Not Again

[CB..]

there is a golden rule...:hmm:
the law is usually more severe towards those who respect it than those who do not...this is IMO a primitive human response towards those who have agreed to submit their will to the benifit of the whole...which subconciously is viewed as weakness..this allso explains the attraction of crime...which conversely subconciously is seen as strength...
un fortunately this tends to mean that when a normally law abiding citizen
finds him/herself in court the law has an orgasm and can't resist indulging in a very basic unsightly and entirely unjust power trip...
it is this basic inversion of principles that needs investigating and setting right...

[Yahoshua]

Here's what you need Subserpent:

http://www.gunlaws.com/FloridaCastleDoctrine.htm

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/Releases.aspx?ID=5685

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine

While firearms may not be legal in England anymore, perhaps there are some schools on swordsmanship? (That'd make a REALLY interesting legal situation right there). I don't think there's much chance of it passing though.

[Bort]

Ahh yes, the Florida Castle Doctrine, probably the single dumbest piece of legislation ever to pass in that state- no wait, Florida lawmakers are the same geniuses who passed "Terri's law" perhaps the only law ever written to effect only one person! Anyway, they really hit a home run of stupidity with the self defense law, which allows use of deadly force, without requirement for attempted retreat (and therefore not requiring needless bloodshed) based upon perceived threat of severe bodily harm. I suppose that means that if I am walking down the street and somebody appears to be preparing to punch me in the face, if I'm in Florida, I can blow him away with my firearm of choice. It makes me proud to be a citizen of the Great State of Illinois, where it illegal to carry concealed weapons, and you can only shoot someone if they have entered your dwelling and there is no other choice.

[Tchocky]

I like it at home, where you're just not allowed to shoot anyone. It makes things simpler.

Where I live now, it's more dangerous. I get a perverse kick out of the "how did this happen" brigade after every school shooting. My favourite is the "arm the teachers" crowd, what a messed-up bunch of people

simple really --->the teenage pressures that exist everywhere + lots of guns, easily available to said teens.

[Yahoshua]

Well Bort, you could move to China where all firearms are banned from being in civilian hands and only the police and gov't is allowed to own them.

And it's not as if I have time to ask the man who is breaking into my home in the odd hours of the morning to say:

"Mr. Burglar, are you here to kill me and rape my family members and steal my property? Could you wait so I can dial 911 for a minute to see if I'll get to talk to a person and not a machine?"

Why should I retreat when I'm in MY own home?

And I agree with you on your last post Tchocky. School security should NOT be part of a teachers' profession, leave that to people who are better suited to it.

[Kapitan]

Any person who steps on my property be aware that you will be turned into a lollypop (AK47 plugged up the anus and mounted on my wall)

[madDdog67]

Bort, I think I can speak for most of the people of FL when I say, if it bothers you so friggin' much, STAY THE ******* OUT OF FLORIDA!

Why do you guys in the nanny states spend SO much time worrying about laws in other states? Is it the typical liberal/elitist mentality that says other people can't govern themselves?

Your "shootout at the OK Corral argument--the Brady Campaign and the VPC's incessant mantra--never happens. It didn't happen when they started "liberalizing" conceal carry laws (40 states and counting now ), and it didn't happen when FL passed the Castle Doctrine law. Why should you have to flee from someone who's intent on harming you? In the event you do shoot someone, you still have to prove you were in fear of your life...you can't just shoot somone because they yell at you in traffic....it's not a license to kill, the VPC's claim to the contrary notwithstanding.

You know the best part of Florida's law? Well, it's that the lowlife/lowlife's families can't sue the shooter *if* the shoot is judged to be on the up and up. That's friggin' GREAT. No more trying to turn the bad guys into some sort of "poor misunderstood" youth, yada yada yada, and making life miserable for some poor schmuck who's only defending him/her self.

[IceGrog]

Originally Posted by *[FOX]* Bort

the self defense law, which allows use of deadly force, without requirement for attempted retreat (and therefore not requiring needless bloodshed) based upon perceived threat of severe bodily harm. I suppose that means that if I am walking down the street and somebody appears to be preparing to punch me in the face, if I'm in Florida, I can blow him away with my firearm of choice.

I never really thought to highly of Florida, but my attitude of them is changing to a more positive one.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Yahoshua

Not to mention that in the Castle Rock vs. Gonzales case the Supreme Court of the U.S. ruled that LEOs' aren't obligated to protect the general public.

Case documents here:

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...pdf/04-278.pdf

Other incidents and info here:

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/ka...rotection.html

This is why I'm NEVER unarmed at any point and time.

This is along similar lines as what happened in England:

Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."

The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [4] There are many similar cases with results to the same effect. [5]

[jumpy]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [4] There are many similar cases with results to the same effect. [5]

Talk about licking balls, hairy ones at that
Yet I bet they'd have soon 'acted' if the women had refused to pay their taxes or something.
The way they say it, it makes out like the women were demanding that the fuzz sit outside their house 'just incase' somebody tries to be bad to them, as opposed to comming to the rescue of a person/persons who are actually being attacked right there and then.
How do some of these public officials sleep at night... and especially the solicitors who fight these sorts of cases; there's a special place in whatever hell you believe in for them and their ilk.

[CB..]

"it is a fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen."

might want to remember that...next time your saluting the flag..

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by CB..

might want to remember that...next time your saluting the flag..

I do. Makes me buy a bigger gun and I salute the country that allows me and my fellow countrymen to do such things!

-S

[CB..]

fair enough
but it does rather beg the question...
if it is not the polices job to protect the citizen then who are they there to protect..?

serve and protect whom exactly???

and the government it-self by that statement has no resposibility to protect or serve anything or any one but it self..

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by CB..

fair enough
but it does rather beg the question...
if it is not the polices job to protect the citizen then who are they there to protect..?

serve and protect whom exactly???

and the government it-self by that statement has no resposibility to protect or serve anything or any one but it self..

It is the responsibility of the citizens to protect the country. Always has been. That is even part of the second amendment.

Besides, if the citizens are not req to protect the country, than who is? The government is also the citizens.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by CB..

fair enough
but it does rather beg the question...
if it is not the polices job to protect the citizen then who are they there to protect..?

Here is one more thing in relation to the UK:

Before the mid-1800s, American and British citizens - even in large cities - were expected to protect themselves and each other. Indeed, they were legally required to pursue and attempt to apprehend criminals. The notion of a police force in those days was abhorrent in England and America, where liberals viewed it as a form of the dreaded "standing army."


England's first police force, in London, was not instituted until 1827. The first such forces in America followed in New York, Boston, and Philadelphia during the period between 1835 and 1845. They were established only to augment citizen self-protection. It was never intended that they act affirmatively, prior to or during criminal activity or violence against individual citizens. Their duty was to protect society as a whole by deterrence; i.e., by systematically patrolling, detecting and apprehending criminals after the occurrence of crimes. There was no thought of police displacing the citizens' right of self-protection. Nor could they, even if it were intended.