Lawmakers in Florida Back Public Use of Deadly Force - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-06-2005, 08:59 AM   #1
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 03:29 PM
Lawmakers in Florida Back Public Use of Deadly Force

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?nav=hcmodule

Uh...yeah.
__________________

__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 04-06-2005, 09:15 AM   #2
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 02:29 PM
I'm not sure how I feel about the "in public" part, but I definitely agree with this:

"The Florida House, citing the need to allow people to "stand their ground," voted 94 to 20 to codify and expand court rulings that allow people to use deadly force to protect themselves in their homes without first trying to escape."

I did think this quote was funny:

"For a House that talks about the culture of life, it's ironic that we would be devaluing life in this bill," Rep. Dan Gelber (D-Miami Beach) said. "That's exactly what we're doing."

That's just another example of trying to deflect responsibility away from whom it really rests upon - the attacker. If someone attacks someone else, it is the attacker's fault and the attacker's fault alone if he winds up dead. People need to start taking responsibility for their own actions.
__________________

__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 04-06-2005, 09:26 AM   #3
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,441
Local Time: 02:29 PM
i'd like to see the wording of this... if you're allowed to use deadly force if and only if your life is in danger, then i agree. if it just states that you can respond with deadly force if attacked, it leaves it too open to interpretation.
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 04-06-2005, 09:56 AM   #4
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 02:29 PM
I swear, the GOP always has to try and "prove its manhood." This bill is about as bad as it gets.

I'm seeing it now: every murder suspect will now claim that the victim was attacking him and that he was just acting in self-defense.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 04-06-2005, 10:13 AM   #5
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 11:29 AM
While this defense make sense in one's home, on the street it lacks the justification for "self defense".

Even though it is a defense, which means the defendant has the burden of proof to show that there was a threat of immediate harm, it will be abused.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 04-06-2005, 02:23 PM   #6
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 01:29 PM
Bar fights will end in death and all someone has to say is "I was standing my ground". What a crock.

I swear Florida as a state, is spiraling down the drain.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 04-06-2005, 04:52 PM   #7
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Se7en's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: all around in the dark - everywhere
Posts: 3,531
Local Time: 02:29 PM
remind me to stay out of florida and arizona bars from now on!!! holy geez.
__________________
Se7en is offline  
Old 04-07-2005, 09:27 PM   #8
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 01:29 PM

Keep in mind, though, that the person "being attaked" is usually going to be surprised/caught off guard by someone threatening them or their loved ones with violence. If the person being attaked reacts in a defensive manner and the attacker, regardless of his or her means of attack, ends up getting killed due to the actions of the person being attacked, then I do not necessarily think the person being attacked should be charged with any crime. Quite often, it IS the fault of the attacker as to how things turn out.

~U2Alabama
__________________
U2Bama is offline  
Old 04-07-2005, 09:31 PM   #9
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 01:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Bama
Keep in mind, though, that the person "being attaked" is usually going to be surprised/caught off guard by someone threatening them or their loved ones with violence. If the person being attaked reacts in a defensive manner and the attacker, regardless of his or her means of attack, ends up getting killed due to the actions of the person being attacked, then I do not necessarily think the person being attacked should be charged with any crime. Quite often, it IS the fault of the attacker as to how things turn out.

~U2Alabama
Yes, but you are completely ignoring how this law can be abused. Let's also keep in mind the % of those acting in self defense that actually kill is very very low.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 04-07-2005, 09:50 PM   #10
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 01:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar

you are completely ignoring how this law can be abused.
BonoVoxSupastar, quite often you raise very good, reasonable and valid points in this forum. I don't always agree with them from the perspective of opinion or ideology, but I usually recognize your posts as coming from someone who is very knowledgeable of the subject matter at hand when you post in threads. However, I sometimes see you bluntly dismiss what someone says because of something you infer from what that person says.

I am not "completely ignoring" anything. I'm not saying this from some type of gun rights argument or anything of the sort. But I do think that a person who is attacked, unprovoked, by another person, should be absolved of much of the burden of proof of innocence in regards to what happens to his or her attacker due to the victim's actions of self defense. I am not calling for vigilante action or anything like that, but I do not think we can expect people to "turn the other cheek" lest they get arrested for defending themselves against an attacker (I'm against theocracy, remember?). I do not think we should get to a point where everyone should arm themselves in public and shoot anyone and everyone who bumps into them.

In fact, I was going to post in the thread about legalizing guns in Arizona nightclubs last week because I think that is a HORRIBLE idea. In that situation, I do not think bar patrons, drunk or sober, need to be carying weapons into establishments where people spend hours, often late at night after a long day working in a steel mill or writing legal briefs or whatever, guzzling Pabst Blue Ribbon or Jack on the rocks. Alcohol causes some people to be more violent than if they were sober. Guns should not be mixed with that atmosphere of potential violence.

My only point is that the burden needs to be on the attacker. And they should be aware of the risks and consequences they face when they attack someone. Or when they attack someone's loved one (see: John Grisham's A TIME TO KILL).

~U2Alabama
__________________
U2Bama is offline  
Old 04-07-2005, 10:12 PM   #11
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 01:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Bama


BonoVoxSupastar, quite often you raise very good, reasonable and valid points in this forum. I don't always agree with them from the perspective of opinion or ideology, but I usually recognize your posts as coming from someone who is very knowledgeable of the subject matter at hand when you post in threads.
I appreciate that. Thank you.

Quote:
Originally posted by U2Bama

However, I sometimes see you bluntly dismiss what someone says because of something you infer from what that person says.
I apologize if I've done that, I really do.

I agree that the burden should be put on the attacker. But with that being said I don't think that in the event of death that the person acting in "self defense" should be completely free from the burden.

No one should be completely free of burden because things are never black and white, I've watched enough Law & Order to know that.

But seriously something that may be seen as pure self defense at the scene of the crime can often be determined otherwise upon later investigation. This law will take away further investigation in those cases.

Also another scenario, I've been trained in Tae-Kwon-Do, got my blackbelt when I was in 6th grade and have been training since then up until 5 or 6 years ago. Now, I'm not legally considered a lethal weapon, but a rank or two more and I would. I chose not to. But I still could kill someone with one or two proper moves. By no means am I what you would consider a "big guy". But there are some out there that don't have the control I have, I've never had to use my skills(knock on wood). But let's say I didn't have that control, I could easily provoke someone to throw the first punch so that it would be self defense and end up killing them or sending them to the hospital and under this law could easily get away with it. All I would need is one or two people saying the other guy threw the other punch.

Now I know enough people that I trained with that make this law dangerous. I know guys who by looks seem like they would get their ass kicked and would purposely provoke guys to throw the other punch and then send this guy to surgery. It's scary. And so is this law.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 04-08-2005, 07:44 AM   #12
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 02:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Se7en
remind me to stay out of florida and arizona bars from now on!!! holy geez.
Just don't attack anyone and you'll be okay.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 04-08-2005, 09:46 AM   #13
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 01:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest

Just don't attack anyone and you'll be okay.
I think you have far too much faith in mankind. I don't want to go to a bar where guns are allowed or people can kill me and claim self defense with no questions asked.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 04-08-2005, 10:04 AM   #14
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 02:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


I think you have far too much faith in mankind. I don't want to go to a bar where guns are allowed or people can kill me and claim self defense with no questions asked.
I actually have no faith in mankind at all. That's why I cling to Jesus.

I'm not sure how I feel about the guns in bars thing; I do know that I definitely agree with the law they passed regarding self defense when being attacked in your own home.
__________________

__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com