Poll: Do you agree with the Stand Your Ground Laws
Yes. They are good self-defense laws
No. They are unnecessary and often abused and misused
Unsure. (Comment)
[Show Results]
 
Stand your ground laws
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-07-2013, 12:31 PM
RE: Stand your ground laws
(18-07-2013 12:25 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(18-07-2013 12:20 PM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  No the law is not flawed. You just better know the law and what side you stand on.

This isn't just limited to civilians screwing up these situations. Police, security guards, etc. get suspended, fired, arrested, sued or even sent to prison for misuse of a firearm (and its far more rampant than you would think.

Wow you are all over the place on this man. The Law that lets someone stalk a unarmed person and shot to kill if they feel "threatened" is not flawed? But then in the next breathe you claim to it's not just civilians but everyone who misuse guns (I don't disagree with that) Why is it that nowhere else on this forum is an appeal to emotion and illogic acceptable unless you bring up laws regarding a deadly weapon?
Show me the section in FL's Castle Doctorine which says you can stalk someone and Ill give you $100.

Building a strawman, indeed....Drinking Beverage

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-07-2013, 12:33 PM
RE: Stand your ground laws
(18-07-2013 12:28 PM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  
(18-07-2013 12:23 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Knowing how to use the law to avoid prosecution, does not mean it is a morally favorable position. It is a morally flawed law that is an unnecessary addition to self-defense laws.

I'd say shooting someone who endangers your life is a morally favorable position.

But preemptively?

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-07-2013, 12:33 PM
RE: Stand your ground laws
(18-07-2013 12:30 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Some of the original motivation for them was justified. They were written, not taking into account all the unintended consequences. So, I couldn't vote. They need to be re-written in light of the abuses that have come to light after they were passed.

This is probably the closest thing to the truth. I think the original intent was to close a loophole that more or less said that use of deadly force even in self defense was illegal. The problem is they were horrible worded and have have caused more issues than they solved.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-07-2013, 12:35 PM
RE: Stand your ground laws
(18-07-2013 12:33 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(18-07-2013 12:30 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Some of the original motivation for them was justified. They were written, not taking into account all the unintended consequences. So, I couldn't vote. They need to be re-written in light of the abuses that have come to light after they were passed.

This is probably the closest thing to the truth. I think the original intent was to close a loophole that more or less said that use of deadly force even in self defense was illegal. The problem is they were horrible worded and have have caused more issues than they solved.

That's our Bucky!

" Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous."
David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-07-2013, 12:41 PM
RE: Stand your ground laws
(18-07-2013 12:31 PM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  
(18-07-2013 12:25 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Wow you are all over the place on this man. The Law that lets someone stalk a unarmed person and shot to kill if they feel "threatened" is not flawed? But then in the next breathe you claim to it's not just civilians but everyone who misuse guns (I don't disagree with that) Why is it that nowhere else on this forum is an appeal to emotion and illogic acceptable unless you bring up laws regarding a deadly weapon?
Show me the section in FL's Castle Doctorine which says you can stalk someone and Ill give you $100.

Building a strawman, indeed....Drinking Beverage

As long as they are in a public place the florida statute says they may respond with deadly force. So yes you can stalk an unarmed individual and provoke a fight then use deadly force and claim you felt threatened with the wording of the law.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-07-2013, 12:42 PM
RE: Stand your ground laws
(18-07-2013 12:30 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Some of the original motivation for them was justified. They were written, not taking into account all the unintended consequences. So, I couldn't vote. They need to be re-written in light of the abuses that have come to light after they were passed.

I'd go as far as saying it's just unnecessary as an addition to self-defense laws.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-07-2013, 12:49 PM
RE: Stand your ground laws
(18-07-2013 12:33 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(18-07-2013 12:28 PM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  I'd say shooting someone who endangers your life is a morally favorable position.

But preemptively?

A premeditated attack is not covered under the Castle Doctorine. They are two different things.

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-07-2013, 12:50 PM
RE: Stand your ground laws
(18-07-2013 12:25 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(18-07-2013 12:24 PM)Chas Wrote:  How the law is written and how it is applied would make all the difference.

As a basic right, I see no reason why I should yield to an aggressor.

It's not about yielding to an aggressor, it asserts that if you feel threatened, you have the right to preemptively attack them.

As I said, it depends on how the law is written.

'Feeling threatened' is not the same as being assaulted.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
18-07-2013, 12:50 PM
RE: Stand your ground laws
(18-07-2013 12:41 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(18-07-2013 12:31 PM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  Show me the section in FL's Castle Doctorine which says you can stalk someone and Ill give you $100.

Building a strawman, indeed....Drinking Beverage

As long as they are in a public place the florida statute says they may respond with deadly force. So yes you can stalk an unarmed individual and provoke a fight then use deadly force and claim you felt threatened with the wording of the law.

No you can't. There are no terms under which stalking someone is allowed under e Castle Doctorine.

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-07-2013, 12:52 PM
RE: Stand your ground laws
(18-07-2013 12:49 PM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  
(18-07-2013 12:33 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  But preemptively?

A premeditated attack is not covered under the Castle Doctorine. They are two different things.

I didn't say premeditated, I said preemptively. As in, the confrontation begins for one reason or another, I feel threatened and think they may attack, so I shoot them. I am protected under that law.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: