened? That's ridiculous.



I see your point and I agree, the problem is how do you know?

Quote:

Two guys have a traffic accident, one gets out of his car with fists raised and yelling, it's acceptable to "defend yourself" with a gun (or a thumb to the eyesocket) instead of walking away? Bullshit. That's why the law/issue is problematic - There's no absolute line of what constitues a dangerous threat. It seems to me that the first option should always be leaving the problem unless unable to do so. The impression I'm getting from this board is that you should only leave after you've made them a corpse. Am I getting the incorrect impression? AnthonyT?


I am sorry if I gave the impression that lethal force should be used everywhere. I agree that leaving should be high on the option list in many situations. But if the guy pulls a gun or a knife, that changes the landscape a little. A fistfight is no reason to kill someone unless it is escalating, but if your life stands a good chance of being in danger I feel that running should not be required, but should only be an option (perhaps legaly preferred).

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 10:51 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn Mac Cumhal:
There’s a difference between holding someone accountable for excessive force and persecuting the victim.


Yes, that's my point thank you.
Quote:

If a criminal made the choice to break into a house, then that is a choice he made.

Are you happy with the concept that someone can be executed for burglary without trial?
Quote:

The homeowner should be given the benefit of the doubt, not the criminal, and a person should not be required by law to cower in his own house.

I never said the criminal should be given the benefit of the doubt. As I said 'reasonable force' is a concept I'm well acquainted with because I've been taught techniques that can be used to kill since before I was doing finger painting.

Seriously if someone breaks into your home to kill you then use whatever force necessary up to and including lethal to stop them. If however they entered your house to steal your VCR I have a hard time understanding how anyone can justify killing them.

To protect a VCR? It must be a really good one; does it make coffee for you in the morning and everything?



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 11:12 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I am not a martial artist. I don't know if my opponent is. If someone hits me more than once, I'm going to assume they mean me grievous injury.

I'm not a boxer. I wasn't in the military. How about the other guy? He obviously felt competant enough to attack me. So what am I going to do in my defense?

I am going to punch. Kick. Bite. Claw out his eyes. Break his knees. Rip out his scrotum. Crush his windpipe.

Not because I want to kill him. Rather, because I want him to stop hurting me. And so I will employ every attack I can think of until he stops.

While I will not be thinking, "Break his neck" I think that might happen as I struggle to survive. As might any other of myriad injuries.

This isn't playground stuff. I don't go around inciting people to beat me up. If they do, their motives are dark. My response will be frenzied and desperate.

I can't be sorry and I won't apologize for any injury someone may incur when they decide to cause me harm. They should leave me the f*ck alone and let me live in peace.


You see we're talking completely different things here. When I said 'breaks someone's neck' I was talking about a purposeful action. For instance they could lead in with your standard shoulder punch from their right arm. I block that with an inside block, lead in with a palm strike to their face and then step in and take their head in my hands and break their neck.

It's an incredibly easy move to execute and now my opponents dead. All they did was try and hit me, and I killed them, a complete over reaction. Your talking about a violent mutual engagement where someone else happened to start it.

That was what I meant about playground stuff, the "he started it miss" argument. He may have thrown the first punch but that doesn't give you the automatic right to murder them.

Scenarios:
Someone starts throwing punches; I put them on the floor, possibly knock them out, or lead in with a body or throat strike to wind them.

Then I run away.

Someone comes at me with a knife, I break their arm, drop them...

and then I run away.

Lethal force is the last resort, in all circumstances. If you can run away YOU DO. You don't stand your ground and fight, even if you have a machete or a gun in you pocket, you get away. If you can't do that by all means produce your weapon but you don't use it until such time as there is no other option. Not until pulling the trigger is the easiest option, until it's the only option.

This is a concept most animals can grasp. An animal near exclusively will only fight if cornered (unless it's hunting for food or protecting its young, which is a different thing altogether), so I expect that behaviour from humans no less.

You run away unless you have no choice. If you have no choice you fight but you only use lethal force if non-lethal force is absolutely not enough to defend your own life. Not your VCR or your computer, your LIFE.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 11:36 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Fredgiblet:
True. And if the kid hadn't robbed his house the kid would be alive AND the guy would not be in jail, everyone wins.


Would you condone execution without trial for burglary?
Quote:

True, but if the kid runs the cops may not catch him and he gets away free to do it again. Given the choice between freedom or the death penalty for a criminal I would choose the death penalty. If the homeowner had a reliable way of subduing the burglar then he should have done that, otherwise...

Personally I don't think any crime warrants a death penalty. Even in an extreme Murder may warrant it, but burglary certainly not.

So I'd rather a criminal goes free than we start sanctioning violent vigilante action.
Quote:

So you would not move to protect your belongings if someone was robbing your house? You would say that you were there and then step out of the way and let them leave with whatever they wanted? What was your address again? Do you have a big TV? A fast computer? Expensive jewelry? I'll be right over.

Would I put my own personal well being below my possessions? No. For a start I have insurance.
Quote:

I do agree with the cornered animal thing, but once again if someone comes into my home uninvited, to take my stuff and\or threaten my life, violence should be expected to ensue.

If the choice is stand aside and let them run away or kill them when all they're trying to do is escape, I'd let them leave. That way I don't get hurt and no one has to go to court to explain why there is an unarmed corpse in their front room.
Quote:

Honestly even if I could subdue the invader and keep them until police arrived I have little faith in our justice system doing their job. I have seen far to many cases where obviously guilty people go free because of technicalities\racism charges (O.J.?)\sympathy card (his is an alcoholic), to trust the judicial system to give them a fair sentence.

So you do support execution for burglary without trial? I'm not trying to be facetious (well I am) but the failures of the court system are not an excuse for vigilantism nor murder.
Quote:

What if they are trying to kill you? Do you get to defend yourelf then? Isn't that the main point behind taking martial art classes?

My point all along is reasonable force in trying to defend your self. If someone attacks me, even if they are trying to kill me, I will seek to incapacitate them so that I can escape.

Lethal force is the last resort, in all situations.
Quote:

Disagree, I don't want to find out that I can't run faster than bullet the hard way, and I surely do not want to find out who is faster, me or the guy with the knife. I agree that lethal force should not be the first resort, kneecaps are good too, but I can't agree with it being the last resort. in a confrontation there are too many variables to risk going through all the other possible actions before useing force to defend yourself/your house/your family.

Most people have insurance. Things can be replaced, lives cannot. We can't resurrect the dead because they had life insurance, but we can replace a stolen VCR.

Now if someone's standing with their gun to your head, THEN firing your own weapon is a last resort. If however, you have a gun and they have a knife and they’re some distance away 'blowing them away' certainly is not the last resort. You should always try to run away first, if you come running down stairs pistol drawn then your going to have a confrontation, especially if they are armed as well. If you escape out the back door no one gets hurt, including YOU.
Quote:

Nevertheless, it is true. Have you ever heard the saying "don't do the crime if you can't do the time"? If you commit a crime, IMHO you are saying that you are ready to accept any consequences of that crime. If someone commits a crime against me then they must be prepared for the consequences, right now I am living on five acres in the country and I have a tractor with a backhoe.

I still fail to see how misdemeanour assault or robbery warrants a death sentence.
Quote:

I do agree that lethal force should not be the first resort, and that any case involving lethal force should be closely examined, but in the end criminals should not have the ability to do what they please and get away with it just because the victims are too afraid of the law to do something.

No, but if you don't put a stop gap on it you've got a free ticket to murder. If I want to kill you all I have to do is get you into my house.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 12:43 PM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Would you condone execution without trial for burglary?


Execution is over the line for burglary, maybe cutting off a hand...

I have already said that killing the kid was over the line, but given the choice of letting him go unpunished and killing him...

Quote:

Personally I don't think any crime warrants a death penalty.


Disagree but on practical reasons. Most people who are in prison for life are either repeat hardened criminals, or psychopaths. I for one do not want my tax dollars going to keep them housed and entertained for the rest of their lives. Particularly when they spend most of their time trying to get out and commit more crimes.

Quote:

Would I put my own personal well being below my possessions? No. For a start I have insurance.


Insurance is good, but again do we let the criminals do what they want? Get away when we have the ability to stop them?

Quote:

If the choice is stand aside and let them run away or kill them when all they're trying to do is escape, I'd let them leave. That way I don't get hurt and no one has to go to court to explain why there is an unarmed corpse in their front room.


Once again, as I said lethal force should not be the first option, there are still kneecaps.

Quote:

but the failures of the court system are not an excuse for vigilantism nor murder.


Generally agree, however if justice cannot be found in the courts then where should we look?

Quote:

My point all along is reasonable force in trying to defend your self. If someone attacks me, even if they are trying to kill me, I will seek to incapacitate them so that I can escape.


And then when he wakes up (before the police show up), he victimizes someone else, or starts looking for you personally.

Once again though lethal force is probably not usually neccesary, force often is.

Quote:

Now if someone's standing with their gun to your head, THEN firing your own weapon is a last resort.


By that point its too late, if you had shot them when they first pulled the gun...

Quote:

If however, you have a gun and they have a knife and they’re some distance away 'blowing them away' certainly is not the last resort.


Completely agree, however if they come towards you and attack then something has to happen. Once again I don't want to find out who is faster the hard way.

Quote:

You should always try to run away first, if you come running down stairs pistol drawn then your going to have a confrontation


Probably.

Quote:

If you escape out the back door no one gets hurt, including YOU.


But they get away, the criminal escapes, there is a good chance that they will not get caught, and if they that they will get a slap on the wrist. So you have to fight the insurance company to get your stuff back, probably not getting everything, then the someone else gets robbed as well and the cycle continues.

Quote:

I still fail to see how misdemeanour assault or robbery warrants a death sentence.


It doesn't really, I was kidding about the backhoe (though we do have one...), but once again between letting a criminal go to victimize again or the death penalty...

But like I have said many times, there is always kneecaps.

Quote:

No, but if you don't put a stop gap on it you've got a free ticket to murder.


Agree which is why every incident should be investigated thouroughly.

Quote:

If I want to kill you all I have to do is get you into my house.


First off you've already said that you would let me take all your stuff without lifting a finger (still waiting on that address). Secondly that is why the incidents would be investigated. The law as written is probably (I haven't read it) not a free ticket to kill anyone in your house.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 1:44 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by fredgiblet:
I have already said that killing the kid was over the line, but given the choice of letting him go unpunished and killing him...


Then you let him go. Execution is over the line for burglary, even if the alternative is letting them get away with it.
Quote:

Disagree but on practical reasons. Most people who are in prison for life are either repeat hardened criminals, or psychopaths. I for one do not want my tax dollars going to keep them housed and entertained for the rest of their lives. Particularly when they spend most of their time trying to get out and commit more crimes.

This is an entirely different debate. I'll leave it with the fact that violent crime is higher where the death penalty is used...
Quote:

Insurance is good, but again do we let the criminals do what they want? Get away when we have the ability to stop them?

No, that's what the police and the courts are for. That's why vigilantism is illegal, because a burglary can easily turn into a murder, either of the burglar or the house owner. Personally I'd prefer an unsolved burglary to a solved murder.
Quote:

Once again, as I said lethal force should not be the first option, there are still kneecaps.

That's kind of pandering to my point, reasonable force...
Quote:

Generally agree, however if justice cannot be found in the courts then where should we look?

Improving the court system.
Quote:

And then when he wakes up (before the police show up), he victimizes someone else, or starts looking for you personally.

If that's an issue you run away...
…to a police station and make a statement and let the criminal justice system take it's course.
Quote:

Once again though lethal force is probably not usually neccesary, force often is.

Reasonable force is fine, which is what I've been saying all along .
Quote:

By that point its too late, if you had shot them when they first pulled the gun...

It didn't work like this even in the Wild West .
Quote:

But they get away, the criminal escapes, there is a good chance that they will not get caught, and if they that they will get a slap on the wrist. So you have to fight the insurance company to get your stuff back, probably not getting everything, then the someone else gets robbed as well and the cycle continues.

Well we could organise a posse to drag the burglars away and lynch them. But personally I'd prefer to let a flawed criminal justice system deal with them than go down the route of vigilantism .
Quote:

but once again between letting a criminal go to victimize again or the death penalty...

I don't think the death penalty is a particularly good deterrent.
Quote:

First off you've already said that you would let me take all your stuff without lifting a finger (still waiting on that address).

You can risk you're life for a TV if you want but I won't. At the end of the day the most likely event is they won't have taken anything.

In any event if you come down stairs and tell them the Police have been called they're going to want to leave, if you stand in their way they will want to leave through you. When people confront an intruder with a weapon more often than not that weapon ends up getting used against them.

There was a show on not too long ago featuring a guy called Chris Ryan, who was in the British SAS, a member of the Bravo Two Zero Squad from the first Gulf War. One of the programs featured a scenario where the home owner confronts an intruder and Chris Ryan’s advice was to let them go. Frankly when a member of arguably the best trained military regiment in the world is saying “let them go” I’m inclined to listen .

If you want to throw the dice and hope that this time it's them rather than you, then that is your decision, I'd rather step aside and let them keep the stereo.

It's old crappy and needs replacing anyway . Not to mention I recently pulled it apart to see if I could fit a Mini-ITX motherboard configuration inside its housing (don't ask)...



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 1:49 PM

FREDGIBLET


I am getting rather tired of this arguement, I do have a life (seriously, no really I do), and I really don't want to keep running around around in circles. So if you are willing then lets agree to disagree. I'd still like your address though

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 3:29 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Are you happy with the concept that someone can be executed for burglary without trial?

Are you happy with a person being executed for being in his own home when a criminal decides to break in and kill him? The victim can’t know what the intent of a criminal who breaks into his or her house is, and the law shouldn’t require him to know what he can’t.
Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Seriously if someone breaks into your home to kill you then use whatever force necessary up to and including lethal to stop them. If however they entered your house to steal your VCR I have a hard time understanding how anyone can justify killing them.

If I know that’s all he’s after then you might have a point, but criminals rarely break in with a requisition order to assure me that he’s after my VCR. If I mistake him for trying to kill my daughter, I don’t think I should be held responsible for that mistake.

And don’t I have a right to protect my VCR? If it’s my VCR shouldn’t I have the right to take it back from him in a way that isn’t intended to kill him? Or does the act of breaking into someone’s house necessarily imply that the ownership of my VCR passes to the invader?

And if I have that right, and I do attempt to retrieve my VCR, but the criminal responds violently in a way that makes me think he intends to use lethal force to which I reciprocate with lethal force, does that make me a murderer?
Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
To protect a VCR? It must be a really good one; does it make coffee for you in the morning and everything?

No, it’s actually a piece of shit. If someone wanted it bad enough to break into my house, I’d let them have. I’d probably give them the tapes and a handling fee, but the point is that I don’t think my property rights should necessarily pass to whoever decides they want that property today. And I don’t think someone should be penalized for protecting his property.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 3:49 PM

CHRISISALL


Citizen, what do you think of these scenarios?

A)I wake up to a noise and go downstairs to find two men stealing stuff. I say in a very manly, Terminator-like voice "Get out." They run, still holding some stuff, and I don't follow.

B)I wake up to a noise and go downstairs to find two men stealing stuff. I say in a very manly, Terminator-like voice "Get out." They drop what they're holding and rush me. I smash a lamp in one's face, and as I get grabbed by the other, I reach around and pinch his throat, Drunken-style. Maybe one dies, I dunno, because I'll leave it there...
Did I do wrong?

Ancillary facts: Both my size, strength.

Curious Chrisisall, on Citizen's Day

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 4:30 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


"Ancillary facts: Both my size, strength."

I've seen this before. I hate it when I see it. What difference does it make how big and strong someone is?

--He looked bigger when he was punching me in the f*cking face Anthony



"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 4:35 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Just my general take on things -

Living in the land of gangs ... who really enjoy a bit of fun personal terrorism while they go for your jewels and cash ...

I suppose it depends what you're used to. If you live where burglary generally happens while you're away, and your window gets smashed and a few things taken, then using a gun in self defense probably does seem extreme. And even if you live where 'in your face' burglary is the norm, you shouldn't be shooting people in the back as they run off.

But if you live in a society where violent crime is all over the news (which heightens fear), and if you youreself have been a victim of an attack and/or you personally know someone who has, it lends a different color to a break-in. Especially if you are home. Because you fear how far the person MIGHT go, the option to use a gun might seem reassuring. (This is neglecting the whole adviso that when you point a gun you MUST shoot without hesitation.)


Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 4:40 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"Ancillary facts: Both my size, strength."

I've seen this before. I hate it when I see it. What difference does it make how big and strong someone is?

--He looked bigger when he was punching me in the f*cking face Anthony




Just in case there was an issue with me beating up on two girly-sized young boys...
Ya never know.
I feel that if someone attacks you, size or gender don't matter; they could be semi-pro weightlifters, extremely good streetfighters, or armed in some way, best to assume all of the above, for self-preservation's sake.

Attack the attack Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 4:43 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
(This is neglecting the whole adviso that when you point a gun you MUST shoot without hesitation.)



There is the notion that if you don't use your weapon, someone else will...

Just sayin' Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2006 4:58 PM

SEVENPERCENT


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I've seen this before. I hate it when I see it. What difference does it make how big and strong someone is?




Depends on perspective, attacker vs. attacked. Sorry, but if you are a 25 yr old male, 6'5", 350+, being hit by a 17 yr old kid who has something to prove or is desperate, who is 5'6, 185, I'd say that's a huge consideration involving the use of force. You could conceivably hit with enough force to kill, or an attempt to subdue could turn lethal (I know several bouncers, and there was a story recently where 3 large men accidentally suffocated a smaller man while holding him down waiting for authorities).

OTOH, when attacked by a considerably larger attacker, who could conceivably do more damage to you than you could inflict in unarmed combat (or even some armed - try stopping an all-pro linebacker with a small knife), then your response would have to be upgraded in extremity.

To say that size has no bearing on response is foolish.

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russian losses in Ukraine
Mon, March 18, 2024 23:45 - 982 posts
Punishing Russia With Sanctions
Mon, March 18, 2024 23:44 - 496 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Mon, March 18, 2024 19:27 - 3338 posts
I'm surprised there's not an inflation thread yet
Mon, March 18, 2024 19:09 - 709 posts
Elections; 2024
Mon, March 18, 2024 19:08 - 1982 posts
Grifter Donald Trump Has Been Indicted And Yes Arrested; Four Times Now And Counting. Hey Jack, I Was Right
Mon, March 18, 2024 19:06 - 753 posts
MO AG Suing Large Nationwide Child Sex-slave Trafficker
Mon, March 18, 2024 15:24 - 2 posts
New Peer-Reviewed Research Finds Evidence of 2020 Voter Fraud
Mon, March 18, 2024 15:21 - 7 posts
RCP's No Toss-Up State Map (3-15-2024)
Mon, March 18, 2024 15:19 - 2 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Mon, March 18, 2024 08:03 - 6091 posts
Israeli War
Mon, March 18, 2024 01:27 - 31 posts
CNN: Is the US on the brink of another civil war?
Mon, March 18, 2024 01:22 - 1 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL