Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

ForumsDiscussion Forum → Florida: Shoot first, maybe ask questions later
12
Florida: Shoot first, maybe ask questions later
2005-04-07, 5:19 PM #41
For some reason I immediately pictured Mickey Mouse shooting someone....
2005-04-07, 5:31 PM #42
Quote:
Originally posted by Mort-Hog
Is your stuff really worth killing someone over?


Perhaps not, but my life sure is.

Quote:
Originally posted by Ictus
It's a stupid law. If you're able to avoid shooting someone by simply, you know, trying to get away, there's no rational reason to legally protect you if you decide you'd rather kill your assailant.


Ever try outrunning a bullet? Good luck with that.
woot!
2005-04-07, 5:35 PM #43
Quote:
Originally posted by Cloud
For some reason I immediately pictured Mickey Mouse shooting someone....


Me too...

Never liked Florida anyways.
2005-04-07, 6:36 PM #44
Cadet:
Words:
If he's threatening your life with a gun, shoot him (if you think you can pull a gun faster than he can pull a trigger). Existing self-defense laws would cover you, assuming you could relate a coherent account to the judge. The only thing this new law does is allow weak people to blow away the pissed-off drunk guy who accosts them in the parking lot. Specifically, it allows deadly force not only in answer to deadly force, as the existing laws have for at least 7 years, but in response to the "imminent use of unlawful force". Some guy punches you because you insulted his mother's honor? Shoot him.

Question: This random website apparently has the relevant Florida statutes as of 1998. Construct a scenario where they would provide insufficient legal protection for a victim.
2005-04-07, 6:43 PM #45
Quote:
Originally posted by Ictus
Cadet:
Words:
If he's threatening your life with a gun, shoot him (if you think you can pull a gun faster than he can pull a trigger). Existing self-defense laws would cover you, assuming you could relate a coherent account to the judge. The only thing this new law does is allow weak people to blow away the pissed-off drunk guy who accosts them in the parking lot. Specifically, it allows deadly force not only in answer to deadly force, as the existing laws have for at least 7 years, but in response to the "imminent use of unlawful force". Some guy punches you because you insulted his mother's honor? Shoot him.

Question: This random website apparently has the relevant Florida statutes as of 1998. Construct a scenario where they would provide insufficient legal protection for a victim.


Incidentally, your 'question' was not a question.

Deadly force is not just a gun. A knife, a screwdriver, a baseball bat, etc, are all forms of deadly force.

My understanding of this law is that it expands the area in which one is authorized to use deadly force. If you can cite an authorized source (ie not some misinformed and biased reporter who thinks we're going to have daily street shootouts) that says otherwise, feel free.

You may be surprised to find that most CCW permit holders are actually sensible people, and wouldn't escalate your hypothetical situations if the situation didn't justify it.

With the current law, you could still be sued for shooting someone in self-defense, and the prosecution could say that you didn't try to escape as hard as you could have, etc.

I can't believe how much you argue on criminals' behalf...you think that someone who pulls a knife on someone should be better protected (legally) than the individual who is legally (and morally) entitled to defend himself? If so, you're really, really messed up.

Contrary to what appears to be popular belief, American gun owners aren't constantly looking for an opportunity to blow somebody away.

Let me make a scenario in which this law could apply:

I'm halfway to my car in a dark parking lot. An unknown individual places himself between my car and I. He pulls a knife when I'm approximately 30 feet away, and starts walking toward me. I draw my handgun and slowly back up. He's 30 feet away, outside of effective knife distance (within 21 feet, you can be mortally injured by a knife-wielding assailant if you have a holstered firearm; even if you draw and shoot in time, you may not stop the individual before he can inflict serious harm). Now..current law says I should try to run away. This law says I can stand my ground. If he's stupid enough to run at me with a knife, I can legally shoot him.

Even by drawing my firearm, I have used deadly force. By the legal definition, there is no need to pull the trigger to have employed deadly force. If I were to walk up to some random guy and pull a gun on him, I have just committed aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, even if he doesn't get a scratch.


*shrug* If you have such a problem with this law, then don't assault CCW holders. They're not the easiest targets.
woot!
2005-04-07, 7:05 PM #46
This makes me glad...

Glad that I live on the other side of the world.
The Massassi-Map
There is no spoon.
2005-04-07, 7:12 PM #47
Quote:
Originally posted by Spork
This makes me glad...

Glad that I live on the other side of the world.


You honestly think that crime is going to go up?

You might want to check and see how many people can carry concealed firearms in assorted states:

Vermont: No permit
Alaska: No permit
Arizona: Permit required for concealed, no permit required for open carry (yes, that's right..visible firearm)
New Hampshire and Florida are shall-issue states, meaning that the state has to issue you a CCW permit unless they have good reason not to (ie prior criminal record, etc).


There doesn't seem to be quite the crime epidemic that most of you think would happen.
woot!
2005-04-07, 7:43 PM #48
Quote:
Originally posted by CadetLee
You honestly think that crime is going to go up?


I honestly dont know. I am just glad I live in a society where I can walk down the street in my black trench coat and not have to worry about the consequences of someone percieving me as a threat.
The Massassi-Map
There is no spoon.
2005-04-07, 7:53 PM #49
.. And I'm thankful I live in a society where it's legal simply to protect myself, and criminals are deterred from using weapons in crime. If I was a criminal planning to arm myself to commit a crime in America, I would think twice about who might be carrying weapons. Whereas in Australia I only need to worry about law enforcement.
"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009
2005-04-07, 8:14 PM #50
It's a completely different mentality between societies, there is no point argueing that.

In my society the very, very large majority of the general public dont feel that there is a need to arm ourselves against criminals, and that's why I am glad.
The Massassi-Map
There is no spoon.
2005-04-07, 9:46 PM #51
Quote:
Originally posted by Spork
It's a completely different mentality between societies, there is no point argueing that.

In my society the very, very large majority of the general public dont feel that there is a need to arm ourselves against criminals, and that's why I am glad.


The very, very large majority of the general public in American don't feel that there's a need to arm themselves against criminals..but the ones who do make it safer for everybody else.

Examples.. :)
woot!
2005-04-07, 10:03 PM #52
Quote:
A sheriff`s deputy pursued an armed robbery suspect to a Salem, Oreg., supermarket and fired on the man after nearly being run down in the parking lot. From his adjacent residence, James Hicks was alerted to the disturbance and armed himself. When the fleeing suspect forced his way into the home, Hicks ordered him to drop his gun. Instead, he pointed it at the homeowner, but was shot and killed when Hicks fired first.
(The Statesman Journal, Salem, OR, 1/11/83) (AR 5/83)


Good for him! This is exactly the reason why laws like this should exist.

Quote:
Joseph Dean of Winchester, Calif., and Wendell Knighton of McGill, Nev., were stopped at a rest area near Jackpot, Nev., when they saw a man shoot a sheriff`s deputy. As the criminal advanced on his car, Dean grabbed a pistol, rolled under the vehicle and exchanged shots with him. Knighton, sitting in his own car, opened up, too. In the fusillade, the criminal was killed with no injury to bystanders. Meanwhile, Knighton`s wife and sister-in-law gave first aid to the fallen deputy, probably saving his life.


WOW. :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009
2005-04-07, 10:19 PM #53
Quote:
Originally posted by Freelancer
Good for him! This is exactly the reason why laws like this should exist.



WOW. :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:


Amazing stuff, isn't it..unfortunately, I don't think it gets quite the media coverage that it deserves.
woot!
2005-04-08, 12:46 AM #54
Quote:
Originally posted by Shintock
Dude, don't you think I know that? I was only joking.

*sigh*

hu·mor (hyoo'mr)
n.

The quality that makes something laughable or amusing; funniness. Don't joke at Massassi, as your humor will be wasted.
Catloaf, meet mouseloaf.
My music
2005-04-08, 6:24 AM #55
Quote:
Question: This random website apparently has the relevant Florida statutes as of 1998. Construct a scenario where they would provide insufficient legal protection for a victim.


Answer: Any scenario in which the assailant or his family sues the victim. This bill enjoins criminal and civil action against someone who uses justifiable force, and provides for compensation should that person be wrongfully tried or sued.

Or consider this case (source):

Quote:
A man making a phone call in a public booth found himself harassed by a second man. He tried to walk away and otherwise pacify the second man, but the attacker hit him in the face with a beer can causing significant injury. The attacker also threw a few kicks and punches. Left with no other choice, the man fought back to defend himself.

The attacker then retreated to the rear of a van a few feet away and made a sudden movement. Thinking the attacker was reaching for a weapon, the man took out a pistol and shot him. There was no weapon in the van.

This man was convicted of manslaughter. The court said that although he was only a "reluctant participant" in the fight, the jury was justified in finding that he overreacted to the situation and used excessive force.


This man would probably not have been convicted since an assailant need only use "unlawful force" to justify deadly reciprocation. The bill also prohibits the police from arresting someone who uses deadly force in self-defense unless they have probable cause that his actions were unjustified, so the case may not have even gone to trial.
2005-04-08, 9:01 AM #56
In some states (and I believe NY is one of them) it may even be illegal to fight back if someone breaks into your home, or use something like a stun gun. It's illegal (in some states) to use a stun gun on an intruder, but you have the right to blow his brains out.
$do || ! $do ; try
try: command not found
Ye Olde Galactic Empire Mission Editor (X-wing, TIE, XvT/BoP, XWA)
12

↑ Up to the top!