| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/30/2005 12:40:36 PM · #1 |
Shoot First Law
News Article from Florida
Yay? or Nay?
(NOTE: Put in rant just in case it gets a little heated)
|
|
|
|
09/30/2005 01:08:49 PM · #2 |
Die First....Shoot Later...(oh wait, that's not possible)
Blow up world thus solving world hunger, murder war, famine, disease...
;)
"nihilism at it's best" |
|
|
|
09/30/2005 01:13:40 PM · #3 |
"the law makes it legal for someone to use deadly force against anyone who unlawfully or forcefully enters their home or car -- even if they are not being attacked."
"No law-abiding citizen should be forced to retreat from an attacker ... in their homes or any place they have a legal right to be," Hammer said."
These aspects above are totally reasonable. It's easy to stay safe, don't break into someones house or car. |
|
|
|
09/30/2005 01:15:32 PM · #4 |
I think the anti-gun people are making more of this then what it actually is.
If you break into my house, or start a fight with me, and I'm legally in posession of a gun, I can shoot you to defend myself and I do not have to try running away first or wait until you shoot at me first(risking being attacked from behind).
Every state has a little different wording to their self defense laws. In Arizona I beleive we have this same basic principal and people are not being gunned down in the street for no reason.
|
|
|
|
09/30/2005 01:19:26 PM · #5 |
If me or him, I'll take him. Self preservation. But then again, I don't own a gun. So I guess I'll just use harsh language.
Message edited by author 2005-09-30 13:19:39. |
|
|
|
09/30/2005 02:18:08 PM · #6 |
The basis of "non-retreat" law is founded in the "Castle" doctrine, which originated (I believe) in England. Essentially it states that one does not need to retreat in their own home (domicile), if threatened with "grave" bodily injury, which is lawfully defined as deadly force. In other words, a potential victim is not required to retreat, and may use equal or greater force to STOP the threat.
Civil and criminal laws still apply to the aftermath of the event, and prosecutors choose to prosecute for a host of reasons. So, the prudent responsible person will take reasonable precautions to avoid such incidents, such as locking windows and doors, avoiding agravating and inciteful situations/encounters, eliminate ethnic commentary/critiques/jokes from their conversations, and basically follow the golden rule of treating others as you would like to be treated.
AFTER, these basic fundamentals have been ingrained into your daily living AND you still find yourself in a victimized position during an assault, THEN you may lawfully defend yourself and/or your loved ones (those under your protection and care).
Sometimes it is helpful to know a little background. This law as presented in the initial post, appears to expand the definition of one's domicile, to include the "space" that a person occupies at any given time. Upcoming court cases will surely have an opportunity to define more specifically, how much "space" one occupies while in public.
The intended fever of "shoot first, ask questions later" has never been lawful and is not currently so either. A narrow set of parameters are required to authorize anyone to lawfully use force, especially "grave bodily injury" force.
|
|
|
|
09/30/2005 03:29:51 PM · #7 |
I am one that appreciates this law. I think it does exactly as Flash states and expands the perimeter of the protection of property laws. We as human beings should have the right to protect ourselves against harm. The government of all lands take that liberty against other nations and its citizens should also have that right locally.
|
|
|
|
09/30/2005 03:35:24 PM · #8 |
| It's unfortunate that this website link doesn't tell the story in the proper way. |
|
|
|
09/30/2005 03:36:01 PM · #9 |
If America was Japan, or Western Europe where firearm possession isnt tolerated at all, maybe this would be a crazy law. But this is the USA where gun laws even where they exist are largely unenforced or have no teeth and there are large subsegments of our "citizens" that are walking around with Mac 10s, etc and being glorified for doing so in rap songs. In that environment, the law makes sense.
At the end of the day, better tried by 12 than carried by 6. |
|
|
|
09/30/2005 03:36:10 PM · #10 |
I agree... I couldn't find for the life of me an unbiased link. I would like the law text itself, but couldn't find it either.
|
|
|
|
09/30/2005 03:36:40 PM · #11 |
| If someone broke into my home/car or otherwise, they would likely die if I was around to witness it. A dead man can't defend himself in court. |
|
|
|
09/30/2005 09:33:01 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
If someone broke into my home/car or otherwise, they would likely die if I was around to witness it. A dead man can't defend himself in court. |
But his/her relatives sure can put alot of media attention onto one's actions. Additionally, your actions leading to the "event" and any history that could be considered to place you as being "predisposed" to that level of force, certainly could make the work of your attorney much more difficult. The average "self defense" defense, costs around 100,000 dollars, with the lives of all your family members being pure hell. This "cost" should be enough to keep most citizens leaning towards the "avoidance" category, unless the most dire of circumstances are present. Deadly force is NOT lawful against property theft in nearly every jurisdiction. There must be some other component involved that rises the action of the victim to a justified level, if deadly force is used.
However, as adults, one can make their own choices in life, and live the consequences accordingly. For those interested in a very candid discussion of "use of force" law/application, then please consider Massad Ayoob's book "In the Gravest Extreme". ISBN 0-936279-00-1
This is a very informative read.
Message edited by author 2005-09-30 21:34:32.
|
|
|
|
09/30/2005 09:40:18 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by photodude:
...and there are large subsegments of our "citizens" that are walking around with Mac 10s |
Do you have any evidence that large subsegments are armed with illegal to own "Mac 10's". If so, then your local ATF agent would like to hear from you, so that they could address these criminals.
|
|
|
|
09/30/2005 11:34:08 PM · #14 |
I could see lots of problems with this law because it allows force to be used out in the streets. I can see it applying to one's home or place of business, but not out in the streets where a perceived threat can be misjudged. I think the law will be used as a justification for acting pre-emptively (anyone can claim that they thought they saw you reaching for that weapon of mass destruction in your pocket). Remember Amadou Dialo in NYC. It can also make for people carrying a weapon to act with a chip on their shoulder, just aching for a fight.
It's also one step closer to vigilante groups and lynch mobs. Will give groups such as Ranch Rescue and The Minutemen in the southern states reason to use deadly force.
Fear can wreck havoc on a sound mind and will cause a man to do some things that he/she may regret later on. I'll bet this law will cause the death of more innocent people than it will save.
Message edited by author 2005-09-30 23:36:04. |
|
|
|
09/30/2005 11:49:59 PM · #15 |
I live in Texas...and we have great laws here. Someone in your house stealing your property ..its open season.
I dont own a gun...but I can assure you its a great deterent.
Message edited by author 2005-10-01 00:00:06. |
|
|
|
09/30/2005 11:53:20 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by Flash:
But his/her relatives sure can put alot of media attention onto one's actions. Additionally, your actions leading to the "event" and any history that could be considered to place you as being "predisposed" to that level of force, certainly could make the work of your attorney much more difficult. The average "self defense" defense, costs around 100,000 dollars, with the lives of all your family members being pure hell. This "cost" should be enough to keep most citizens leaning towards the "avoidance" category, unless the most dire of circumstances are present. Deadly force is NOT lawful against property theft in nearly every jurisdiction. There must be some other component involved that rises the action of the victim to a justified level, if deadly force is used.
However, as adults, one can make their own choices in life, and live the consequences accordingly. For those interested in a very candid discussion of "use of force" law/application, then please consider Massad Ayoob's book "In the Gravest Extreme". ISBN 0-936279-00-1
This is a very informative read. |
I wouldn't waste money on an attorney. That would be silly. If a stranger had been caught unexpectedly in my home, it would be even more difficult for me to be proven guilty of anything. It's that simple. I don't have to prove myself innocent. That's not the way the laws work. |
|
|
|
10/01/2005 01:50:06 AM · #17 |
Its called "make my day law" in Colorado . You enter someone's home by breaking in, you die legally by gun, ax, baseball bat, etc. The police investigate the incident, but all have gotten off that I know of. Most of my friends have weapons for protection of their family, well me too. It's our 2nd Amendment Right.
|
|
|
|
10/01/2005 06:11:53 AM · #18 |
I don't know where this law would stand here in Australia but I would not have any hesitation in seriously hurting someone that broke into my home whilst my self and my family were here. If I damage that person in anyway then it is their own fault for breaking in in the first place!
There was an incident here in Australia recently where a female security guard was quite severely beaten by a man who was robbing her of the takings from some shops. I think he smashed her a few times in the face with a knuckle-duster. She in turn crawled over to his car and shot him dead! She ended up being charged with murder! Go figure!
|
|
|
|
10/01/2005 10:25:32 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by Makka:
There was an incident here in Australia recently where a female security guard was quite severely beaten by a man who was robbing her of the takings from some shops. I think he smashed her a few times in the face with a knuckle-duster. She in turn crawled over to his car and shot him dead! She ended up being charged with murder! Go figure! |
There are many factors that go into the "lawful" use of force in self defense. Disparity of force, witness accounts/statements, ones prior history with the race of the perpetrator, training of the individual using force in defense, the political climate at the time of the incident, the actions of the victim AFTER the defensive action, public statements and writings by the individuals invloved, and a host of other seeminly unrelated items that become integral, should the need for defensive use of force become needed.
Again, prudent individuals will read the above mentioned book "In The Gravest Extreme" by Massad Ayoob, ISBN 0-936279-00-1
For ANYONE considering the possibilities that they may need at some future time, to use "lawful" force in a defensive capacity, then please prepare for the WHOLE event, not just the assault. But as stated earlier, grown folks can make their own choices.
Flash
Awareness Associates LLC
Research & Training Institute
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/29/2025 06:05:43 PM EDT.
