Well, if you don't know already, Florida has descided to appoint itself the craziest state in the Union! This all stems out of a new law they have passed which allows people who percieve a threatening situation to themselves or their property to use deadly forces as means to protect themselves or their property if they believe it is necessary. Persons in Florida no longer have to establish that deadly force was their last resort, they instead can now "hold their ground" and shoot first! Isn't that lovely? While I am not a great believer in gun control, I do believe in responsibility, and this law seems to remove a lot of the responsibilities of people who decide to draw and fire upon another person.
posted by Edge @ 10:52 AM
3 comments
3 Comments:
Uuuuh, you happen to know how that's any different from Texas?
>;-)
Ok, now it's "counterpoint time." The only "craziness" involved here exists with those who fail to recognize a Floridian's right to protect themselves and their own on their own property. Basically, if you behave like good civil human beings and refrain from threatening other people with violence, you won't give Floridians a reason to kill you.
This law, Florida - HB-249/SB-436, is also known as The Castle Doctrine
BACKGROUND:
SB-436 corrects a serious problem for citizens who chose to protect themselves in the face of attack by violent criminals.
This bill REMOVES the "duty to retreat" in the face of attack; it creates the presumption that an attacker or intruder intends to do great bodily harm and therefore force, including deadly force, may be used to protect yourself, your family and others in the face of attack; it prohibits prosecution for defending that which you have a right to defend and prohibits civil lawsuits by criminals or relatives of criminals when criminals are injured or killed while attacking law-abiding people.
The Courts in Florida have clearly eroded the rights of law-abiding citizens by imposing a "duty to retreat" (leave your property and RUN) when attacked.
Law-abiding citizens should not be victimized by the state/courts for failing to retreat (RUN) from their own property or any place they have a right to be in the face of attack by an unlawful intruder. Nor should they be victimized for using deadly force against a perpetrator who unlawfully intrudes -- regardless of whether the victim knows what kind of force the perpetrator intends to use.
Any victim should be able to presume that an unlawful intruder is there for the purpose of doing great bodily, and subsequently places the victim and the victim`s family in great imminent peril.
The Castle Doctrine is an ancient common law doctrine with origins going back at least to Roman law that provides that a man`s home is his castle and, hence he may use all manner of force including deadly force to protect it and its inhabitants from attack.
The Florida Constitution Article I, Section 2 guarantees basic rights to all natural persons including the right to defend life and protect property.
The citizens of Florida have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes or vehicles and to be able to use all manner of force against and unlawful intruder/attacker.
This quoted from the Natl Rifle Assoc Inst for Legislative Action website.
I'm also gonna include some links to additional commentaries on the subject:
Hey Florida scum . . . it’s time for you to run! -- Oct 1, 2005 by Doug Giles
Brady Anti-Gun Group Lies to Foreign Tourists -- Sept 30, 2005 by Jim Kouri, CPP
To quote Steve Jobs "Oh, and one more thing..."
I just felt compelled to add some of my own personal experience to this mix of "things to consider" over here.
Now Sarah Brady sez "We think people visiting Florida should be...very careful about getting into an aggressive argument with anyone during their stay."
Just recently, I spent a whole week as one juror of twelve who had to ascertain and then rule on whether or not a man was guilty of two charges, one of them "Disturbing the Peace." During our deliberation, the judge had us focus on the local statute which included "challenging someone else to a fight on public property" as grounds for "Disturbing the Peace."
From relevant testimony, we had established amongst ourselves that the defendant had, in fact, charged into a beauty salon, toward the store owner, in a violent threatening manner such that it was clear from his body language he had every intention of visiting bodily harm upon the store owner. I should also point out that at the time, a police officer was present, and had he not jumped into intcepting the defendant, the store owner would unquestionably have been pummelled, or at least the defendant would have been successful in bringing things to blows.
The defending attorney had pointed out, during his defense presentation, that since no one heard the defendant specifically say to the store owner anything along the lines of "Let's take this outside" one could not say that the defendant challenged the store owner to a fight.
In our deliberation, I pointed out to my fellow jurors that the defending attorney was right, but only to the degree that the defendant did not challenge the store owner to a fight...as a gentleman. By charging into a place of business in such a violent, belligerent and threatening manner toward the store owner, the defendant was in essence challenging the store owner to a fight...as a ruffian, or thug.
Now, one of my fellow jurors just happened to a Lebanese jeweler from The Bronx, who was very passionate about a person's Freedom of Speech. He initially made the argument that the defendant should NOT be punished for going into the beauty salon to have words with the store owner...for getting into an argument with him.
I then pointed out that having an argument implies having a verbal exchange which is far bloody friggin' different from charging into a man's place of business for the express purpose of kicking his ass. Ultimately, my Lebanese friend had to agree with that logic, and we unamiously voted that the defendant was Guilty of Disturbing the Peace.
So, my point basically, izzat there're beeeg friggin' scores of difference 'tween engaging another individual inna heated verbal exchange versus attacking an individual inna violent threatening manner.
Post a Comment
<< Home