Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 56
  1.    #1  
    Check this news story out: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...s_050406201103

    Florida's legislature has approved a bill that would give residents the right to open fire against anyone they perceive as a threat in public. Just TRY and mug me punk! Bam.
    Palm V-->Visor Deluxe-->Visor Prism-->Visorphone-->Treo 180-->Treo 600-->Treo 650 on Sprint-->Treo 700p-->Centro-->Diamond-->Pre-->HTC EVO 4g???!
  2. #2  
    That is my idea of the law serving the law abiding.
  3. #3  
    Does this include vehicle mounted weaponry for those particularily threatening drivers?
  4. #4  
    I'm moving to Florida! Gun control is being able to hit your target.
  5. #5  
    I don't think it would stand up to a constitutional challenge.

    Even if it did, I feel for anyone who is a non-resident (i.e. tourist).
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  6. #6  
    When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. I'm a big believer in the right to arm myself. And I'll fight for it.
  7. hsk
    hsk is offline
    hsk's Avatar
    Posts
    262 Posts
    Global Posts
    284 Global Posts
    #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by dansamy
    When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. I'm a big believer in the right to arm myself. And I'll fight for it.
    OUCH. Sure glad I live in Canada.
  8. #8  
    That's ok. You have your opinion, and I have mine. I have a concealed carry permit. I do not currently use it, though. If I felt I needed to carry, I do have the option. My father-in-law does carry a 9mm (I think it's a 9) on him at all times. EVERYwhere. He's an expert marksman. God help you if you attempt to rob/assault him. I would prefer an even playing ground between myself and the criminals who would attempt to rob/assault me or my home.
  9. #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by dansamy
    That's ok. You have your opinion, and I have mine. I have a concealed carry permit. I do not currently use it, though. If I felt I needed to carry, I do have the option. My father-in-law does carry a 9mm (I think it's a 9) on him at all times. EVERYwhere. He's an expert marksman. God help you if you attempt to rob/assault him. I would prefer an even playing ground between myself and the criminals who would attempt to rob/assault me or my home.
    I have no problem with this at all. The problem I have is what legal standard we want to apply when we look at 'why' someone should have the right to use lethal force. I like the objective standard "Would a reasonable person in those circumstances use lethal force" instead of the subjective one "What did this particular defendant feel about the threat."

    I think that the current lethal force doctrine under common law "If you can safely escape then you should (there are exceptions...like if you are in your house)" is preferable versus allowing people to just blast away (because it now is changing from the idea of lethal force being a last resort).
  10. #10  
    http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/04/05/dea....ap/index.html

    That is a link to the CNN story. Here is a quote near the bottom of the page.

    The bill says a person has "the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so, to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another."

    The question that needs to be asked is "What is reasonable?" It sounds like they intend to use the objective standard.
  11. #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/04/05/dea....ap/index.html

    That is a link to the CNN story. Here is a quote near the bottom of the page.

    The bill says a person has "the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so, to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another."

    The question that needs to be asked is "What is reasonable?" It sounds like they intend to use the objective standard.
    I think you hit the nail on the head.
    When people are scared they dont react resonable.. and that is exactly what this law is about, when you perceive a threat...
    Very unwise law if you ask me..
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  12. #12  
    I'm glad I don't live in FL. To rely on some idiots belief that he's threatened as a legal standard? nuts!
  13. #13  
    Well, I think this Florida should be applauded. The citizens will be safer and I wish North Carolina would follow their lead. I currently have a Concealed Weapons permit but don't carry because I work for a local municipality and I could....no I would get fired for bringing a firearm on campus. And I have a feeling after a few more years...once statistics come out that Florida didn't have an increase in violence but rather a decrease, other states will follow suit.
  14. #14  
    Here is a different angle to consider. My skin color is dark brown. When I walk down the street, it is not uncommon to see women (particularly older women) whose skin color is of lighter pigmentation clutch their purses tighter and "keep an eye on me" (business suit, and minding my own business notwithstanding).

    What if madam senior citizen carried a Saturday Night Special?

    I suppose I could vacation in Atlanta.
  15. #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by hsk
    OUCH. Sure glad I live in Canada.
    I'm glad you live in Canada.
  16. #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Here is a different angle to consider. My skin color is dark brown. When I walk down the street, it is not uncommon to see women (particularly older women) whose skin color is of lighter pigmentation clutch their purses tighter and "keep an eye on me" (business suit, and minding my own business notwithstanding).

    What if madam senior citizen carried a Saturday Night Special?

    I suppose I could vacation in Atlanta.
    Thats a shame that this happens to you.

    However, I beleive people will feel safer just knowing they have the right to take action if needed. The criminals will definately think twice and the rest of the people just might be a little more polite.

    Somehow we all survived the days of old when a gun was more important than food. I am sure we will survive this also.
  17. #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by hsk
    OUCH. Sure glad I live in Canada.
    How do Canadians keep the gun problem in check? You don't have no where near the gun problem that the U.S. has.
    Make It Happen!!
    If you don't, who will?
  18. #18  
    Fantastic news, now criminals will be more inclined to shoot first and steal later.

    This is ludcriously absurd.
  19. #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by Sherv
    Fantastic news, now criminals will be more inclined to shoot first and steal later.

    This is ludcriously absurd.
    That is the same argument that was used in 1987 when Florida first passed their concealed carry law. It would be Dodge City. There would be firefights in every parking lot. Hundreds would DIE! Almost 20 years later, 30+ states have the same law, and none of that has come to pass. You guys really just don't trust people, do you?

    All this law states is that you can use lethal force to defend yourself in a public place that you have a right to be in. There is no "duty to retreat" from a criminal's attack. This is a case of the law serving the law abiding.

    http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/talla...s/11320274.htm
  20. #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    You guys really just don't trust people, do you?
    I would much rather have energy spent at revamping/updating/maintaining a legal system that does not encourage a blood-for-blood attitude such as this. There is a body of the populace that is comitted to upholding the law and protecting the residents. The police are trained and properly equipped to deal with altercations of various types, whereas the average person is NOT. I fear this bill is a step backwards in curbing crime and increasing protection, ESPECIALLY with the ambiguous wording of "appropriate" action. It also seems as a great cover for potential racial/hate crimes, but we'll just have to wait and see how it pans out. Maybe nothing will change.
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions