Defense of Home
POSTED BY: StillFlyin
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 07:32
VIEWED: 10548
PAGE 2 of 9
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME