soon we'll be talking about 'insurgents' in miami.

or, does this mean we can take out politicians we feel threaten our way of life?


america as we knew it is gone

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If I'm walking down the street and a thug runs up on me with a knife and screams in the face of my child, "I'M GOING TO CUT YOUR THROAT!" I have an option other than trying to run away or reaching for my cell phone and calling the cops. In most states I have to wait until my child is actually bleeding before I can legally defend myself and my child. In Florida, that's not the case.

What else does this mean? It means if someone robs me I can use my legally purchased, owned, and concealed firearm to defend myself.

It means if someone is breaking into my house I can defend my property.

It means I can do something other than run away from the bad guys and call the cops while they commit their felonies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

.
Back in 2000, when the Supreme Court stopped the Florida vote count and appointed George Bush president, I voiced my discontent publicly. Bad idea in a rural town dominated by rabid republicans. I was called unpatriotic, a liberal and a communist.

A Corrections Officer who lived in Oregon, but worked in California at Pelican Bay prison, threatened to pistol-whip me for voicing my opinion. Soon, the word spread that I was a troublemaker, and store clerks, waitresses, barflies and even a dentist had harsh words for me.

The self-righteous see evil everywhere, but never in their own hearts.

.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Preventing All (for Safety and Security) allows Nothing (for Safety and Security). The logic of pre-emption; the logic of prevention. Despite appearances and technology, the Nihilists are back -- with a vengeance! Now they are in the "criminal justice" field and in the Legislative Branch of OUR government. Vote loud in state as well as federal elections.

Hobbes wrote of the "war of all against all"; Sinclair Lewis wrote of the Jungle. Nietzsche wrote of the Will to Power. Bush speaks of Freedom -- for whom? Then there were the Prussians. To consider one's own conditions and to vote loud, very loud, is a task for each of us in 2008 as well as forward. If they haven't pre-empted thinking, courtesy of Diebold and such, by election time.

Living with justice, dignity and liberty is at stake. Universals are easy; it's the case that matter when living and not property are at issue. Power relinquished to the state and to the police is power diminished from each of us. It's time to be care-full.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I was born and grew up in the United States and moved to Canada in 1991 when I was recruited for an executive position. You cannot imagine my delight when I discovered, after moving to Toronto, that handguns are illegal up here and sem-automatic rifles and banned totally! Even better, there is no NRA to insist that people should pack heat while wandering the streets.

This Florida "shoot to kill ... anyone" law is just plain crazy! If it weren't so serious, I'd think it was a plot line straight out of a Mel Brooks movie.

It's too bad that the gun lobby )and memers of the Florida legislature who enacted this most-recent bit of insanity) have not read the entire 2nd amendment to the US Constitution, which says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." A well-regulated militia is an army with disciplined troops, officers and a chain of command. It is not some cracker with a handgun in his hip pocket or a knuckledragger who wraps an Uzi in a "Swedish Bikini Inspector" tee-shirt and sticks it in a corner of the closet. The 2nd amendment says nothing about gun toting louts wasting some guy because he got pissed off and "felt threatened."

In 2002, I was offered a very attractive and lucrative job back home but Bush was president already and things seemed to be going off the rails in America. Thankfully, I turned down the offer and stayed put, waiting for the time when the United States returned to being the country I was taught about in school. You know: Rule of law, free speech, freedom of (and from) religion, a government of, by and for the people.

Will someone please let me know when things are back to normal back in the US so I feel safe coming home?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just shoot all republicans... They are threatening you just by their existance. Oh and shoot all Democrats because you know they are closet republicans. Then remember to shoot all liberals because they want to take away your guns and you know what that means....

Hang on a second doesn't this justify those lonely bullied kids going into school and shooting all the jocks?

Sorry but living in a relatively safe country like the UK I really can't comprehend why you Americans have such insane gun laws in the 1st place... People DO NOT need guns.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The way of life we once enjoyed is gone. Everyone who is more likely to be weilding the gun is comfortable with this law, that is until the tables are turned and someone else weilding a gun thinks they are being threatened by the first. Our country was founded on tolerance and freedom. What is evil to me may be good to someone else. For instance, I think Bush is as evil (and stupid) as they come. Someone else may think he is good (as amazing as that sounds). I'd rather not have Bush deciding what or who is good or bad...I'd rather not have religious zealots judging others - this is like slipping back into the dark ages or going on a witch hunt. I'm amazed that we are allowing this to happen. The legal system needs fixing, I agree wholeheartedly, but giving citizens guns to defend themselves from the "evil doers" of the world is like being transported back into the lawless West. And yes, fighting evil is a never-ending war because we have different beliefs about who is evil and who is good and the only way to satisfy this dilemma is to be the last one standing. What on earth has become of us? Religion and politics don't mix any better than guns and concealment. Road rage turns deadly when everyone has a gun tucked away and everyone feels threatened by the other in some way, or say you accidentally bump into some rage-prone executive who's having a bad day...this is going to get very ugly before it gets better. But perhaps our country needs this wake up call. Once all the gun totting maniacs in our world start shooting one another, and they become the ones feeling threatened by other gun totting maniacs, perhaps the tables will turn and we'll regain some common sense. I am petrified with the thought of some of the folks I know carrying around a concealed weapon...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The legalization of use of deadly force by private citizens did not begin the practice of people commenting on the virtues of others--naming good vs bad people. Our species has been doing that for a long, long time.

Since all the instances mentioned here ended up in the courts, it is still up to the court to decide who is innocent and who is guilty. So does the new law do something more than remove the presumption of guilt from someone who uses deadly force?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

it's no coincidence that you'd find this kind of looney behavior in FL. Too bad these people won't shoot the Republican motherfuckers who are responsible for the state's DAMAGED status.

Corporate America and the sellouts in Tallahassee love it when the working class are too busy worrying about their guns even as the rest of their freedom is being stolen. George Orwell would be horrified by now. A gun is not going to protect you from your business enemies such as telco, cableco, utility, bankers, etc ...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Most people, having not been a victim of a violent crime, don't realize that in the past if you were a woman living alone and a rapist/murder broke into your home you were not alowed to defend yourself, be it with a gun, knife, baseball bat or golf club, if you had the opportunity to "retreat". Of course the "opportunity to retreat" will be subjective and your split second decision will be scrutinized by armchair quarter backs weeks later who will have all the time in the world to figure out a way you could have "retreated". This law allows you to stand your ground and defend yourself if you so choose. Those of you that want to can still lock yourselves in the bathroom and hope the cops get there in time. Like all laws there will be extremes, like shooting your neighbor over garbage. For the most part though this will make the would be criminals think twice before entering someone "castle". (that reference is for the States with similar statutes called "castle laws")
We have all read the horror stories. Stories about a familly getting sued by a burlar that was bit by the family dog because they didn't have a beware of dog sign. Or the victim getting arrested for killing an assailant when he/she had the oppurtunity to "retreat". This law, imperfect like all of our laws, at least will help level the playing field between the victims and predators. It has nothing to do with guns. I can easily defend myself with a variety of household objects like my Mr. Bean DVD's. I'm all for it so bring on the negative feed back and beat me up. Just remember what could happen if I feel threatened though.lol

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Florida is a small step backward to the "sacred Way of Life" whitemen in the South enjoyed before the Warren Court spoiled it all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I live in a very ethnically mixed community, and know some neighbors who feel generally threatened by people of color.

What happens when some unfortunate kid walks up to a neighbor's house and pounds on the door offering to mow the lawn?
Can my neighbor shoot a person of color because he feels threatened by someone who is different?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

would some of the Florida contingent please protect us from the neocons who are destroying our nation? if you see them in a state where you can shoot to "stand your ground", please take appropriate action to protect us and our way of life.

is this how the revolution begins?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As one of those ‘far left secular progressives’ AND a Florida resident, I’ll never understand left’s anti-gun position.

Indeed, that gun rights would end up a key conservative tenet is historically counterintuitive.

In the past, when governments moved against public freedoms, the first order of business was always to seize individual weapons caches.

Here in Florida, that trend is beginning to reemerge: the most recent gun-rights issue
involved this year’s bill to ensure employees’ rights to keep a weapon in their cars (on employer property).

On that topic, the very conservative Chamber of Commerce came out AGAINST gun rights, and the Republican majority legislature made sure the issue never reached a potentially embarrassing vote.

I expect this is a harbinger of things to come. Congress, whether stocked with Republicans or Democrats, is controlled by corporate and political interests who have every reason to fear a well-defended populace.

Private Blackwater commando bases are proliferating throughout the U.S., at the same time public policy has forced wages to an all time low. What happens when service economy employees finally decide to demand a living wage paycheck…and who will be more threatened/reactionary, WalMart or Jim Bob?

As far as personal safety, most Florida residents will attest that gun ownership absolutely deters crime.

In Hurricane Ivan’s aftermath, the Panhandle experienced little looting or violent crime, despite widespread power and infrastructure shortages. When criminals stake out Florida homes, OR approach Florida residents in the Mall parking lot, they’re well aware that most people own and know how to use guns.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The real "agenda" to such gun laws is not protecting yourself against "some lunatic" coming at you with a weapon. Nor is it about securing your life, property. etc, albeit, it only appears this way.

It's all about fear. The idea is to make everyone scared poopless of anything and everything. The proponents of said laws may quote the NRA, Knox, whomever, but the undercurrent to such is just this: "WE WANT YOU TO STAY SCARED."

It's a military tactic: Divide and conquer. If we are all packing clips, polishing the chrome, packing wad cutters, and yes, always looking over our shoulders, we won't notice the man behind the curtain laughing his ass off at our paranoia. We'll be too busy playing the OK Corral scenario to mind that these bastards are playing us, playing on our fear, using us. CNN will, yes, cover a few genuine shoot-outs, winner take nothing. Meanwhile, Uncle Sam cackles with evil glee.

Just another step towards tyranny, folks, nothing to see here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This law says you can shoot someone if you "BELIEVE it is necessary." This means that you can act with deadly force based on your own internal assessment while feeling threatened.
How on earth can something so subjective be reasonably legislated? Does the average citizen make their most cogent judgements when under stress? Of course not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Self-defense is a God-given right. In fact it is a necessity.

What is a threatened person supposed to do, get down on his or her knees and plead not to be attacked?

Having said that, it is also true that a person has the *responsibility* to judge the threat properly. It is a subjective judgement call, and you might unnecessarily injure someone and you might find a jury making a judgement call on you if you over-do self-defense, so it behooves one to be very hesitant to use force in self-defense, but one must be able to use whatever force is necessary.

Every person has the natural right to self-defense, so potential criminals are disinclined to try to commit crime in places where individuals' rights to self-defense are honored. They will heed the warning to "be careful," or go to places like DC or San Fran where the laws are more favorable to criminals because the God-given rights of the law abiding are infringed.

I personally do not believe in any gun laws at all as they give too much power to politicians and bureaucrats and are oppressive to all law-abiding people, particularly the poor as low-income neighborhoods are more crime-ridden.

The right to keep and bear arms is an individual civil liberty, and the one to decide if you are allowed this right is the person in the mirror.

You are *responsible* for your decisions, including the decision how much force is necessary to protect yourself and your children.

If you agree, consider supporting Ron Paul. BTW, Paul is truly anti-war and opposed the insane war on drugs too.

See my blog at http://www.alicelillieandher.blogspot.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

All this law does is change the requirment to "flee" or "retreat" when threatened. What you defend yourself with is not part of this law. In the past a woman with a blackbelt in karate could be in trouble for dispatching a rapist instead of running away. Now she can face the threat if she so choses. The option of "fleeing" is still there for all those that would like to use it.
Lets leave the "gun debate" for another article and stick to the facts of this one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It won't be hard to tell the "good" citizens from the "bad" once BushCo makes their "Good Citizen" ID Cards available to those who are willing to pay a few thousand extra, provide DNA samples & proof of Aryan ancestry, and submit to an anal probe.

This will afford the bearer legal recourse in case someone shoots him (and he survives): "You can't shoot me - I'm a Good Citizen!" And, of course, it gives the bearer the right to shoot anyone NOT carrying a Good Citizen Card.

See? Law and order can be easy if you avoid "philosophical" issues like good and evil and stick with facts, like who has money and who is whiter.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Home of Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, Jeb Bush and Bill O'Reilly. I have to go to that horrible state to visit relatives, and when I do I can't wait to come home to wash the sweat of stupidity off of me. Keep your hell hole-Florida and most of the people who live there are dumb f-cks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The general criteria that must be met for a homicide to be ruled justifiable are very similar in every state, including Florida. The best phrasing I have found so far is in Steve Johnson, [i]Concealed Carry Handgun Training[/i], North Carolina Justice Academy, 1995, pp. 3-4, but these criteria would apply in every state, and definitely apply in Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, and other stand-your-ground states. (Note that like Florida, my state of North Carolina is also a Castle Doctrine state.)

QUOTE:

(1) Justified Self-Defense

A citizen is legally justified in using deadly force against another if and only if:

(a) The citizen actually believes deadly force is necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault, AND

(b) The facts and circumstances prompting that belief would cause a person of ordinary firmness to believe deadly force WAS necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault, AND

(c) The citizen using deadly force was not an instigator or aggressor who voluntarily provoked, entered, or continued the conflict leading to deadly force, AND

(d) Force used was not excessive -- greater than reasonably needed to overcome the threat posed by a hostile aggressor."

END QUOTE

(Emphasis added.)

Note that ALL FOUR conditions must generally be met in order for a shooting to be ruled justifiable (there is an exception for someone kicking your door in, but we'll get to that in a minute). A small handful of states used to add a FIFTH criterion to the list above, that of running away from the imminent lethal threat before turning to defend yourself (and hoping the attacker doesn't kill you while your back is turned). Florida was one of those states, and eliminated it with the new law; most states have never had such a provision to start with.

OK, the really important part. Where a lot of people get spun is the deliberate distortion of the phrase "reasonably believes" in self-defense statutes. Reasonable belief does *NOT* mean merely "feeling threatened"; the phrase is a legal term, and its definition in the context of self-defense law is that in paragraph (b) above--i.e., that "the facts and circumstances prompting that belief would cause a person of ordinary firmness to believe deadly force WAS necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault." Merely "feeling threatened" isn't reasonable belief; the belief has to be objectively rational, i.e. there is in fact a guy standing in front of you holding what appears to be a knife in a threatening posture.

Also, it is important to understand that a claim of self-defense is not an automatic exemption to the laws against homicide. Rather, it is what is known as an "affirmative defense"; unlike the regular innocent-until-proven-guilty standard applied to a criminal act, the onus in a self-defense shooting is on the shooter to demonstrate that the shooting WAS indeed justifiable self-defense. In other words, in a self-defense case, the standard is "guilty unless shown innocent," and if the shooting is questionable, it is much more likely to swing against the person claiming self-defense than it is to swing in their favor.

OK, back to the new Florida law. The Florida law's primary effect was to eliminate the "duty to run away" provision, which was very subjective and had been abused by overzealous prosecutors; as I mentioned, most states don't have them, and a truly questionable scenario (you could have walked away in complete safety, but didn't) would fail points (a) and (c) anyway.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

to the killings that established the US of A. Those killers had something to fear and that fear is still with us because Americans are still killing. This vicious circle will never abate as far too many Americans strengthen the circle by getting guns to 'protect' themselves when the real answer is more equality and freedom. Very sad for America and the rest of the world that America treats in the same violent manner.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Effective and insidious, this new law will accomplish two things. 1. Make a lot of money for arms manufacturers and merchants - apparently they're not rich enough yet. 2. and more important, further atomize the citizens, by making them afraid of and suspicious of each other, even of their neighbours, alienate them from each other, make them hostile to each other (because you never know...) create even tinier niche demographics, and thereby hobble the people's ability to unite on common causes. Consider that this may be the intention.
Gawsh knows, there are enough real problems in America that need your attention and that demand concerted action. (eg. get law enforcement agencies that use your tax money to do their job properly; education; health care; militarization of civil society; destruction of habeas corpus, free speech, human rights and dignity, labour laws, food&drug safety; environmental issues, etc etc etc..)
And stop with the juvenile, alarmist, imaginary, hypothetical scenarios already. There will always be the odd armed wacko acting on some wild delusion; that's not predictable, and making potential killers out of everybody - all armed all the time - creates more problems than it solves. Somehow the rest of the world (except where imperialist America is a significant presence) is doing just fine, not having to duck bullets on a daily basis in city squares, colleges, and malls, without all the citizens packing heat. People even say hello to each other on the street! Create a culture in which you can be civil and not fear each other as enemies, and in which you can even work together for the common good. That's the best protection of all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I had an incident where someone was firing off a hangun one block away from my house, but when I called 911, they said to me to peek my head out the door to see who it is.

I said, "yeah right", and hung up on them.

Next time it happens, I'll call .45 insetad, which is always on standby after that spoof!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Does that mean that if George W Bush comes to Florida you can blow his brains out on the grounds that he's threatening the security of the state of Florida with his insane wars?

Or how about the next time a black kid in a poor neighborhood feels threatened by the police, let's see how well the law holds up for him when he pulls out a Glock and pumps a few into the Po-lice.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm a supporter of the 2nd Amendment, a gun owner and I live in FL. This law is terrible. It goes against every tenet of responsible gun ownership.

This should be called the "Don't Challenge My Ego Or I'll Shoot Law."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Everybody knows Florida is the wild frontier! The land of Crazy Katherine Harris and Jeb "Killer" Bush. Plus the state is full of illegal aliens - Cubans! Maybe you need guns. Where are the so-called "minute men" when you need them? Of course, today's "minute men" are cheap immitations of the "Minute Men" of Revolutionary Massachusetts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A young lady in the Tuscaloosa paper said it best:
"I would rather have a pistol in my hand than a cop
on the phone".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

even if they claim otherwise. Here's what I am talking about:

The first directive was for Pastors to preach to their congregations Romans 13, the often taken out of context bible passage that was used by Hitler to hoodwink Christians into supporting him, in order to teach them to "obey the government" when martial law is declared.

It was related to the Pastors that quarantines, martial law and forced relocation were a problem for state authorities when enforcing federal mandates due to the "cowboy mentality" of citizens standing up for their property and second amendment rights as well as farmers defending their crops and livestock from seizure.

It was stressed that the Pastors needed to preach subservience to the authorities ahead of time in preparation for the round-ups and to make it clear to the congregation that "this is for their own good."

Pastors were told that they would be backed up by law enforcement in controlling uncooperative individuals and that they would even lead SWAT teams in attempting to quell resistance.

I may not look at guns as a solution but if gun toters actually fight to restore the rest of America's freedom, then I'll applaud them. Right now, unfortunately, they're being distracted on the issue of "liberals taking away their guns nonsense" that they are ready to give up the rest of their freedom and their economic well being and livable environment. Worse, it is so hard to believe that the NRA and most of the gun lobbyists are siding with the coup instead of siding with the people to overthrow the coup.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

instead of shooting each other-why don't we organize and take back our country-

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The people I know who live under the assumption that criminal behavior directed against your person or property can be placated simply haven't been confronted with this particular type of reality. An even partially seasoned criminal will have already sized you up and decided that you're a resource, not a human being. He won't want to "avoid conflict."

Self-defense, as a personal right, has nothing to do the ill-conceived and downright stupid notion of preemptive war.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Again we are slammed by misrepresentation and misinformation. This new Law is also called the Castle Doctrine Law." Its purpose is to give law abiding citizens the right to protect both themselves and their loved ones--including their private property.
This law was necessary because as the article states, people are required to retreat and run in the face of armed robbery, car jackings, and even burglaries. There was an old joke that if a person was breaking into your home, and you shot him, you had better make sure that he fell into the house as opposed to outside of the home--otherwise, you could face murder charges.
The sad fact is that today's society is so litigitous that even someone comitting a felony was capable of suing a victim of a crime if they were injured. Then, there is the fact that a person was not even allowed to defend his own home. Contrary to this article, people do not have the right to shoot anyone they want. Just once, I would like to see Alternet Editors reign in their rogue writers.
The law merely states what the constitution of the United States has always articulated: People have a right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness--and part of their right is to not be molested, attacked or robbed by anyone. And, if someone should do you and your property personal harm, you have the right to defend yourself.
The article's example of the former police officer shooting his neighbor and the neighbor stating that he was shot is cold blood is just another example of gross distortion. The ex officer would have to prove that he shot the neighbor where he said he shot him (i.e. by the inside of the door). There would have to be scuffle marks, something to indicate that the incident occurred as he said it did. (If he tried to get into the house as the ex officer stated, where are the finger prints on the door?)
That is the inherent problem with so much of the rhetoric and biased articles that Alternet continues to push--they are all incomplete.
No State Attorney would accept a person being shot without some corroborating evidence substantiating the fact that someone was shot under justifiable circumstances.
Please, let's keep it fair and balanced...leave the histrionics to the Feminists.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"The law allows someone attacked, even in a
public place, to "stand his or her ground" -
and to use deadly force if he or she feels
it necessary. It revokes a legal requirement
to try to avoid conflict."

For the last 50 years, a "stand your ground"
attitude has been pervasive in the movies and
television. In the movies, the hero, in the
end, always "stands his ground" and comes
out triumphant. It's a standard cliche, that
the hero wants to avoid conflict, but is
forced to act aggressively, and it is this
aggression which solves any and all problems.

After 50 years of viewers being taught that
violence *is* the solution, is it any
wonder that such laws would be very popular.

http://www.tvsmarter.com/documents/aggression.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It was nice the author thought to point a link to the actual law. You know what would have been nicer? Citing the whole three paragraphs the link points to inside the article:

"The state of Florida in the United States became the first to enact such a law on October 1, 2005. The Florida statute allows the use of deadly force when a person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent the commission of a 'forcible felony.' Under the statute, forcible felonies include 'treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.'

The Florida law authorizes the use of defensive force by anyone 'who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be.' Furthermore, under the law, such a person 'has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.' The statute also grants civil and criminal immunity to anyone found to have had such a reasonable belief."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

That was easy!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Remember your history. Back in the good ole' days of piracy,(which is what has taken over the goverment right now), in the earlier years of the US piracy was highly prevalent. Now what did pirates do? pillag, plunder, and RAPE.

Well now what do you think happened to all those children that where the off spring of those rapes? Hell, they of grew up in Florida,and the southern states!

So now. it is no wonder why these paranoid gun toters want to shoot first and carry on like pirates. They even have the retired New Yorkers living there scared enough to want to carry guns. Look George Bush is from there, Jeb, Trent Jabba-the-Lott. Hell everyone who wants these stupid gun toten rights is from the south. The whole east coast, where the military school and bases that perpetuate the war mind set is from there.

It's my guess if you could follow these peoples family trees back you'll find the blood of pirates runs through there veins.

Piracy in not such an acceptible trait to perpetuate if our society has any aspirations to truely want democracy, truth, justice,.........hell what am I talking about, that's not what our government wants at all. That wouldn't be good for fascist capitalism and conspicous consumption, Growth (till we pop).

The state of California is suppose to grow by 2/3 by 2050. The rest of the nation won't be far behind. Hell all these pirates will be dead and gone by then. Why should they give a rats ass? After all, it'll be primarily be brown skinned people anyway.

Well like the mercenaries (blackwater) code says, " kill'm all, Let God sort'm out".

What a sick example of humanity this country.

By the way, this isn't the United States any more. The pirate government has seen to that. Do don't worry about saving it. you all aready let'm have it.

Those commercials for the National Guard and such, about protecting "America". who are they trying to kid? Poor young kids are being told a propaganda story to fight for something they don't know anything about except what America use to be.

Terrorist? Hell the government is the terroist. never forget Waco Texas or Ruby Ridge, Oklahoma City or that 911 was and is a complete cover-up of the truth.

Yah, if people never force the truth of 911 to come to the top and imprison Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rummy, the whole PNAC, Then forget protecting Amerca it's already gone. (Pelosi is seeing to that!)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Dirty Harry Law

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Now all the impotent little men with small penises can shoot anyone who threatens their masculinity by putting out more trash than they are allotted. I'm so f*cking tired of rubes running this country into the ground!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

TITLE 47
MINES AND MINING
CHAPTER 7
MINERAL RIGHTS IN STATE LANDS
47-702. RIGHT OF EXPLORATION AND WITHDRAWAL. (1) All lands belonging to
the state of Idaho in which the mineral deposits, excepting oil and gas and
geothermal resources, are owned by the state, and which have not been located,
leased, or withdrawn in accordance with the terms of this chapter,

are hereby
declared to be free and open to casual exploration.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When I saw Bowling for Columbine a few years ago, I was impressed by Michael Moore's empty conclusion; he wondered how it could be that Canadian and American culture could be so similar, yet so different with respect to citizens' propensity to shoot each other.

Soon after the movie made waves, President Bush was seeking to make war - of the preemptive kind. It occurred to me then, and many times since, that this notion of preemption likely represents the answer to Moore's question.

What distinguishes Canadians from Americans more than anything else? It is not that Canadians are really any "nicer" than Americans, it is that Americans are born inside a culture of preemption. Shoot first; ask questions later.

Looking at the historical record shows clearly that GWB did not invent the concept of preemptive war. He merely named it honestly, or at least got the preemptive part right. All of America's recent wars have been held up as efforts to "defend" the country from harm. But why does this defense always seem to take place on foreign soil?

Interestingly, America is the country that, more than any other, holds up Christian virtue as support for the moral right of the U.S. government to act in this preemptive fashion. But, the core of Jesus' teaching, as I understand things, is better captured in the phrase, 'turn the other cheek' than in the phrase, 'shoot first'.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

....to protect people of color, who I sm sure will be killed"accidentally" while the white perpetrator will be hailed as a hero. I would recommend that every person of color arm themselves and shoot first. This country will do nothing for you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

From the comfort of your middle and upper middle class suburbia life-style it is easy to pontificate about the perceived intentions of such laws but for law abiding citizens such as me, this law affords some piece of mind. Not because I am some paranoid gun freak chomping at the bit to shoot somebody, but because in a state with a corrupt and overwhelmed infrastructure, at least I still have the right to PROTECT myself and my family.

For me, a liberal democrat, this seems a strange thing to say but after having my house surrounded by violent felons threatening my life and that of my family, you too might give more thought to the right of civilians to defend themselves, especially when inept and corrupt police do not care to aid, in this case, what they called a “gringo”.

You might say that the solution is for the authorities to do their job and to protect citizens. I could not agree more but I am not willing to be a martyr, would you? I found that one of the individuals threatening me has been arrested and charged with four felonies including battery on a police officer and two illegal gun positions charges. In all four cases the District Attorney in Dade County (Miami) never pursued any of the changes. So what happens now? Do I sell my home while the market is down and lose tens of thousands of dollars? I’m not exactly rich either.

I am a law abiding citizen wishing to be in my home at peace. For the next two years this is exactly where I will stay and I am ready to defend my right to do so.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's see what happens when a Florida college campus student is carrying a gun while he is harrassed by a group of fellow students in a dorm hallway. He pulls out his gun and kills them all because he says he felt his life was threatened. Who is going to explain to the dead students families why the killer is going free. This law is foolish. The only people that this law is good for are attorneys whose wallets will fatten as handgun related deaths and court cases rise.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I live in Mississippi, and our laws have always been this way. You have a God given right to defend yourself, end of story. All you people crying over this have no clue. Before it was changed, this law was about as dumb as the assault weapon ban. I purchased 3 banned guns, legally after this asinine law went into effect. There is an answer to you crybabies, though. You don't like guns? Simple. Put a big sign in your yard that says" I hate guns. My house is a gun free zone." Don't call on me for help. The first thing the Nazis and Communists did was confiscate all private guns. Myself, and millions like me, will die before we let that happen again.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

While I can agree with the basic right to defend yourself from robbers, rapists, muggers and other violent attacks, the problem with this law is that it's going to turn into a full blown class war. Wasn't it in Florida where the first big case of a homeless man being beaten and tortured to death by a couple of rich young adults came out of? And since then many more stories have come out about the homeless being beaten or stabbed to death or even set on fire by financially well-off people. And leaving it up to the police and the courts to decide who is or isn't a "good person" and a "law abiding citizen" means that this law can never apply to poor people or minorities in the ghetto. Poor and disadvantaged groups of people aren't seen as good people because we don't have the fat bank accounts, fancy houses and giant SUVs that the rich have. More than anything, the law is a liscense for the rich to shoot to kill anyone who's not wearing khaki's or a business suit. having been homeless myself, I know for a FACT that the rich feel threatened by the poor as well as harbor a deep-seeded and intense hatred of those less fortunate. Where are the homeless organizations on this?!??!?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]