| Author | Message | ||
| niles steckbauer (Niles500)
Rating: N/A |
http://www.flsenate.gov/data/session/2005/House/bills/analysis/pdf/h0249a.JU.pdf Just a warning to those of you visiting FLa after October 1st - Niles | ||
| Chris Rating: N/A |
If ya don't come here to rob, kill, rape or otherwise harm someone I doubt you'll have a problem. | ||
| niles steckbauer (Niles500)
Rating: N/A |
Keep 2D's on the porch then | ||
| David Hartley (Drdave)
Rating: N/A |
Outside Moving targets are OK now as of Oct 1. So we don't have to drag them back in the house and get blood all over the place. It's about time that victims can fight back with lethal force and not get dragged to jail when trying to protect themselves. The Gene Pool will now be adjusted accordingly. | ||
| FAST FRED Rating: N/A |
Happily should some dumb prosicuter attempt to indite people that defend them selves the locals make up the grand and later juries. As a Fl resident I know few prosicuters would be dumb enough to risk re election by such a dumb move. The Gov. may be the Employer of Last Resort , but the elected Burorats have a great sense of self preservation. FAST FRED | ||
| John that newguy Rating: N/A |
The part of the bill that is scary, is this: "if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself, herself, or to another or to prevent a forcible felony." What -I- may believe is a danger, or a "felony about to happen", may be totally different from what everyone else considers or perceives the act to be. In fact, the act may not be illegal at all. Killing another human that is in the process of committing an act of violence that may result in death, is far from killing another human in an effort to stop what is perceived as something that "might happen"; as a "preventative measure". Read that excerpt I posted again. This bill had good intentions, but it's bad law. | ||
| John that newguy Rating: N/A |
Chris- "If ya don't come here to rob, kill, rape or otherwise harm someone I doubt you'll have a problem." You don't want to dress or act different either. You may be perceived as someone about to commit a crime. With this bill, all that's needed is the shooter to feel reasonably sure you're a danger to him, her or anyone else.. Oh yeah..... and shooting you in the back as you retreat is okay-dokay. "Have a nice day" "YOU TELLIN' ME WHAT TO DO?" * BLAM * | ||
| linda alexander (Noopdoggy)
Rating: N/A |
I'm from Florida & I think this law is Great! Finally rights for the victim!Take that punk! Linda | ||
| John that newguy Rating: N/A |
Linda- A few months back, as I sat at an intersection waiting for a light change, some woman blew the horn a couple times behind me. With the light still red, I got out and walked back to find out what the problem was. She looked frightened and suddenly without warning, drove her car over the sidewalk making a right turn, and hitting a sign as she did.. If she had a gun, and with this legislation, I would be dead. It's fine to have the right to protect yourself, but it's ridiculous to leave an open-ended entitlement and allow another human to decide what they "feel" might be a felony about to happen, and be allowed to kill without repercussion who they think might be the perpetrator. There are too many "mights", "maybes" and "I thinks". We don't hand out death penalties based on sheer personal opinions. | ||
| John that newguy Rating: N/A |
Remember Amadou Diallo, who the police shot dead in the hallway to his apartment? He was reaching for his wallet to produce identity as the police requested, when one officer perceived the move to be a danger and yelled "gun". The echo of one officer's shots drove the other officers to fire into Amadou Diallo's body, killing an innocent human. (http://www.courttv.com/trials/diallo/010604_settlement_ap.html) What is perceived is not always fact. Do we really want to leave the perception of ourselves as being a danger, to those that may not be of sound mind? | ||
| DMDave Rating: N/A |
Maybe people would act with a little more respect and politeness and less aggression if they thought others might stand their ground. I'm sick of nasty, rude, inconsiderate people. Here on Long Island it is so out of control people pass on the right , over double lines, speed through school zones,run red lites and stop signs, toss garbage,etc because they know nothing will happen. We had 2 home invasions nearby last week on the same nite. These criminals know there is little chance of finding armed resistance here in the land of Chuck Schuemer and the stupid anti-gun laws in Ny. | ||
| Marc Bourget Rating: N/A |
JTNG 1. "leaving the perception of ourselves as a danger, to persons that may not be of sound mind" That appears to be a thoughless argument. What makes you think that an unsound mind would follow the statute in any case? That's what's behind the "the devil made me do it" stories. 2. The actual existance and reasonableness of the perceived threat will still be exposed to determination by a jury. The statue isn't a "free pass" to go about shooting people. | ||
| CoryDaneRTS Rating: N/A |
FRANKLY, I am surprised that the Florida governing "Gods" would allow the people to have such permission to actually "think" and protect themselves. I was caught up in a land deal where not only was the land office on the dark side of the law, but over the years we found out so were the police, mayor, recording offices, judges, etc. these guys basically moved onto the land and the owners couldn't do anything about it. This has been in the oven for years now and still no accountable action. This law seems to be real but it doe not fit the shoe of the Florida policy makers. I'd be real careful with this one. cd | ||
| Cliff (Floridacracker)
Rating: N/A |
Niles, Come on now! As if TD's fan debacle hasn't fanned the flames enough. But since you started this. As a born and raised Floridian(does that mean I have more say in this?) I can tell you that I am all for this. Everyone thought it would be the wild west when we got the right back to carry a concealed weapon. Never happended, crime went down. Oh by the way, the weather here is lousy, the beaches are terrible and the taxes are high, and you could get killed by a crazy local or a mean stare if you honk at JTNG, Arizona is much nicer, warmer and friendlier, so retire there. Happy Mothers Day, you know who you are, Cliff | ||
| Jack Conrad (Jackconrad)
Rating: N/A |
Cliff, I agree with you. After the hurricanes, Desoto county had one of the lowest amount of looting. Desoto county has very few houses that do not have guns in them. Coincidence? The law specifly states that someone that is FORCIBLY trying to enter your car or home is assumed to be intent on doing something illegal and therefore you can protect yourself and your family. This could certainly cause a decrease in home invasions and car jackings. Jack | ||
| niles steckbauer (Niles500)
Rating: N/A |
Cliff - Jeez I'd never admit to being a Native - Yeah your right - come visit Fla - but don't move here - this should be our new state motto - "We don't shoot tourists, only residents" I don't think JTNG will be accosting little old ladies at intesections after October 1st - when they find out they no longer have to escape by driving accross the sidewalk - they'll just shoot him - David - if your having those kind of recurring problems with blood, I'd suggest you install tile floors - easier to clean - you must live in Miami - DMD - If people are passing you on the right or over the double lines, it might be because you are not following the traffic rule of 'slower traffic keep right' - sometimes we cause our own grief by inadvertently helping to cause road rage - Niles, not a Native, but from Fla (quickly becoming a friendlier state) | ||
| Jack Conrad (Jackconrad)
Rating: N/A |
Cliff, Don't forget about how hot is gets in the summer, the huge swarms of skeeters, and all the spiders & snakes. Jack | ||
| Artis Rating: N/A |
Whats this got do do with buses? | ||
| David Hartley (Drdave)
Rating: N/A |
Obviously you haven't been woken up by prowlers tugging on your door handle or rumaging through your bays looking for stuff to steal and sell for drug money. It happens in rest areas, parking lots and camgrounds. Any RV or Bus conversion is a prime target cause people (lowlifes!) think you have money. I caught two kids trying to siphon fuel from my bus in broad daylight. When I asked them what they thought they were doing, The answer was looking for gasoline for their go-kart. Ok? Now it concerns Buses !!! | ||
| John that newguy Rating: N/A |
The problem with this "law" isn't in the right to protect your own property with force meeting force...... It is within the text: "if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself, herself, or to another or to prevent a forcible felony." This legislation takes the right to defend oneself using deadly force (based on what any individual may feel is proper reason for the use of deadly force), into the public arena. Although Marc's suggestion that an investigation would be made after-the-fact, it does the deceased little good. The Constitution provides all of us with a right to trial. This legislation removes that right. I suppose if it were your own family member that was deemed a threat and shot dead wrongfully, the sentiment would be different..? As Pastor Martin Niemöller once said: http://www.telisphere.com/~cearley/sean/camps/first.html When some crackhead decides to rob you, he'll shoot you before you realize why he's there. When some nice old lady shoots you in Florida, she'll realize it was a mistake as the round penetrates your skull. I carried in Massachusetts; I don't bother, anymore. (I'm now a Florida resident) | ||
| Marc Bourget Rating: N/A |
JTNG said: "The Constitution provides all of us with a right to trial. This legislation removes that right. " and earlier: "Oh yeah..... and shooting you in the back as you retreat is okay-dokay. " This is grade and high school level American Government and Civics stuff. You know better. You're bringing in "similar" but irrelevant arguments attempting to impeach the purpose of the statute. You're forcing an (illogical) conclusion by improper speculation and mis-association of facts. If you have a right to self-defense, and exercise it properly, you haven't committed a wrong and there is no requirement to first submit the issue to a jury just to confirm something that the original natural law, and later statues restate. This law doesn't change the doctrine of self- defense. Once somebody disengages,(retreat isn't necessary) you "lose" the right to continue the attack and you certainly can't shoot them in the back. Likewiase there was nothing about defense of property, Mr. Hartley spoke of actions against his personal property but didn't claim the right to shoot the kids for stealing go-cart fuel. Is it your position that you don't feel anybody should have the right to take the life of another, regardless of self defense or otherwise? If so, say so! It's obvious that the great majority feel differently. | ||
| Cliff (Floridacracker)
Rating: N/A |
Marc, Excellent response. Gotta go, I better get some rest, I want to be well rested in case I have to draw on someone with 11 items in the express lane tomorrow. Almost forgot, I have to wait to October 1st. Cliff | ||
| David Hartley (Drdave)
Rating: N/A |
I actually got a great laugh about the go-kart, Just imagine trying to start your B&S with diesel in the gas tank. Thier uncle however that had just been released from jail came by a few weeks later, broke into 2 of my buses, pillaged the bays, took a bunch of stuff tried to sell it and got caught a week later for home invasion, theft and grand larceny, Oh yeah. Carrying a firearm. He went back to jail again, It was only later that the SO came by to tell me they finally caught him again. The investigator told me that he used his nephews to case out places. The night that happened I heard the door handle rattle, the bay locks on my bus being fiddled with and people talking outside. My "watch cats" woke me up. My wife tends to turn on lights and jump out of bed instead of being quiet. If I had not stopped her she would have ran right to the door to look. We have since moved from that place. I am sure that I for one am going to run outside, ask the crook if he is armed. I look at it this way. If anyone tried to enter my space I will react with force whether right or wrong, There's nothing righteous about it. Crack heads will kill or maim you in an instant and the bad part is that you don't know what they are liable to do. The typical answer is "leave no witnesses" , 6 people here in the area were clubbed to death in a house by a crackhead gang. Now they are all pleading innocent. A 94 year old man in a wheelchair was beaten to death in his own garage. Nobody found him for days. Home invasions in central florida are on the increase and people are dying because they have been programmed not to defend themselves. Have Gun will Defend ! | ||
| Jim (Jim_in_california)
Rating: N/A |
The bill's "reasonably believes" clause limits a LOT of the speculation the anti-self-defense contingent on this thread is engaging in. "Reasonably believes" excludes "the little voice in my head told me to kill him" and anything similar. It has LONG been a factor in "deadly force law". The other issue is that this new Florida law doesn't break new ground. Many other states are similar or have even more pro-self-defense stuff in their state laws and Texas leads the way in pro-property-defense rules. Let's talk about property defense laws, the most radical form of this sort of thing. Do you all agree that it would be legal to shoot somebody trying to enslave you? I mean that literally. You're out backpacking, you stumble across a Mary Jane "plantation" out in a National Forrest and the growers not only find you, they try and enslave you as forced labor in the field. (And yes, this has happened.) Is it OK to shoot the slavers if you get the chance? Most people (and more or less 100% of our African-Americans) would say "yes". But let's think this out: a slaver is stealing your current labor. A thief is stealing your PAST labor. How is that any different in a practical sense? We SHOULD be able to use deadly force to prevent theft. | ||
| John Jewett (Jayjay)
Rating: N/A |
Several weeks ago I was assaulted and chased during a "forcible felony", and although armed and with my concealed carry license with me, I HAD NO CHOICE but to RUN. Current Florida law says that if I have the option, that I have to retreat in the face of a threat. I've never liked being a chicken-shit or having to run from trouble, and now the new law will keep me from having to do just that. I'm 60 years old, and have great difficulty out running a 20 year old miscreant that is intent on doing me bodily harm. By the time I escaped I was fearful of a heart attack due to over exertion. The investigating Lee County Sheriff Deputy was sympathetic, and said it was wrong to not be able to defend ones self. I applaud the Florida Legislature for their foresight and wisdom in this matter, and the Judges and Law Enforcement agencies that provided input, and had the courage to back it during it's drafting process. Jtng may not realize it, but exiting his vehicle and approaching another while in traffic is deemed assault (3rd degree felony) 1 year in jail, if he picks up a rock and throws it at the other car it's a 2nd degree felony and carries a mandatory 1 year sentence. Yup! Throwing anything (deliberately or recklessly) at a vehicle (occupied or not), or a dwelling (occupied or not) is a 2nd degree felony in Fla. Sign me "Waiting for October" ...JJ | ||
| Jim (Jim_in_california)
Rating: N/A |
Yeah, "duty to retreat" is a crock. It's an *extremely* subjective thing. When you're attacked or threatened with deadly force, the time it takes to look for exits is the time that could kill you. Never mind people who flat out can't run too quick. http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_wheelchair.jpg I highly recommend Oleg's site: http://www.a-human-right.com/introduction.html | ||
| Pat Bartlett (Muddog16)
Rating: N/A |
John Jewett, discretion is always the better part of valor, and is always a wise move to make, I'm a gun owner and I do believe in protecting your family and property! Now, John the new guy why would you get out of your car in traffic, nothing good ever comes from that, if you are to the point that you have to confront, the problem is already out of control, save yourself the trouble, drive away from the idiot, life is to short for a bunch of crap! Remember John the New Guy, keep breathing, and send in those great sarcastic posts........I enjoy them!..........Pat | ||
| FAST FRED Rating: N/A |
Having traveled by boat to many remote and poorer places I have found a simple technique. My Hi Standard 10B semi automatic bullpup shotgun has a flashlight in top , Police model. It is loaded with 2 blanks first and then #9 bird shot. On hearing an intruder on deck , the technique is to fling open the companionway overhead slide and let loose the first two rounds. This is usually followed by the sound of folks departing over the side RAPIDLY. Should they attemt to storm the boat , climbing over the companion slide is cumbersom and would produce an EZ shot .The bird shot is harmfull at close ranges , but won't thke the SS rigging out by accident. So far only 2x in 4 decades of cruising (Haiti and Dominique ) have I needed to pop off a salute to a thief. I carry a similar setup in the coach. Works for me, FL Conciled carry permit , but there is NOTHING like a Shotgun for home work !! Do it your way. FAST FRED | ||
| John that newguy Rating: N/A |
I love these forum topics that manage to morph themselves into the surreal..... Even the "mensa-abled" manage to define statements to suit their own needs.. Ok..... Here's the scoop.. Protecting your own self and/or property is a right that should always be had; I have no argument with that. Using deadly force to meet deadly force, is a no-brainer. There's a preservation of life that should always take precedent. This legislation adds to that right, the right to protect others as well, and based on what an individual may "feel" needs protecting at that time. (read the PDF file) This legislation adds the right to go beyond your personal property and into the public arena; to be able to fire upon another individual based on what you "deem" is a dangerous situation. (pdf file) This legislation makes it possible to fire upon another individual as a "preventative measure"; before any crime is actually committed. (pdf file) This legislation provides immunity from arrest and/or prosecution. (pdf file) No, I do not feel a need to preserve "the duty to retreat", nor did I ever support that prerequisite for anyone under attack. No-one has a "duty to retreat"; we have a "duty to defend". In a crowded public area, common sense should instruct anyone to retreat rather than fire due to the hazard of injury to others (with some exceptions). Firing into a populated area; starting a fire-fight in a populated area is not sensible. (even that Mensa guy should agree) This legislation allows for a "fire first" ability, regardless of conditions and disregards the fact that the majority of armed robberies take place without a shot fired. This legislation may change the scenario. In regards to me "getting out of my car to see why someone behind me is blowing their horn" being a "felony"? Say what? I have a right to exit my vehicle; I have a right to approach yours. People can approach your home or vehicle in a non-threatening manner legally. (Jehovah Witnesses do it all the time; panhandlers do it all the time; salespeople do it all the time). With this legislation, any action on anyone's part that might be construed as an impending threat to life, limb or personal property, even beyond home or property, can permit an individual to fire upon the assumed assailant. Sure, if it is found later, that this was not a reason to have killed, the shooter will have to face some legal reprocussions. Take note, that the individual shot dead, remains dead. It isn't the change from "duty to retreat" to "no duty to retreat" that I have argument with (I am in favor of the change). It is the additional wording that allows an individual to shoot first if -they however decide- some circumstance calls for it. What I perceive as a threat, might be totally different than what the person I feel threatened by actually is presenting. And once I fire that round into that innocent individual, it's too late to say "I'm sorry". -------------- Florida Man Who Killed Prankster Gets 1 Year WEST PALM BEACH, Fla.- A man who shot a teenage prankster to death pleaded guilty Friday to manslaughter and apologized to the boy's parents. Jay Levin, 41, was sentenced to one year in jail, to be served on weekends only, and 10 years of probation. He was also ordered to leave the suburban Boca Raton neighborhood where he and the victim, Mark Drewes, lived. Drewes, 16, and a friend were knocking on neighbors' doors and running away late at night when Levin said he mistook the 6-foot-2 teen for a burglar and "thought he saw something in Drewes' hand," according to sheriff's reports from the October 2003 shooting. Levin, an accountant, answered the knock on his door armed with a handgun and shot the teen in the back, deputies said. He then called 911 and told a dispatcher he had just shot "an intruder." At the hearing, Levin apologized to Drewes' parents, saying he thought about their son every day and that the shooting was a "mistake." Luciana Drewes said she wished the apology had come sooner. "You murdered my son. You murdered me," she told Levin. -------------- That incident was prior to our new legislation. | ||
| Earl-8-Ky Rating: N/A |
I hav a question. How manny of you belong to and support the NRA? The National Rifle Assocation. It is the best thing you can do to protect your gun rights. | ||
| DrDave-2 Rating: N/A |
I hate thieves. Someone "jacked" my tablesaw last night. They had to come 200 feet off the street and around the side of the house. It was covered and nothing else left unsecured was touched. I am tried of being a target, Now THEY are the target. The sad part is that in over 30 years this neighborhood has never had a problem. Now it's a situation that you have to lock yourself inside at night and even daylight in places because of the sad few that have to morals or decency. I guess it's time to put up a chain link fence with razor wire around the property and install gun bunkers and a mine field. | ||
| Marc Bourget Rating: N/A |
JTNG, The only "scoop" in this thread is the one you're using to shovel interpretive BS at us, along with the ad hominem, argumentative "mensa-abled" comment. You correctly quote a portion of the statute in an earlier post in this thread but you're the one doing the morphing by mis-stating and mis-interpreting isolated portions of the statute. An intellectually honest person would attempt to read and comprehend the statute in its entirety. The statute reads "reasonable belief" which you morph/misquote into "feel". “Reasonable belief” is a function and operation of intellect, while “feel” is an emotion based response. There’s a big difference. Shame on you! "Going into the public arena" likewise. It's a basic provision of (Pre-government) Natural Law, that the basic right to protect oneself adheres to the body, not the location. This statute corrects Florida’s “Castle” doctrine, a diversion from the "natural law". The correction specifically addresses the legal conundrum that I, as the owner of a residence, have a lesser duty to avoid conflict than my aged mother, a guest in my house. Who needs the protection more? If someone, seeking to defend himself, recklessly shoots into a crowded area, we're speaking of a different crime. While factually related, the “reckless” use it is not "legally" related to self-defense, and self-defense doesn’t justify the reckless use of force. You criticize a "fire first" ability. Since when are we required to "gamble" with our health and safety? Once again, the threshold is "reasonable belief". Your concerns might be valid if the criteria was your illogical, subjective "feeling" standard. I don't see any law requiring a rule of engagement allowing response “only after you're fired upon”. That's a subject related to international armed conflict, not personal self-defense. Equally illogical is your comment that: disregards the fact that the majority of armed robberies take place without a shot fired. Oh, I get it, we can only defend ourselves against guns? The statute states “deadly force” guns are simply defined or presumed a form of “deadly force” Gosh, since when is the right to defend oneself limited only to "robberies-with-guns". Reader's Digest recently had a story about an aide in a Convelescent Home cutting up residents with a knife. I guess because the attacker didn’t use a gun, the person that stopped the slash attacks when she sprayed the assailant with pepper spray should be arrested! Your argument: "With this legislation, any action on anyone's part that might be construed as an impending threat to life, limb or personal property, even beyond home or property" is clearly interpretive on your part and does not reflect a clear, unbiased, unemotional, reading of the statute. It’s not location limited and it doesn’t extend to all personal property Nobody has "mensa'd" you by these observations. You've been logically countered by clear, objective thought. You've revealed yourself to be equally "mensa'd" compared to the rest of us by your intellect, wit and especially your research abilities. "Reasonable belief" will be determined by application of the same clear, objective thought that you ignore. You're being less than forthright. For these reasons, you’ve been shovelling it at us. I will agree with you on one point, with your approach and analysis, you have no business possessing a handgun. In closing, I do not agree with the disposition of the case cited at the end of your last post. It’s hard to conceive how ringing door bells and running away constitutes a threat of deadly force. I wonder that the disposition was motivated more towards avoiding a conviction that would deny insurance benefits to the victim's relatives than an actual application of the law. In that regard, the judge may have been doing his job, more than liberals would like to admit. | ||
| Jtng Rating: N/A |
I'm not against self preservation, Marc. Read my last comments again. I do not go camping unarmed and do not believe anyone should camp or travel unarmed. If you seriously believe this Florida legislation will not have an extraordinary psychological impact on those that do not take the time to read, much less understand the scope and intent of the legislation, then the entire debacle is of no concern to you. Overheard comments such as: "now I can shoot that ^%$#" for trying to steal my _____", along with other such comments made in a serious tone, does not indicate to me sound thinking. If you don't live in Florida and hear the comments, you don't know squat about what's going on down here regarding this legislation. The media has published comments regarding the new legislation, giving the general populace the assumption that all that's needed to fire upon another citizen, is -the belief- that the other person is a threat. There are no conflicting words to that, within the published legislation. If you can locate them, publish them. The weight of proving innocence has been placed on the suspect's shoulder, rather than the proof of guilt upon the shoulders of the accuser. Unconstitutional? Sounds like it.... but then..... so does a ton of Florida legislation. Can there be an investigation after-the-fact? Sure. If it's decided that one is necessary by the local yokel. Can the shooter be arrested prior to an investigation and hearing? Nope. Do I see a problem in the making? Yup. Read the instances of 6 year olds being Tasered; 9 year olds being arrested. Innocent people shot by mistake... By police trained to know the difference between right and wrong. And the people most affected? Do you really think a "shoot first; ask questions later" policy is a good thing? I don't. I do wonder how many innocent people would have been shot after 9-1-1.... It is my belief Marc, that people should be encouraged (by law, if necessary) to make sure of the need to use deadly force, prior to using deadly force. This legislation's script makes it a small issue. Bus-wise, this legislation is important to visitors to this state as Niles mentioned. Being polite and walking softly may be more important now, than before. Tailgating, or blowing an air horn in an intimidating manner, may bring on more than you chose to take on. In my opinion, this is bad law. Time will bring proof. | ||
| H3 (Ace)
Rating: N/A |
For those that it matters to... yer wastin yer time!!! Ace | ||
| niles steckbauer (Niles500)
Rating: N/A |
What we need is a slogan for our highway informational signs ala "Don't Mess With Texas" - Got any ideas? - I'll send 'em to the Gov'nah - Niles | ||
| Marc Bourget Rating: N/A |
JTNG, I agree 100% with the concerns you express, however, I disagree with the approach you took and means you employ support your position. But your last paragraph is right on! You commented about: “those that do not take the time to read, much less understand the scope and intent of the legislation” Great Point! My sentiments exactly! However, you don’t promote sound thinking by morphing and mis-stating the statute You can’t correct the improper influence of the media by copying their tactics. I don’t believe there’s a shift in the burden of proving innocence - IN THE LAW The media would have the public think otherwise. Your approach contributes towards confusing the public at large. The overlooked difficulty lies in the fact that more than “just the police [should be] trained to know the difference between right and wrong”. You can help with this thru promoting critical thinking. It’s not a “shoot first, ask questions later” situation. A defender is always subject to an objective, “reasonable belief standard” and will be examined and held to answer to that logical, objective standard [unless the crime is, like “The Matrix” committed in the realm of this BB, LOL!!] A phrase from your last paragraph sums up my position all along. "people should be encouraged (by law, if necessary) to make sure of the need to use deadly force, prior to using deadly force." I believe the law does exactly this. It also clarifies things, elimiating popular fictions (drag 'em back inside . .) I also think you’re both intelligent and articulate enough to Help, rather than worsen, the situation by accurately, intelligently and affirmatively advocating your last point rather than compounding what you criticize in the media. Onward and Upward | ||
| John that newguy Rating: N/A |
Take a breath and a peek: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=/sebok/20050502.html It's a great summary. | ||
| David Hartley (Drdave)
Rating: N/A |
I read that article, It appears very interesting but it was interpreted by a weenie schoolbook lawyer that teaches other weenie schoolbook laywers how to rob their clients. Here is yet another prime example of liberal interpretations that no doubt will make much money for the "crook lawyers" out there and cause much harm to people that become victims because they try to defend themselves in a reasonable and just manor. Lawyers write the laws, lawbooks and reside as judges, serve as goverment officials, senators congressmen and fill all forms of goverment. Wouldn't it be considered in their best financial interest to pass more "murky definition" style laws to help their kind.. Yup.. Sure is! Rationality of any given situation can always be questioned by the independent observer. Historically if a person is under extreme stress and in a situation of making a judgement on whether the guy with the baseball bat is gonna hit and try to kill you, That person doesn't have the time to say Oh..Stop and let me rationalize what I am going to do... Run or Fight Back. What is this all about? " Resistance is futile!" Maybe the answer is when confronted by a criminal just act like a looney bin reject. Scare the heck outta the bad guys. Nobody want's to fight with a crazy person. I have walked across Times Square and 42nd In NYC at 3:30 in the morning. I do not fear for I am crazy as a loon. ( as far as anyone else was concerned. ) Make a lot of noise, Yell at your shoes, scratch like you got cooties, verbally insult light poles and what ever you do, Don't run! They will be busy running away from you! JTNG: Get a life, Go to law school or something just shut up   :0 | ||
| Jtng Rating: N/A |
You scare me Dave! *** B L A M *** | ||
| John that newguy Rating: N/A |
Say, while we're on the topic of RV/Bus defense and the carrying of guns/weapons.... My wife with her arthritic hands, can't manage a firearm. Even my 20ga snake gun would knock her on her tush.. So we have three flare guns aboard. They're nice and easy to fit into any hand and don't have a helluva kick to deal with. "Aim for the body; the chest", I instructed her. No, it won't kill on impact, but the flaming clothes will certainly stop the advance while she pops another round into the chamber. And they're seemingly perfectly legal to have aboard, as is the shotgun. No-one (in my opinion), should go camping without some decent protection. | ||
| Jim (Jim_in_california)
Rating: N/A |
John, one of the best "granny guns" is the Browning full-sized target 22LR semi-auto handgun. I know that sounds weird, but the deal is it's reliable, you want the aluminum framed version so it's light weight, it's got a 5" barrel (or 6" if you want) that will get a CCI "Stinger" going at a good clip up past 1,100fps and it holds 11 of 'em. It's got a light SA trigger that can be made even lighter by any gunsmith, it's accurate and it's big enough that it's got intimidation value. The grip is relatively narrow and the trigger reach is on the short side. Recoil is basically non-existant. Low enough that she can actually enjoy practicing with it and if things go fully "Quentin Tarantino" she can dump the whole mag into a goblin faster than he can cross the room. Guess what? 10 22LRs equal a 12ga 00 and then some (because they're moving faster, at least out of that thing). It's not optimal but...it's better than a flare gun INSIDE your rig, in my opinion!!! | ||
| niles steckbauer (Niles500)
Rating: N/A |
David has a point - its common knowledge that if a violent anti-social type thinks your crazier than they are they usually leave you alone - guess we should all take a lesson from 2D's - we might be a lot safer out there - | ||
| John that newguy Rating: N/A |
Niles- If that was the case, my bro-in-law could carry the week's receipts from the local MacDonald's in his pocket... Crazy does not exclude the carry of wealth, and the crazy get robbed as well the sane. Jim- Her right hand's fingers go at a right angle to her wrist (or left angle to her palm), handling a pistol is not an ability she can enjoy at this time. The flare gun fits fine, since the construction is not designed for specific aiming. Usage inside is not recommended, but when no other choice is available, anything that stops a perpetrator is fine with me. There's a lot of whacko's out there. We've seen enough at the various rest areas, Flyin' J's, and Walmarts to know that any traveler need some sort of deterrent aboard, to stop an incident from happening. Chambering a round in that snake gun once sent a possible problem down the road..... I didn't ask questions and he was gone before i could even ask... I don't care what a state's law is, if the need arises, I take the proper action. The recent legislation of Florida takes the permission to "fire at will" to those that can intentionally misuse the law.It's a scary premise. Cheers!! | ||
| H3 (Ace)
Rating: N/A |
Visit your local spca and get a dog. Not only will you "NOW" have a friend, but he will protect you as well, IF trained properly! Ace | ||
| Jim (Jim_in_california)
Rating: N/A |
A big dog in a crampt rig is cruel. It will slowly go nuts. Only possible exception is a big but older doggie that isn't normally too excitable but will still jump to defend if necessary. A small yapper "warning dog" is another matter. | ||
| FAST FRED Rating: N/A |
"Now it's a situation that you have to lock yourself inside at night and even daylight in places because of the sad few that have to morals or decency. I guess it's time to put up a chain link fence with razor wire around the property and install gun bunkers and a mine field." It might be easier to only elect politicos that are willing to controll the US border. I think the hordes of illegals pouring into this country will be the #1 topic at election time . With abject failure to controll the borders from both "parties" , it may be CLEAN SWEEP time. ALL of the house can be kicked out , and 1/3 of the senate in one Fine day! Works for ME, FAST FRED | ||
| H3 (Ace)
Rating: N/A |
Why is having a dog of ANY size cruel? There are MANY dog owners that have busses that full time and or just travel. In fact a friend of mine has a MCI that is home to a Full size doberman. Four of us were visiting along with the dog and had PLENTY of room. The dog seemed very content as he roamed the coach in our presence. He even played with his toys to occupy his time. Oh did I mention there was a cat there too? Still I don't see the fact that you say it's cruel. I've been to many homes and witnessed worse living conditions for animals but the for all the bus owners with pets (cats and dogs) that I have met, the pets were taken care of REALLY well, maybe better than some home owners do! As long as the pets get their daily excercise, food, water, and playtime, I think the pet would adjust well to his surroundings, just as bus owners do when going from home living to full timing! You just do what you have to do! What about all the truckers that travel with a dog? Are they being creul? I find your theory just a little out back! Sorry but my watchdog/companion/friend stays and he surely isn't going nuts! In fact I would rather travel with him anytime over some of the bus "nuts" that post here! Ace | ||
| Cliff (Floridacracker)
Rating: N/A |
Ace, My dogs have ten acres to run on and one of them would rather be in that bus. I have to almost drag her out of the bus when I am through working on it. I think she knows that the bus will be coming off the blocks next week and shes on the list for a ride. Cliff | ||
| Mike (Busone)
Rating: N/A |
My dog loves going on trips. When we lived in Oregon we visited Denver several times and the dog always went with us. She just sits in her seat and watches out the window. When we moved it was really funny because my wife sat in the back to be with the baby and the dog was in the front. Every trucker that passed us would do a double take and then smile. It must have looked funny the wife in the back and the dog up front. | ||
| Jim (Jim_in_california)
Rating: N/A |
My concern is about fulltiming with a big active dog. I think that's a mistake in *most* cases. Coop up a big dog too much, it'll go slowly nuts. Worst case it can turn into hyper-aggressiveness towards anybody nearby...I've seen that happen to a doberman in too small a back yard. Trips and vacations ain't the same thing. | ||
| FAST FRED Rating: N/A |
If the dog is merly for "protection" and not because you love having a dog, a second alternative comes up. Place a mat and bowl of water and a chain with no dog on the end at the entrance of the coach. Add a few 'Beware of Attack Dog " and a phony "Police Dog Trainer" advertisement in a window. Thieves are cowards , and even with unionized Publik Edukation , a few CAN read. PSY war is old hat in NYC , a note like , Dave , your damned snake is out of his basket again , so call me at my moms. or Sam ,the TV is gone .. don't touch anything , the cops havent finished investigating. Better than caging a big animal in a tiny box as a burgular alarm aplliance. Be Creative!! Although I prefer the tried & true electric fence unit. FAST FRED | ||
| H3 (Ace)
Rating: N/A |
Jim sorry to say... your all wet on this one! Ace | ||
| Jack Conrad (Jackconrad)
Rating: N/A |
We seem to have gotten slightly off the original topic but that's OK. We know a couple that travel in a 35' MC-5 with 2 Great Danes. 2 of the happiest dogs you could ever meet. It depends on the personalities of the individuals and the personality of the dogs. Blanket statements do not apply. I know people with very small dogs that are a PIA. Just my 2 cents worth, Jack | ||
| Mike (Busone)
Rating: N/A |
My grandmothers small dog (poodle) went nuts in the house when she went to the beach for the day. I have never seen so much crap spread around. It looked somebody blew up a septic truck in the living room. Some dogs should not be in a house let alone travel in anything. I agree it depends on the dog. My dog could care less where she is and how long. She just sleeps all day anyway. |