Florida man ambushed rivals at barbecue killing 2

[TurtleDude]

That's exactly what the gun nuts wan. If you don't down the aggressor right then and there then he might do it to you. The gun nuts want a world where everyone is wielding a gun, not for self defense, but simply in order to survive.

that's both stupid and your position seems contrary to a libertarian one.

 

[Black Dog]

I concede that my point about people defending themselves if they have no other choice is irrelevant, since the Law goes beyond that.

I read the Law. It seems to go to great lengths to avoid misuse. Except this:

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity...

Under our system of innocent until proven guilty, you must give the defender the benefit of the doubt. So, for instance, even if you had a gang member standing over the body of his rival, he could use the Law to his defense until he had been proven of having committed a separate crime. That seems like quite a burden to a murder investigation.

If a "gang banger" is a legal gun owner and legally defends himself from a rival attack, he is as justified as anyone else. You are assuming a position based on hot air as there is no proof this is going on or has happened. If it has, I would hazard a guess it is well in the minority if it has actually been used at all.

And this:

776.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant

This little tidbit seems to allow that an aggressor, as long as he is not committing another crime, is guaranteed to be able to use the Law to his defense if the fight goes against him.

Imagine that: you're minding your own business when a bully comes up and starts hassling you. You've had enough and so you start to fight back, kicking his ass like Ralphie in "A Christmas Story." You're kicking his ass so badly that now he's scared, pulls out a gun, and drops you. The whole situation is his fault, and now he gets to claim Stand Your Ground over your dead body.

This is how this law can be perverted to work against the people it's meant to empower.

Read the highlighted part above. It does not even apply as in that situation you would be required to retreat.

Stop trying to make mountains out of molehills to suit your agenda. 99.9% of CCW armed individuals are not involved in crime at all, let alone trying to set someone up for revenge killings. No proof of such nonsense.

PS Most gang bangers don't even have CCW licenses so at the very least they would be hit with felony possession charges. So SYG either way would make little difference.

 

[Black Dog]

that's both stupid and your position seems contrary to a libertarian one.

I wonder why that is?

 

[TurtleDude]

I wonder why that is?

it starts with calling people gun nuts and then it involves silly assumptions

 

[reinoe]

that's both stupid and your position seems contrary to a libertarian one.

That's what supporters of SYG want. Every person wielding a gun because it's mandatory to survive in the world they want to create.

A person shouldn't have to carry a gun just to survive. They should carry a gun because they want and can handle the responsibility that comes with a firearm.

 

[TurtleDude]

That's what supporters of SYG want. Every person wielding a gun because it's mandatory to survive in the world they want to create.

A person shouldn't have to carry a gun just to survive. They should carry a gun because they want and can handle the responsibility that comes with a firearm.

I really don't see the major dichotomy that you seem to think exists

 

[Black Dog]

That's what supporters of SYG want. Every person wielding a gun because it's mandatory to survive in the world they want to create.

I disagree. We want responsible people who want to exorcise the right to be armed to be able to do so. Has nothing to do with "everyone" or "survival" as you say it.

A person shouldn't have to carry a gun just to survive. They should carry a gun because they want and can handle the responsibility that comes with a firearm.

Ummmm... No one is carrying again "to survive." It is purely to protect one's family, person and property from those who would take or hinder a person being secure in their person. Those who carry are being responsible. Responsible for the continued safety of themselves, property and again family.

 

[blackjack50]

What the hell is wrong with people in Florida !!!!

Florida man who ambushed rivals at barbecue, killing 2, seeks to evade murder charges under

This seems more like a law and order issue. Expect this guy to go to jail for a long time. Nothing is wrong with us here in Florida. No more than any other state. Well we do have a problem with almost dead people coming down here, and a lot of people treating Florida as an "end of the road" state like Alaska. Lots of homeless and criminal types.

Ps.

What the hell is the Bush Doctrine? I've never even heard of that???? Sounds like something a whackado left wing and crazy libertarian would say as an excuse to be a criminal.

 

[rcart76]

No it's not. It is legalizing a right to self defense. Like anything else some will abuse it. You do not take away someones right because a few abuse it.

Has nothing to do with "racism" nice fallacy argument there.

I agree with you to a certain point. The law gives a individual the power to define "feeling threaten" which in it self is very dangerous because you can agree with me that there are a lot of paranoid people out there. I will be okay with the law if they would give a better definition of what is a threat.

 

[blackjack50]

I agree with you to a certain point. The law gives a individual the power to define "feeling threaten" which in it self is very dangerous because you can agree with me that there are a lot of paranoid people out there. I will be okay with the law if they would give a better definition of what is a threat.

"Reasonable fear." A garden hose is not a deadly weapon. It would be unreasonable for me to fear 120lb 5'2 unarmed man (I'm 6'1 250 with martial arts training).

 

[Black Dog]

I agree with you to a certain point. The law gives a individual the power to define "feeling threaten" which in it self is very dangerous because you can agree with me that there are a lot of paranoid people out there. I will be okay with the law if they would give a better definition of what is a threat.

Not "feeling threatened" but a "reasonable fear." Reasonable is defined for this case as a situation that most people of sound mind would be in fear of death or great bodily harm. So someone being threatened by say a person wielding a wiffle bat in a menacing manner towards you would not be justification for use of deadly force.

Either way that is a matter for courts to decide on an individual bases. This is why we have criminal courts. Let the law play it's part and the courts do theirs.

In the end it is not going to be perfect as in my experience their is no "perfect law" and again that's why we have courts.

 

[rcart76]

Not "feeling threatened" but a "reasonable fear." Reasonable is defined for this case as a situation that most people of sound mind would be in fear of death or great bodily harm. So someone being threatened by say a person wielding a wiffle bat in a menacing manner towards you would not be justification for use of deadly force.

Either way that is a matter for courts to decide on an individual bases. This is why we have criminal courts. Let the law play it's part and the courts do theirs.

In the end it is not going to be perfect as in my experience their is no "perfect law" and again that's why we have courts.

All very good points that you made. However, this law still is very flawed. Lets say three guys with heavy tatoos walking down the street coming from a local bar or whatever passes up another guy not even thinking about him. This one guy becomes paranoid and shoots all three of them. There are no witnesses to the shooting.

Who do you think the court will favor?

 

[reinoe]

Not "feeling threatened" but a "reasonable fear." Reasonable is defined for this case as a situation that most people of sound mind would be in fear of death or great bodily harm. So someone being threatened by say a person wielding a wiffle bat in a menacing manner towards you would not be justification for use of deadly force.

Either way that is a matter for courts to decide on an individual bases. This is why we have criminal courts. Let the law play it's part and the courts do theirs.

In the end it is not going to be perfect as in my experience their is no "perfect law" and again that's why we have courts.

The law is poorly written but the courts won't throw it out. So what are people supposed to do? The only logical solution is arming 100% of the population. Because someone can start a fight with anyone, and if that person who's being bullied defends themselves, the bully can then immediately claim SYG and kill someone. This has been pointed out several times. SYG rewards people for aggressive behavior.

 

[Black Dog]

All very good points that you made. However, this law still is very flawed. Lets say three guys with heavy tatoos walking down the street coming from a local bar or whatever passes up another guy not even thinking about him. This one guy becomes paranoid and shoots all three of them. There are no witnesses to the shooting.

Who do you think the court will favor?

Irrelevant what if scenarios do not make the law "flawed." If that were the case a convicted felon stealing a weapon illegally and shooting 3 people would make our gun laws somehow flawed? Of course not. Someone will always try to beat the system. The law is for law abiding citizens to be able to protect themselves without fear of legal ramifications.

Now in your scenario, please point out what wording of SYG would make any difference at all? I mean with no witnesses, you defeat your own argument.

 

[blackjack50]

All very good points that you made. However, this law still is very flawed. Lets say three guys with heavy tatoos walking down the street coming from a local bar or whatever passes up another guy not even thinking about him. This one guy becomes paranoid and shoots all three of them. There are no witnesses to the shooting.

Who do you think the court will favor?

The 3 dead guys with no signs of physical confrontation.

 

[Black Dog]

The law is poorly written but the courts won't throw it out.

That is an unsubstantiated opinion the facts do not bear out.

So what are people supposed to do? The only logical solution is arming 100% of the population.

Illogical overreaction. No one is suggesting this.

Because someone can start a fight with anyone, and if that person who's being bullied defends themselves, the bully can then immediately claim SYG and kill someone. This has been pointed out several times. SYG rewards people for aggressive behavior.

And yet their is no evidence this is happening, 0.