GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-08-2012, 05:59   #21
Brucev
Senior Member
 
Brucev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 9,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lethaltxn View Post
And I shouldn't have to. If my property, person or family is being threatened then it's within my power to do what I can to protect them. Not run away. That only empowers the predators. Police can't always be there at the drop of a hat. My .45 can.
Should... shouldn't are irrelevant. If you think killing a man is no big deal, then you have no business with a weapon at all. There is not hardly any property imaginable that one could be justified killing over. Person or family member is not property.

Predator? No. The correct word is "criminal." The use of "silly words" only makes one appear less than intelligent.

Some folks live with a Chicken Little mentality. The run around the barnyard looking over their shoulder thinking the sky is about to fall... or a crime is about to occur... at the drop of a hat. That is not real life. And those who want to run around acting like Doc Holiday 2.0 should not be surprised when everyone else looks at them as see them as someone who is bizarre.
Brucev is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2012, 06:03   #22
Brucev
Senior Member
 
Brucev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 9,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenOfDreams View Post
The Florida law you are talking about is titled Chapter 776 Justifiable Use of Force. It was the public and the press who dubbed it "stand your ground law", not the legislator who wrote it.

The text of the law says "A person [...] has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force [...]". What exactly do you think is wrong with that sentence, and how would you phrase it better?
The phrase "Stand your ground law" has been used by both sides in the debate about the Fla. law in question. It would appear that each side wants to use a descriptive phrase rather than the plain vanilla "Chapter 766 Justifiable Use of Force." If this law allows a man to stalk another man, initiate a confrontation with that man and then kill that man, then that law should be immediately removed from the books.
Brucev is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2012, 06:08   #23
Brucev
Senior Member
 
Brucev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 9,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by JK-linux View Post
Meh... I'm not sure I like corporations having influence in elections any more than I like unions having a say.
Simple answer. Congress needs to pass legislation declaring that corporations are not persons under the law and that money is not speech. Just because the supreme court got it wrong doesn't mean the supreme court's error should be allowed to stand.

Strip corporations of any participation in the electoral process period. And strip away the use of money as speech. Severely restrict the use of money in politics... so that no one can use large contributions bundled from overseas (China, etc.) or from individuals (Sores, Koch, etc.) or from organized political groups (Emily's List, AARP, NRA, NOW, etc.).
Brucev is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2012, 06:34   #24
Hyksos
Senior Member
 
Hyksos's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Jupiter/Miami, FL
Posts: 1,844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brucev View Post
The phrase "Stand your ground law" has been used by both sides in the debate about the Fla. law in question. It would appear that each side wants to use a descriptive phrase rather than the plain vanilla "Chapter 766 Justifiable Use of Force." If this law allows a man to stalk another man, initiate a confrontation with that man and then kill that man, then that law should be immediately removed from the books.
Yeah it has exceptions for initial aggressors. 776.041, Fla. Stat. (2011). So what? It's a good law and as a CWP holder in Florida I support it. You're doing that whole safety vs liberty test and coming up on the side of safety. That's alright, but I think in this case you're mistaken.

Some states and countries put obligatory duties on the person to retreat before using any force. Some countries and states (cough New York cough) place an affirmative obligation to retreat from YOUR OWN HOME. If you fail to comply with this obligation, then you can be held liable. The Florida law clearly relieves a person of the affirmative obligation to retreat if they are in their home, their car, or at their place of employment. It also has provisions that allow a person who is lawfully in a location to meet force with force.

Chapter 776 also clearly creates a presumption for home invasion cases. It's basically the Castle Doctrine spelled out. It says that when someone breaks into your home and you know they aren't supposed to be there, and you are inside the home, then there is a legal presumption in your favor that you reasonably feared for your life or great bodily injury or harm.

The requirement to use lethal force = reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury or harm. Essentially this means that if someone breaks in you have a legal presumption that immediately authorizes deadly force. This authorization of deadly force is established solely by their breaking into your dwelling. In many states people lawfully defend themselves in their own home and still go to jail and get sued. We also have civil immunity for anyone who is deemed to have used lawful self defense. The bad guy's family cannot sue you, you are immune.

My point is that our laws are just fine thank you very much.
__________________
Spes mea in deo est
Hyksos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2012, 06:39   #25
Lethaltxn
Senior Member
 
Lethaltxn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,307
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brucev View Post
Should... shouldn't are irrelevant. If you think killing a man is no big deal, then you have no business with a weapon at all. There is not hardly any property imaginable that one could be justified killing over. Person or family member is not property.

Predator? No. The correct word is "criminal." The use of "silly words" only makes one appear less than intelligent.

Some folks live with a Chicken Little mentality. The run around the barnyard looking over their shoulder thinking the sky is about to fall... or a crime is about to occur... at the drop of a hat. That is not real life. And those who want to run around acting like Doc Holiday 2.0 should not be surprised when everyone else looks at them as see them as someone who is bizarre.
Spoken by someone who hasn't had any experience with "criminals" and is truly naive and ignorant. Yes "predator" is the correct moniker. To think otherwise is what's foolish.
Most here don't run around with a "chicken little" mentality, however, we also don't plop our heads in the sand and pretend just because we live in a nice neighborhood that the scary men won't be able to get us.
Should and shouldn't are absolutely relevant. The fact you don't think they are says a lot.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Lew Horton Springfield Compact 1911
Springfield Loaded

Last edited by Lethaltxn; 04-08-2012 at 10:01..
Lethaltxn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2012, 11:10   #26
CitizenOfDreams
Senior Member
 
CitizenOfDreams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 8,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brucev View Post
Some folks live with a Chicken Little mentality. The run around the barnyard looking over their shoulder thinking the sky is about to fall... or a crime is about to occur... at the drop of a hat. That is not real life.
Political Issues

Political Issues

Last edited by CitizenOfDreams; 04-08-2012 at 11:14..
CitizenOfDreams is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2012, 11:17   #27
Bruce H
Senior Member
 
Bruce H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: missouri
Posts: 4,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brucev View Post
Should... shouldn't are irrelevant. If you think killing a man is no big deal, then you have no business with a weapon at all. There is not hardly any property imaginable that one could be justified killing over. Person or family member is not property.

Predator? No. The correct word is "criminal." The use of "silly words" only makes one appear less than intelligent.

Some folks live with a Chicken Little mentality. The run around the barnyard looking over their shoulder thinking the sky is about to fall... or a crime is about to occur... at the drop of a hat. That is not real life. And those who want to run around acting like Doc Holiday 2.0 should not be surprised when everyone else looks at them as see them as someone who is bizarre.

Criminals and criminal activity flourish in a well tended fertile garden like yours.
__________________
I try to take one day at a time, but sometimes several days attack me at once.
Bruce H is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2012, 12:20   #28
Brucev
Senior Member
 
Brucev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 9,189
Spoken by someone who hasn't had any experience with "criminals" and is truly naive and ignorant. Yes "predator" is the correct moniker. To think otherwise is what's foolish. Be careful of making unwarranted assumptions. You only end up displaying your ignorance.

Most here don't run around with a "chicken little" mentality, however, we also don't plop our heads in the sand and pretend just because we live in a nice neighborhood that the scary men won't be able to get us. I call it like I see it.

Should and shouldn't are absolutely relevant. The fact you don't think they are says a lot. You are of course welcome to your own opinion. It is of as much value and that of anyone else.
Brucev is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2012, 12:28   #29
Lethaltxn
Senior Member
 
Lethaltxn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,307
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brucev View Post
. Be careful of making unwarranted assumptions. You only end up displaying your ignorance.
Likewise.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Lew Horton Springfield Compact 1911
Springfield Loaded
Lethaltxn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2012, 12:32   #30
Brucev
Senior Member
 
Brucev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 9,189
Yeah it has exceptions for initial aggressors. 776.041, Fla. Stat. (2011). So what? It's a good law and as a CWP holder in Florida I support it. You're doing that whole safety vs liberty test and coming up on the side of safety. That's alright, but I think in this case you're mistaken. I simply am not persuaded that everyone is in imminent danger of a violent criminal assault and that they need to carry a weapon for such a very unlikely issue.

Some states and countries put obligatory duties on the person to retreat before using any force. Some countries and states (cough New York cough) place an affirmative obligation to retreat from YOUR OWN HOME. If you fail to comply with this obligation, then you can be held liable. The Florida law clearly relieves a person of the affirmative obligation to retreat if they are in their home, their car, or at their place of employment. It also has provisions that allow a person who is lawfully in a location to meet force with force. I was aware of the requirement of some locals that one seek to leave rather than remain, etc. I was not aware of the ny requirement. The Fla. law is in my opinion more rational. The provision that one may meet "force with force..." etc., is wrong. If one can leave, one should leave. If that gives someone a problem "feeling" they don't want to be pushed around, tough. In the current case, the killer is trying to use the law to shield him from the consequences of being a punk who used a gun to kill a man that he stalked and confronted. The dead man didn't break any law at all. There is no law against being a African-American walking through a neighborhood with candy and a drink. It is that simple.

Chapter 776 also clearly creates a presumption for home invasion cases. It's basically the Castle Doctrine spelled out. It says that when someone breaks into your home and you know they aren't supposed to be there, and you are inside the home, then there is a legal presumption in your favor that you reasonably feared for your life or great bodily injury or harm. zimmerman didn't kill Martin in his home. There is no rational by which he can claim he was in fear for his life from a man who he saw walking along.

The requirement to use lethal force = reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury or harm. Essentially this means that if someone breaks in you have a legal presumption that immediately authorizes deadly force. This authorization of deadly force is established solely by their breaking into your dwelling. In many states people lawfully defend themselves in their own home and still go to jail and get sued. We also have civil immunity for anyone who is deemed to have used lawful self defense. The bad guy's family cannot sue you, you are immune. Again, the above incident does not involved a attack in the home but a killing carried out by a man who stalked and confronted another man on the street. As to civil immunity, if a man kills another man, let him face the consequences. If it's a justifiable homicide, fine. But if it is some trumpted up bit of politics cloaked as a law, then let it be aired out fully and completely in public so that people will be able to decide for themselves just exactly what they think of that law... and then put pressure on elected representatives to do what needs to be done to make sure that that law or any other is not used as a convenient tool by a criminal to escape justice.

My point is that our laws are just fine thank you very much.
Brucev is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2012, 13:44   #31
Ruble Noon
"Cracker"
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 11,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brucev View Post
I simply am not persuaded that everyone is in imminent danger of a violent criminal assault and that they need to carry a weapon for such a very unlikely issue.

I was aware of the requirement of some locals that one seek to leave rather than remain, etc. I was not aware of the ny requirement. The Fla. law is in my opinion more rational. The provision that one may meet "force with force..." etc., is wrong. If one can leave, one should leave. If that gives someone a problem "feeling" they don't want to be pushed around, tough. In the current case, the killer is trying to use the law to shield him from the consequences of being a punk who used a gun to kill a man that he stalked and confronted. The dead man didn't break any law at all. There is no law against being a African-American walking through a neighborhood with candy and a drink. It is that simple.

zimmerman didn't kill Martin in his home. There is no rational by which he can claim he was in fear for his life from a man who he saw walking along.

Again, the above incident does not involved a attack in the home but a killing carried out by a man who stalked and confronted another man on the street. As to civil immunity, if a man kills another man, let him face the consequences. If it's a justifiable homicide, fine. But if it is some trumpted up bit of politics cloaked as a law, then let it be aired out fully and completely in public so that people will be able to decide for themselves just exactly what they think of that law... and then put pressure on elected representatives to do what needs to be done to make sure that that law or any other is not used as a convenient tool by a criminal to escape justice.
Why should our right to defend ourselves stop when we leave our homes?
You think people should be forced to retreat when outside their residence, what if it is not possible to retreat?
Why should you be able to stand your ground in your home and not anywhere else?
Why not force people to flee from their homes in the event of an intrusion?

As far as Zimmerman goes, you are making a lot of assumptions.
Ruble Noon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2012, 14:48   #32
Lethaltxn
Senior Member
 
Lethaltxn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,307
You know what happens when you assume?
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Lew Horton Springfield Compact 1911
Springfield Loaded
Lethaltxn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2012, 16:02   #33
Hyksos
Senior Member
 
Hyksos's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Jupiter/Miami, FL
Posts: 1,844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brucev View Post
. I simply am not persuaded that everyone is in imminent danger of a violent criminal assault and that they need to carry a weapon for such a very unlikely issue.Well then it sounds like you have a problem with carry permits in general then?

I was aware of the requirement of some locals that one seek to leave rather than remain, etc. I was not aware of the ny requirement. The Fla. law is in my opinion more rational. The provision that one may meet "force with force..." etc., is wrong. If one can leave, one should leave. If that gives someone a problem "feeling" they don't want to be pushed around, tough. In the current case, the killer is trying to use the law to shield him from the consequences of being a punk who used a gun to kill a man that he stalked and confronted. The dead man didn't break any law at all. There is no law against being a African-American walking through a neighborhood with candy and a drink. It is that simple.There is also no law against walking up to someone and asking them what they're doing. There's also no law against disobeying a 911 dispatcher (who is NOT a sworn officer). My understanding is that Zimmerman followed someone down the sidewalk of his neighborhood (not illegal), and then confronted Martin and essentially said "what are you doing?" At this point Zimmerman has done nothing wrong from a legal standpoint. Now, the story is that Zimmerman then retreated(aka walked back) to his car and was attacked from behind. This is one of the scenarios where 776.041 relieves Zimmerman of liability even if he was the initial aggressor.

Even if he was attacked head on after confronting Martin . . . then Martin was still wrong. IMO you cannot punch someone in the face who asks you a simple question and follows you down a sidewalk in your neighborhood. Martin had a phone too. He could have easily called 911 just like Zimmerman. At the point that Zimmerman (who had not done anything wrong from a legal point) was having his head bashed in, then I believe he was justified in his use of force.


zimmerman didn't kill Martin in his home. There is no rational by which he can claim he was in fear for his life from a man who he saw walking along.
I understand this, but you seemed to be griping about Florida law in general. I was just giving you an idea of how it worked with other self defense issues so you had some context why our laws are the way they are.

Again, the above incident does not involved a attack in the home but a killing carried out by a man who stalked and confronted another man on the street. As to civil immunity, if a man kills another man, let him face the consequences. If it's a justifiable homicide, fine. But if it is some trumpted up bit of politics cloaked as a law, then let it be aired out fully and completely in public so that people will be able to decide for themselves just exactly what they think of that law... and then put pressure on elected representatives to do what needs to be done to make sure that that law or any other is not used as a convenient tool by a criminal to escape justice.
I believe civil immunity is vital for people who use lawful self defense.
my responses are in bold.
__________________
Spes mea in deo est

Last edited by Hyksos; 04-08-2012 at 16:04..
Hyksos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2012, 18:10   #34
Lethaltxn
Senior Member
 
Lethaltxn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,307
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brucev View Post
.

Predator? No. The correct word is "criminal." The use of "silly words" only makes one appear less than intelligent.
.
What makes one look less intelligent is the use of name calling in order to attempt to win an argument claiming the use of an accurate description is "silly words" as opposed to presenting evidence to the contrary.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Lew Horton Springfield Compact 1911
Springfield Loaded
Lethaltxn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2012, 18:24   #35
Kingarthurhk
Isaiah 53:4-9
 
Kingarthurhk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 7,575
Same reason I dropped Heinz products years ago and went to Hunts. I could not stand the heiress (John Kerry's wife). A good tasting product, but a rotten head at the helm.
__________________
Glock 17, 19, 20SF, 21C, 22, 26, 27, Glock E-Tool, Glock knife
Quod ego haereticus appellari sequere Jesum.
Kingarthurhk is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:55.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 553
141 Members
412 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31