The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old May 3, 2009, 02:04 PM   #26
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 36,301
"I'm trying to say that some stupid girl is dead because she chose to hangout with a theiving numbnuts who happened to pick a Rambo homeowner who, feeling probably that he was justified 'cuz he was on his property, chose to escalate the situation by running down with his 19 shot manhood when ist just a freaking car and 911 is 3 numbers"

"19 shot manhood"

You know, coming from someone who sells firearms and firearms accessories for a living, in a state that allows you to carry without any sort of background check at all, is rather shocking.

At best, it would appear to make you, at best, an opportunist, at worst a blatant hypocrite.

It also seems as if you are saying that the woman had zero culpability in this entire deal. While it's unknown exactly what she knew, I'd have to say that she knew that she and her boyfriend weren't there for a social call of tea and crumpets.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old May 3, 2009, 02:13 PM   #27
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
Quote:
The additude that one should use or initiate the use of deadly physical force over posessions is a prefect example of whats wrong with mankind
Is that right? Then I'm sure you won't mind if I come to your store and relieve you of all your firearms while you refrain from defending them?
csmsss is offline  
Old May 3, 2009, 02:14 PM   #28
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Quote:
It also seems as if you are saying that the woman had zero culpability in this entire deal. While it's unknown exactly what she knew, I'd have to say that she knew that she and her boyfriend weren't there for a social call of tea and crumpets.
Seems means assumes. Please read again, noting the words I used for her: "stupid" and "chose". Niether warrant what happened to her, nor would intentional criminality

Quote:
You know, coming from someone who sells firearms and firearms accessories for a living, in a state that allows you to carry without any sort of background check at all, is rather shocking.
Really? One loses one humanity based on the fact that one works in a gunshop? Living in a state that allows free and open/concealed carryshould make one jump up and cheer everytime some homeowner pops some skell (or some skells companion)?

Quote:
At best, it would appear to make you, at best, an opportunist, at worst a blatant hypocrite.
And being a mod gives you the right to toss ad hominems?

WildofftofindenglishbooksAlaska TM
Wildalaska is offline  
Old May 3, 2009, 02:28 PM   #29
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 36,301
"One loses one humanity based on the fact that one works in a gunshop?"

Where's the humanity in aiding and abetting those who may end up acting in a manner that is so abhorrent to you?

If someone uses a gun that you have sold him to kill someone who is stealing incidental property, by your own standards are you not as morally culpable as the individual who pulled the trigger?

Or have you been able to build yourself a psychological firewall between your actions and the potential actions of one of your customers, and once that gun leaves your hands your moral compass swings right back to true north?

So, you don't think you're an opportunist or a hypocrite, and want to claim that I'm attacking you?

Let's see...

Opportunist - "the policy or practice, as in politics, business, or one's personal affairs, of adapting actions, decisions, etc., to expediency or effectiveness regardless of the sacrifice of ethical principles."


You sell guns to people who may end up using them in defense of property, an action that, as you have made very clear, is morally repugnant to you and that you believe should be illegal.

Would you care to explain how is that not applicable to your actions of selling firearms to those who may use said firearm for defense of property in opposition to your stated views?


Hypocrite - "a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs."

Would you care to explain how is that not applicable to your actions of selling firearms to those who may use said firearm for defense of property in opposition to your stated views?

And, as you told me, please read again.

This is what I actually said: "At best, it would appear to make you, at best, an opportunist, at worst a blatant hypocrite."

I didn't say that you were an opportunist or a hypocrite, I said your actions, as opposed to your words, make it SEEM as if you are.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old May 3, 2009, 02:36 PM   #30
OuTcAsT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 1,212
Quote:
We all have our opinions, so let's not devolve into ad hominems, because of differeces of said opinions.
Quote:
And being a mod gives you the right to toss ad hominems?
I don't believe I have seen an ad hominem against anyone, at least not as defined;

Quote:
Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments.

No one is attacking anything except the argument put forth that someone, anyone, on their own property, who happens to be armed when they encounter a direct physical threat, is a "Rambo". Or that using a weapon to defend yourself is some sort of Freaudian expression.

To point out the hypocrisy of the person forwarding the argument is also not classic ad hominem as it directly effects that persons' credibility in the argument.


ETA: I guess the argument could be made that a liquor store owner could also be against drunk driving, but that would not be the same, as the store owner would be for responsible drinking. In this case the owner is for buying the liquor, then keeping it in the cabinet under all circumstances.
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood

Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska -

Last edited by OuTcAsT; May 3, 2009 at 02:45 PM.
OuTcAsT is offline  
Old May 3, 2009, 03:00 PM   #31
hogdogs
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,069
Wild, The vehicle is an older SUV, owned by a farmer, likely not insured against theft. my ride is not insured against theft as the annual cost exceeds the value of said ride. It is also our only means of motorized transportation. I would never kill some one for trying to syeal it but I will stand in front of it and kill the person attempting to run me over rather than stop. 911 is not a vehicle disabling device so I have no clue how 911 stops a vehicle theft. Maybe you live in a place where the rare stolen vehicle is always returned undamaged and fully driveable.

The farmer shot into his vehicle to prevent them from running him over.
But he could have jumped to safety? Yes he could but he chose to use his right to stand his ground.
Brent
hogdogs is offline  
Old May 3, 2009, 03:46 PM   #32
JuanCarlos
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 22, 2006
Posts: 2,459
Quote:
And your point is....what? That something that's insured isn't worth defending? Lots of people carry life insurance. Are their lives not worth protecting because there's an insurance company paying someone off at the end?
Do I need to go ahead and point out the obviously false comparison being made here?

Because I can.

But really, I shouldn't have to.

Quote:
Wild, The vehicle is an older SUV, owned by a farmer, likely not insured against theft. my ride is not insured against theft as the annual cost exceeds the value of said ride. It is also our only means of motorized transportation.
This, however, isn't a bad point. I think you'll have a tough time convincing many people that it's worth killing over, but it's definitely within the realm of reason.

Quote:
Deadly force to prevent simple theft? Unlawful, except in Texas at night under limited circumstances.
I think the Joe Horn case suggests it's not quite as cut and dry as that.
JuanCarlos is offline  
Old May 3, 2009, 03:54 PM   #33
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
Quote:
Do I need to go ahead and point out the obviously false comparison being made here?

Because I can.

But really, I shouldn't have to.
It's not a false comparison, because the initial "point" being made was utterly without validity. Whether a possession is insured or not is irrelevant when considering whether it is worth defending. And I shouldn't need to make THAT point.
csmsss is offline  
Old May 3, 2009, 04:07 PM   #34
OuTcAsT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 1,212
Quote:
I think you'll have a tough time convincing many people that it's worth killing over, but it's definitely within the realm of reason.
I think some folks are losing sight of one very important aspect of this case, The property owner did not shoot to protect his property, he shot because he fully believed that;

A. Someone was trying to run him over with his own vehicle, and,

B. that the passenger appeared to have a weapon.

The whole argument about shooting to protect property is moot as this was a case of shooting to protect his own life.

Quote:
Is that right? Then I'm sure you won't mind if I come to your store and relieve you of all your firearms while you refrain from defending them?
Good point, to some degree. Wild, let's theorize that I break into your shop, steal some guns (you now know I am armed) and attempt to flee in your car, in the process I try and run you over. Can you truthfully and without reservation tell me that; If you are armed you will not shoot under any circumstances ? If not, please explain exactly what circumstances would constitute grounds for you to protect yourself?
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood

Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska -
OuTcAsT is offline  
Old May 3, 2009, 04:10 PM   #35
MrNiceGuy
Junior member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2008
Posts: 919
Quote:
The additude that one should use or initiate the use of deadly physical force over posessions is a prefect example of whats wrong with mankind
I disagree. I believe that the use of deadly force is what is keeping mankind from sliding into oblivion.

There needs to be this kind of consequences to curb crime. What would have happened if the farmer had been unarmed and caught him in the act? Would the thief retaliate and beat, shoot, or stab the farmer? Those are very real outcomes in the situation that the thief caused. Should the thief be allowed to blatantly risk the lives of anyone they choose without having to worry about risking their own lives?

I believe outcomes like this serve to keep the only real deterrent a viable one.
MrNiceGuy is offline  
Old May 3, 2009, 04:26 PM   #36
hogdogs
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,069
Thieves, thugs and fakers are what is wrong with mankind... along with laws preventing folks from defending their constitutional right to protect life liberty and happiness... Happiness is often found in the material items procured thru hard work!
As a person who WILL NOT STEAL I am rabidly stark raving mad every time I put a key into a lock of any kind!
While vigilante justice is often not 100% correct, neither is government enforcement. Nothin' like stringing up thieves in the old times to send a message that wayward ways are met with finite resistance...
Brent
hogdogs is offline  
Old May 3, 2009, 04:26 PM   #37
stilettosixshooter
Member
 
Join Date: April 19, 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 86
Quote:
The additude that one should use or initiate the use of deadly physical force over posessions is a prefect example of whats wrong with mankind.
Ask an East Texas farmer 20 miles away from the nearest LE outpost whether he agrees with this statement. Is he supposed to sit idly by if someone is on his property making off with his property and/or the equipment that he uses to support his family?

And ask an East Texas criminal whether he would be willing to traipse on to a farmer's land to try and make off with the goods in the first place. I think most of us are aware that there would be a high probability that such an effort would be met with the bad end of a shotgun.

Whether or not you would choose this course of action is not my point - but I personally understand the mentality and do not see it as an indication that mankind is going downhill.
stilettosixshooter is offline  
Old May 3, 2009, 05:02 PM   #38
JuanCarlos
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 22, 2006
Posts: 2,459
Quote:
It's not a false comparison, because the initial "point" being made was utterly without validity. Whether a possession is insured or not is irrelevant when considering whether it is worth defending. And I shouldn't need to make THAT point.
Okay, so I guess I do need to point out why it's a false analogy. A life cannot be replaced. A vehicle can. If my wife collects the $500K or so in life insurance I have, she can't use that $500K (plus a small deductible) to buy a replacement for me.

Well, not one as sexy as I am, anyway.

In general, property is replaceable. People are not. There may be some exceptions, such as heirlooms, but even then most people (as well as the law) will place human life above property.

So your comparison of life insurance to insurance against property was absolutely without merit. It was an attempt to equate the loss of insured property to the loss of insured life to bolster your point, when in fact the two are absolutely not analogous.


Also, most reasonable people will absolutely consider whether or not something is insured (and how much the deductible might be) when determining whether it's worth defending or not. Whether I'm going to be out a $250 deductible or the full $10,000 cost of my vehicle will almost certainly be a factor when I decide whether or not it is worth putting myself in danger (legal, physical, or mortal) to defend it.


Quote:
I think some folks are losing sight of one very important aspect of this case, The property owner did not shoot to protect his property, he shot because he fully believed that;

A. Someone was trying to run him over with his own vehicle, and,

B. that the passenger appeared to have a weapon.

The whole argument about shooting to protect property is moot as this was a case of shooting to protect his own life.
If he was actually acting out of true self-preservation, he'd not have placed himself in front of (or remained in front of) the vehicle in the first place.

He placed his own life in danger (or at the very least additional danger) in an attempt to save the property, then used that danger as a legal defense for the use of deadly force.

EDIT: I will note, however, that it doesn't sound as if this distinction is relevant as far as the law is concerned. Personally I don't know if I fully support such a law; there's a difference between not having a duty to retreat and being allowed to actively escalate the situation unnecessarily. Still, I'm don't necessarily oppose it either...given what's written below.


Quote:
Thieves, thugs and fakers are what is wrong with mankind... along with laws preventing folks from defending their constitutional right to protect life liberty and happiness... Happiness is often found in the material items procured thru hard work!
People do often like to ignore than money and material goods in many ways represent life, or at least a portion thereof. I know nothing I have has been given to me, all of it has been earned with money that I had to sacrifice my time (and in some cases safety) for. An uninsured (against theft) car, for instance, may well represent months of a person's life spent earning it.

Last edited by JuanCarlos; May 3, 2009 at 05:08 PM.
JuanCarlos is offline  
Old May 3, 2009, 05:47 PM   #39
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Quote:
I didn't say that you were an opportunist or a hypocrite, I said your actions, as opposed to your words, make it SEEM as if you are.
Nice try.

Since I am in a fenzy of last minute packing here, and getting evil looks from SWMBO, let me note that your argument is essentially the same as a person who seeks to restrict firearms on an ifcome. Is the car salesman a hypocrite or an opportunist because he sells cars to potential drunk drivers?

You guys miss the point. It's a "good shoot" in that based on the facts as we know it, the guys life was threatened.

But consider the escalation factor. Thats the shiver up my fat covered spine
WildthinkaboutitAlaska TM
Wildalaska is offline  
Old May 3, 2009, 05:56 PM   #40
OuTcAsT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 1,212
Quote:
let me note that your argument is essentially the same as a person who seeks to restrict firearms on an ifcome. Is the car salesman a hypocrite or an opportunist because he sells cars to potential drunk drivers?
Gee, that sounds like a familiar argument...

But the car salesman did not put his moral values on a public forum, juxtapose them against his profession, nor was he naive enough to believe that someone might not call him on his sanctimony.
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood

Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska -
OuTcAsT is offline  
Old May 3, 2009, 06:01 PM   #41
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,562
Quote:
But consider the escalation factor. Thats the shiver up my fat covered spine
Right! Had the driver not threatened the SUV's owner by driving towards him, the owner would not have had to shoot into the SUV to save his life.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old May 3, 2009, 06:07 PM   #42
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Quote:
But the car salesman did not put his moral values on a public forum, juxtapose them against his profession, nor was he naive enough to believe that someone might not call him on his sanctimony.
Im in the profession of selling tools to responsible gun owners for hunting, sport, target shooting and legitmate self defense. My moral value is life is precious and shouldnt be taken lightly and that ownership of a tool that can cause death is an awesome responsibility. If that is sanctimonious in folks view, then they should be looking at their own moral values.

Quote:
Right! Had the driver not threatened the SUV's owner by driving towards him, the owner would not have had to shoot into the SUV to save his life.
I guess you miss the point too

WildsomeoneelsewontAlaska TM
Wildalaska is offline  
Old May 3, 2009, 06:57 PM   #43
OuTcAsT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 1,212
Quote:
m in the profession of selling tools to responsible gun owners for hunting, sport, target shooting and legitmate self defense. My moral value is life is precious and shouldnt be taken lightly and that ownership of a tool that can cause death is an awesome responsibility.
On this point I have no disagreement with you, and that is the position that I am confident any responsible gunowner, or purveyor should have.

The only difference we have is that you feel that because a man, working on his farm, was confronted with the theft of his property, and during that theft was required by the circumstances to shoot a criminal to protect his own life, that he is somehow a "Rambo" Yet in the same breath you call it a good shoot? Then proceed to postulate about the Karmic consequences?

Quote:
But consider the escalation factor. Thats the shiver up my fat covered spine
Fine, Having not been present I can only speculate, but if someone basically try's to run me down with my own vehicle, and I perceive that the passenger may be armed as well, I cannot justify just standing there with a cell phone in my hand dialing the magic number while waiting to see if I will be plowed down, shot, or both.

I believe I would probably have done the same as the farmer, I may spend some time in Sheoul as an insect, but I'm gonna delay the transition as long as I can.

Quote:
Right! Had the driver not threatened the SUV's owner by driving towards him, the owner would not have had to shoot into the SUV to save his life.
I guess you miss the point too
Nope, pretty sure he's spot-on
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood

Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska -

Last edited by OuTcAsT; May 3, 2009 at 07:02 PM.
OuTcAsT is offline  
Old May 3, 2009, 07:10 PM   #44
JuanCarlos
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 22, 2006
Posts: 2,459
Quote:
Fine, Having not been present I can only speculate, but if someone basically try's to run me down with my own vehicle, and I perceive that the passenger may be armed as well, I cannot justify just standing there with a cell phone in my hand dialing the magic number while waiting to see if I will be plowed down, shot, or both.
If your true intent is self preservation, and you honestly believe them to be armed, it seems like finding cover is your best option. Even if you intend to return fire. Standing in front of the vehicle? Not so much.

Now, I'll admit I wasn't there. I do have this handy news story, though, which seems to cite his own affidavit as to at least some details of what went down.

Quote:
According to the affidavit, Jones heard his Toyota Land Cruiser, parked in the barn at his orange grove, start up before daylight Tuesday. Jones told police he grabbed his gun, a 9mm that he keeps with him while working at the grove. He said he could see two people in the SUV as it backed out of the barn, according to the affidavit. He said he saw the passenger's arm reach outside the vehicle, and believed that person might be holding a gun.

The Land Cruiser stopped directly in front of him, Jones said in the affidavit. He said he raised his gun and pointed it at the occupants, shouting "Stop," but the vehicle appeared to be moving directly toward him.
Those two paragraphs suggest his primary intent was preventing the theft, not self-defense. In attempting to prevent the theft, he placed himself in a situation where self-defense was required.

It's not like he was just standing around smoking a pipe in the middle of the road/trail/driveway/whereverthishappened, only to suddenly find himself being run down by his own Land Cruiser with no other option. He claims he thought they might have a weapon, yet his first instinct was to place himself in front of the vehicle, and stand out in the open even giving them the opportunity to either shoot him, run him down, or both.

If his intent was self-defense, it sounds to me (again, given details from his own affidavit) like he was incredibly stupid and is alive only because he was incredibly lucky. Or because the perpetrators never intended to kill him in the first place. Either way.

If his intent was to prevent the theft of his vehicle, by deadly force if necessary, then he seems to have chosen somewhat wisely. Though I'd still call him foolish because it sounds like he put himself in more danger than necessary to do so. Basically assuming these thieves were ever willing to kill him (or seriously injure him), he is lucky they didn't manage it.

Though the skeptic in me might suggest that he did so not only because he never truly believed they intended to use deadly force against him, but because he also knew that placing himself in a situation where they could would give him the justification to shoot.

Quote:
The only difference we have is that you feel that because a man, working on his farm, was confronted with the theft of his property, and during that theft was required by the circumstances to shoot a criminal to protect his own life, that he is somehow a "Rambo" Yet in the same breath you call it a good shoot? Then proceed to postulate about the Karmic consequences?
I believe he referred to it as a "good shoot" in a legal sense. Which it seems to have been.

And he was required by circumstances he played a significant role in creating to shoot a criminal to protect his own life. Again, see the above. Had his primary intent been the preservation of his own life, rather than his property, he'd never have found himself in front of the SUV to begin with.
JuanCarlos is offline  
Old May 3, 2009, 07:18 PM   #45
hogdogs
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,069
But there is no florida law stating I cannot confront and interdict a car thief of my vehicle... Just can't shoot them for it. Also no law says i cannot take my gun with me. I can "stand my ground" in front of the vehicle or seek cover... my option, my discretion. If I choose the former option, I can shoot to preserve my health. This seems to be what is stated in the report. some one else may choose the latter option but either is legally acceptable here.
Brent
hogdogs is offline  
Old May 3, 2009, 07:20 PM   #46
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
See...one guy gets it.

WildandkarmaisabeeatchAlaska tm
Wildalaska is offline  
Old May 3, 2009, 07:22 PM   #47
MrNiceGuy
Junior member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2008
Posts: 919
Quote:
WildandkarmaisabeeatchAlaska
Just ask the girl in the passenger seat
MrNiceGuy is offline  
Old May 3, 2009, 07:24 PM   #48
divemedic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2006
Posts: 1,313
OK, so as a store owner, I confront a man who I believe to be shoplifting. I attempt to escort him to security to await the law. When I do so, the miscreant pulls out a knife. I draw a firearm and shoot him dead.

Did I just use deadly force to protect property? Should I have backed off and let him go? If so, at what point? When I saw him steal? When he pulled the knife? If all store owners let shoplifters go, how long until all stores are out of business?

So, a farmer sees a miscreant stealing his truck. He attempts to confront the thief. The thief attempts to run him down, so the farmer pulls a gun and shoots the thief.

Did the farmer just use deadly force to protect property? Should the farmer have backed off and let him go? If so, at what point? When the farmer saw him steal the truck? When he tried to run the farmer over? If all farmers let thieves go, how long until all farms are out of business?
__________________
Caveat Emperor
divemedic is offline  
Old May 3, 2009, 07:31 PM   #49
OuTcAsT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 1,212
Quote:
Though the skeptic in me might suggest that he did so not only because he never truly believed they intended to use deadly force against him, but because he also knew that placing himself in a situation where they could would give him the justification to shoot.
By that line of reasoning I wonder why the handy news article also includes this tidbit;

Quote:
The vehicle backed up at high speed, crashed through a fence and ended up in a ditch. Jones told police a man jumped out of the SUV and ran away.
Seems that if he were so eager to put himself in the position to be able to justify shooting that "rambo" would have also finished off the fleeing driver...No witnesses

Quote:
But there is no florida law stating I cannot confront and interdict a car thief of my vehicle... Just can't shoot them for it. Also no law says i cannot take my gun with me. I can "stand my ground" in front of the vehicle or seek cover... my option, my discretion. If I choose the former option, I can shoot to preserve my health. This seems to be what is stated in the report. some one else may choose the latter option but either is legally acceptable here.
Exactly, thankfully the law supports common sense in this case. Guess the Flordia legislature just does not get it.
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood

Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska -
OuTcAsT is offline  
Old May 3, 2009, 07:32 PM   #50
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Quote:
If all farmers let thieves go, how long until all farms are out of business?
Using your implied point, why not bring back the Bloody Code?

WildandmaygawdhavemercyonoursoulsAlaska TM
Wildalaska is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

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 -5. The time now is 08:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14189 seconds with 7 queries