on the face of it, presentedas it has been, this would mean that I could shoot someone because I felt threatened. Surely there's got to be more to it than this! Otherwise I'd be licenced to kill every group of youths I have to walk past at night hanging around on street corners. Actually, is this such a bad plan??! 😵
I'm sorry but it only says you have a right to DEFEND yourself if you feel threatened not "you have a license to kill anyone who looks menacing". I would hope that common sense would still be used by everyone and the courts (a first maybe) in each case.
The one presented here about the man and wife getting shot by a tenant sounds far fetched (was there something about the case we don't know?).
Anyway, a friend had a guy follow him home with two of his buddies after an argument earlier. They knocked on his door and when he answered it they bum rushed him and the one beat him severely while his buddies kept the wife from helping or calling the police. My friend had a 380 on him but didn't use it. Later when the police showed up he asked them if he would have been justified in using it and they stated that he would have because they had forced entry into his house. In this case I would agree in using deadly force because you don't know how far they would go.
I just don't see it with the tenant chasing the wife downstairs and shooting her... clearly she wasn't a threat. Something is wrong with that case.
Originally posted by ChessNutYeah, that case makes no sense either. Shooting someone while they're "fleeing" from you obviously can't be self defense. But hey, I'm no lawyer or judge.
I'm sorry but it only says you have a right to DEFEND yourself if you feel threatened not "you have a license to kill anyone who looks menacing". I would hope that common sense would still be used by everyone and the courts (a first maybe) in each case.
The one presented here about the man and wife getting shot by a tenant sounds far fetched (was the ...[text shortened]... downstairs and shooting her... clearly she wasn't a threat. Something is wrong with that case.
The US has always had self defense laws, but I think the revised one in Florida is just a case of pandering to conservatives in that state and of course the gun lobby.
Originally posted by ChessNutbut the wording that we've seen here doesn't make it clear how threatened you have to feel and what level of action you are permitted to take when you feel threatened.
I'm sorry but it only says you have a right to DEFEND yourself if you feel threatened not "you have a license to kill anyone who looks menacing". I would hope that common sense would still be used by everyone and the courts (a first maybe) in each case.
The one presented here about the man and wife getting shot by a tenant sounds far fetched (was the ...[text shortened]... downstairs and shooting her... clearly she wasn't a threat. Something is wrong with that case.
Getting away from shooting people, the old way to decide who is at fault after a fight was 'who threw the first punch'. This law makes it sound like throwing the first punch is OK as long as the other guy made you feel threatened. Almost like a 'preemptive strike', get them before they get me, and I see more harm coming from it than good. But I suspect that I haven't had the law explained fully.
As for your mate getting beaten up - even in the UK he would have had the law on his side if he'd injured/killed the intruders (except that of course the gun wouldn't have been legal, but that's another debate)
Originally posted by ChessNutEither way things aint looking good for any of us that go to florida. What about a boxing match the boxer could say his opponent threatened him so he shot him.
Actually it may be to their advantage now. I'm sure they had to restrain themselves before but now they can 'defend' themselves against aggresive drunks faster and with more force (maybe?) than before.
Or if someone was driving dangerously you could say he threatened your life so you shot him.
It seems like a ridiculouslaw to pass in my opinion.
What next pistols at ten paces.
Originally posted by belgianfreakYou bring up a good point about the 'preemptive strike'. I see it causing more fights now as people will feel as if they can get away with hitting someone a bit easier than before.
Getting away from shooting people, the old way to decide who is at fault after a fight was 'who threw the first punch'. This law makes it sound like throwing the first punch is OK as long as the other guy made you feel threatened. Almost like a 'preemptive strike', get them before they get me, and I see more harm coming from it than good. But I suspect that I haven't had the law explained fully.
What a mess this is going to cause the judicial system! Now instead of a cut and dry 'who hit first' it is a judgment call as to the level of threat and whether there was a threat at all.
What if I feel threatened by someone raising their voice, can I hit them?
I was picked on most of my life (being quite smallish) and coulda used this law to get in some great licks.... ohhh to be young again! 😛
The other thing is that it has been passed in florida. Which has places such as disney world and so is an ideal location for tourists and therefore i feel this law will simply add to the confusion. For example a pub brawl here in britain is common because people have had one too many and do not see them getting to far out of control, and so when in florida if a british person gets in a fight with an american and doesnt see the potentional danger then
WHAM BAM SPLAT the brit is dead. WHOOPS HE THREATENED ME. (oh dear)
It sounds like coon season has just opened in Florida. We all know that money buys justice in the u.s., so, seeing as black people and hispanics make up the majority of poor, and disenfranchised in Florida, it seems to me that the number of murders will shoot up, while the number of prosecutions will go down.
Here's a scenario, I go postal in a quiet area and kill all 15 people that are in the area. I hang around, maybe call the powlice. When they arrive, I say it was in self defense, that the "gang" of 15 threatened me. Now, its down to my word against the word of 15 corpses. I'll be on my way.
I love seeing the us government feck up america as well as the loads of poor country that they have shafted. Reminds me of the power cut last year. A power cut which was massively due to deregulation, a tactic used in lots of poor countries by large multinational (buy public company for cheap, lay off loads of workers, cut back, cut back, cut back, power cut, charge the public loads more money which ends up straight in the shareholders pockets. What does El Senor bush recommend? More deregulation!!! You have to respect the cahonas on the guy though, if nothing else.
D
Originally posted by latex bishopYour exact point was "The UK media is anti any Bush" and your point was that this anti bushism led to sensationalist reporting of the topic in the UK media. This I can never agree with. You may not have meant what you actually wrote, which seems to be the case judging by the reply you posted. However, we, in the forums, can only comment on what is written, not what was meant to be written.
Maybe you should take a chill out pill before you attack me personally? You are entitled to your opinion as much as I am.
If we take the whole media to mean only Sky and the Sun then we are lost as a nation. All the main broadsheet news papers in the UK have carried editorial that shows strong concerns and damning comment on Bush's domestic and for ...[text shortened]... ore complete interpretation of one statement I have made that you have disagreed with.
Andrew
If your main point was that the UK has a sensationalist media, then I'd have agreed with you, due to the fact that most (all? ) countries have a sensationalist media.
Media channels in the UK aren't anti-all bushes, they tend to cover stories more realistically, than the PR releases that eminate from some of the american news channels. This balanced reporting can be portrayed as "frothing at the mouth" anti americanism, anti bush by some. That does not mean that it is true.
The reason I reacted so much was because of this. A large percentage of americans already view the current climate as a "us versus them" scenario. Them being anybody who doesn't tow the republican party line immediately, eg: France. Some americans actually hate France for not immediately doing what the u.s. wanted, which was to go to war illegally.
You saying a completely generalised untruth that UK media has a policy of anti-bush isn't going to help anybody. And is in fact going to give the lie mongers of fox, and others, more ammo, and lend credence to these types of ridiculous, purely nationalistic, hate filled propoganda attacks...
http://blugg.com/stuff/foxs_view_of_the_bbc_player.htm
The above piece alone (opinion presented as factual news) was decided to be in breach of Sections 2.1 (respect for truth), 2.7 (opportunity to take part), and 3.5(b) (personal view programmes - opinions expressed must not rest upon false evidence) of the Programme Code by OfCom. (http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/prog_cb/pcb_11/upheld_cases?a=87101 ) But the question is this, if american's believe fox to be kosher, which a lot do, then does your post not help them to believe the lies coming from the likes of fox and w?
D
Hey guys , these stories are not that far-fetched . In Colorado we've had a similar law for years , unofficially called the "make my day law"(this from a Clint Eastwood flick) .
Here's how it's functioned for us in the recent past . In Greeley last summer , there was a dispute between neighbors involving a dog . Neighbor A didn't like neighbor B's dog barking all the time . The police were called many times but the problem was never addressed to A's satisfaction . So he began taking matters out directly on the dog , culminating with A shooting the dog with a bee-bee gun to torment it . Neighbor B found out and became very angry when catching A in the act . B went after A , chasing him into his house . B picked up a board and broke the windows on A's door , yelling at him to come out and explain his actions . A picked up a 12 g shotgun and shot B through the door , killing him . NO CHARGES WERE PRESSED BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY .
Denver also has a law that allows "no knock searches" for the police . If they obtain a warrant to bust a suspected drug house , they can bust down the door and charge in like gang-busters without having to identify themselves first (you can see how this plus the "make my day law" could be a bad combination ). Well they busted down a door that turned out to be the wrong door (they had the wrong address on the warrant)of a man who took the "make my day laws" seriously . Living in a bad neighborhood , having his door busted in with no warning , he went for his pistol deciding to shoot first and ask later . They shot him dead . He left a widow and 7 (I think 7 , if memory serves ) kids . They sued the city for wrongfull death , and a settlement was reached .
- Joined
- 09 Aug 01
- Moves
- 54191
Originally posted by Moldy Crowand in a typical new york city story ... the police raided a real tough hood's house without identifying themselves as the police ... well the "criminal" was justified in shooting the police because he feared for his life as the plain-clothed police barged in through the door. the test of the law is reasonable action for a given perceived threat.
Denver also has a law that allows "no knock searches" for the police . If they obtain a warrant to bust a suspected drug house , they can bust down the door and charge in like gang-busters without having to identify themselves first (you can see how this plus the "make my day law" could be a bad combination ). Well they busted down a door that turned out ...[text shortened]... memory serves ) kids . They sued the city for wrongfull death , and a settlement was reached . [/b]