• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Florida Law on use of deadly force [W:390]

Do you agree with Florida Law on use of deadly force?

  • Agree

    Votes: 41 70.7%
  • Disagree

    Votes: 15 25.9%
  • I oppose the Second Amendment completely

    Votes: 1 1.7%
  • There should be no rule of law

    Votes: 1 1.7%

  • Total voters
    58
I'm not going to dignify this insult with a response...

There is no need to respond, but you might want to consider what he said, as it certainly appears to be true, based on your own responses here.
 
That has nothing to do with the thread at all.

I guess you are right, but my point is correct. While I don't think people shouldn't defend themselves, I think shooting someone in the back before giving a warning is to far unless of course someone is in immediate danger. Unfortunately, and I use that word with the fullest extent of the meaning, someone that is in the act of raping someone is not in immediate danger. The crime has already been committed. I would suggest this as a proper course of action, and even an amendment into the law.

If you see someone being raped, and no one is in immediate physical danger, you must call out a, "Hey stop what you are doing!". If they continue, or maybe, I'm not to convinced on this, start to flee the scene you may open fire with the intent to not kill the person unless someone becomes in the line of a violent act.

Remember what I said though, the violent act has already occurred once the rape has started, giving the attacker a warning is, IMHO, a fair "shot" for them to stop what they are doing. Then if they flee/don't stop or at any time show violence, you may open fire with the intention of not killing the person unless someone is in imminent danger, IE he pulls out a gun/knife/starts beating someone...

I'm merely arguing that we should give people the fair chance that anyone deserves before we put them into the grave that some of you feel they deserve, and while my emotions would say that the attacker should be shot on site, the reasonable side of me thinks otherwise. This is the juxtaposition we are at with this law I believe.
 
I'am not in favor of the Stand Your Ground law. It could be used to push for "justifiable" homicides. JMO

Lack of it allows homicides. So pick your preference.
 
There is no need to respond, but you might want to consider what he said, as it certainly appears to be true, based on your own responses here.

Wrong, I would stop to help someone if they were being attacked. I just wouldn't shoot first, ask questions later.
 
Lack of it allows homicides. So pick your preference.

I just don't even think their needs to be a law for this I mean, wow. If someone got locked up for shooting someone who was about to kill an innocent bi-standard, I would be surprised, although I have a feeling I'm about to be surprised because of the ****ty justice system we have.
 
Agreed. I would prefer people retreat and call for law enforcement if possible.

The problem is, with our current justice system, if possible is a pretty big if when it comes time for them to stand trial. Besides, this leaves a lot of "what ifs".

BTW, I think I have painted a picture that I'm against this act. I'm not, or at least not against the idea. I think it needs a few clarifications is all.
 
I'm not going to dignify this insult with a response...

Of course not because I write of realities. You have your slogan phrase "state of mind" that you post over and over - like a pro-lifer has "abortion is killing a human" and the endless other slogans some people grab onto to avoid considering matters in terms of real people in actual reality itself.

You have to discuss in a pretend world. Such as a rational that if a person had a brain tumor causing them to do violence and it if removed the person cured, wouldn't it be unjust to execute that person? Of course, in the history of earth that has never happened and what has happened endless acts of extreme, malicious and sadistic violence against innocent people. The latter reality you avoid and cling instead to the never-happened-theoretic, making your values and logic around it. That is nonsensical.
 
Right, but being born into an abusive home increases the probability that they will become a criminal/drug addict. One only need to walk into a prison to figure this out. Their are other things at play here as I have mentioned. Genes, chemical balances, influences from school, and say a friend that does drugs... All of this are circumstantial, the limit on what friends you can have are limited by the friends in your neighborhood. Not to mention, if both your parents are drug addicts you will have common grounds with this friend, and sense that common ground has been set I think it wouldn't be unreasonable for the duo to experiment with drugs at a later age. The point is, if you are born into an abusive home, the seed has been planted.


How many criminals have you known personally? I don't mean weed smokers or valley-girls who occasionally get a five-finger discount, I mean violent criminals.

I've known hundreds. They include murderers, rapists, robbers, child-molesters, mass murderers, drug dealers, baby killers, granny rapers, carjackers, burglars, and other fun guys and gals.

I'm here to tell you, your theories and not new and fresh they're old hat and assigning no responsibility to the perps was proven disasterous before you were born. I remember that era when "society is to blame" for everything, this is nothing new. Hell there are Monty Python sketches about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67Qe4vVIN-A&feature=autoplay&list=PL661292F4B9C5D406&lf=results_video&playnext=2

A fair number of people who do these things have NOTHING in their background that explains their actions. Nothing.

I will grant that many are the way they are in part because of family, neighborhood, friends, life experiences, and so forth... but to pretent that sapient beings have no free will and no choice is to ignore half of the equation. We are not simply a product of our genes and experiences, we are also a product of our intellect and our choices.

You read a book and got excited and now want to apply the concept to everything, and ignore what people with decades of experience in these matters are telling you. This is also nothing new; the young are susceptible to intellectual narcissim.
 
Last edited:
Wrong, I would stop to help someone if they were being attacked. I just wouldn't shoot first, ask questions later.

How would you "help?"
 
Agreed. I would prefer people retreat and call for law enforcement if possible.

The problem with that line of thinking is that when you're in a real life or death situation, cops can only respond in the amount of time it takes for them to arrive. If you are in danger, your chances of survival are much better if you can defend yourself.
 
.

You read a book and got excited and now want to apply the concept to everything, and ignore what people with decades of experience in these matters are telling you. This is also nothing new; the young are susceptible to intellectual narcissim.

The naive youth adopting academia's arrogance. "Intellectual narcissim" is a good phrase.

It is curious that everyone who actually has experience with violent people are who understand how exactly wrong the excuse-makers are.
 
For all those that have already convicted Z in their minds. If this does go to court, and he is proven innocent, will there be apologies? Or even an admission of being wrong?
 
Wrong, I would stop to help someone if they were being attacked. I just wouldn't shoot first, ask questions later.

So, are you saying you really believe someone who is committing an act of violence is going to stop, put aside their weapon or aggressive physical stance, to answer your questions, before they go on commiting their violent act?
 
The problem with that line of thinking is that when you're in a real life or death situation, cops can only respond in the amount of time it takes for them to arrive. If you are in danger, your chances of survival are much better if you can defend yourself.

Unfortunately, too many people rely exclusively on police for their protection.
 
The problem with that line of thinking is that when you're in a real life or death situation, cops can only respond in the amount of time it takes for them to arrive. If you are in danger, your chances of survival are much better if you can defend yourself.

I don't disagree with you, but SYG (IMO) allows greater latitude for people to act more aggressive or act like they are law enforcement, which they are not.
 
I will grant that many are the way they are in part because of family, neighborhood, friends, life experiences, and so forth... but to pretent that sapient beings have no free will and no choice is to ignore half of the equation. We are not simply a product of our genes and experiences, we are also a product of our intellect and our choices.

Look at the last little part of what you said here Goshin. "We are also a product of our intellect and our choices". Our intellect comes from genes/culture. This has been inherently proven by the IQ test. Our choices come from where though Goshin? I mean when you are presented with a choice of what to wear in the morning, do all of the possible options arise into your conscious thought? No, because it would be maddening if every situation that you were presented with every single choice arose into your subconscious thoughts. Our choices, therefore, arise from our subconscious, of which we have no control over, so where exactly is our free will in all of that?

You read a book and got excited and now want to apply the concept to everything, and ignore what people with decades of experience in these matters are telling you. This is also nothing new; the young are susceptible to intellectual narcissim.

You aren't giving me enough credit here Goshin. I've actually read several books on the subject, the fact that it is arising now is because I think this is where it applies. (Other books I have read, The moral Landscape, The End of Faith, God is not great, and many more) I understand your frustration with me, I also have frustration with you. We are, in a sense, experiencing the fire place delusion.
 
So, are you saying you really believe someone who is committing an act of violence is going to stop, put aside their weapon or aggressive physical stance, to answer your questions, before they go on commiting their violent act?

Sorry, let me clarify a little bit their. If someone is about to rape a woman, I would say, "Hey, Stop!" (With weapon drawn before doing so). If they were in the act of raping, I would say, "Hey Stop!", (Weapon drawn then shoot if they don't respond). There is a point in between these two, which I'm not to sure where that would be, when I would shoot without even thinking. Maybe if they were literally about to insert their penis into the woman. If I walked up on this situation and at any point I felt that someone was going to be injured if I didn't stop immediately, I would shoot first, ask questions later. So at any time if I feel someone's mortality is in question, or that their physical/mental state is in question, I would shoot first, ask questions later.

The point is, people are more likely to stop and answer your questions if you have a gun pointed at them.
 
The naive youth adopting academia's arrogance. "Intellectual narcissim" is a good phrase.

It is curious that everyone who actually has experience with violent people are who understand how exactly wrong the excuse-makers are.

Then it is up to you to convince me. So far you, the emotionally involved, to convince the more reasonable otherwise.
 
Look at the last little part of what you said here Goshin. "We are also a product of our intellect and our choices". Our intellect comes from genes/culture. This has been inherently proven by the IQ test. Our choices come from where though Goshin? I mean when you are presented with a choice of what to wear in the morning, do all of the possible options arise into your conscious thought? No, because it would be maddening if every situation that you were presented with every single choice arose into your subconscious thoughts. Our choices, therefore, arise from our subconscious, of which we have no control over, so where exactly is our free will in all of that?



You aren't giving me enough credit here Goshin. I've actually read several books on the subject, the fact that it is arising now is because I think this is where it applies. (Other books I have read, The moral Landscape, The End of Faith, God is not great, and many more) I understand your frustration with me, I also have frustration with you. We are, in a sense, experiencing the fire place delusion.



Sigh. You're looking at this from a one-dimension view.

Yes, lots of criminals are not intelligent. Many come from bad backgrounds. Stipulated.

But there are some who are intelligent, well-educated, come from good family, grew up middle-class with work-ethic and so forth, law-abiding friends and neighbors... and the day comes when they decide to do something truly heinous and unlawful and there's nothing in their background to point to.

On the flip side, I've known people who grew up in broken druggie homes, in violent druggie/gang neighborhoods, with brothers and sisters who succumbed to it all, yet these individuals rose above their roots and worked within the law and got out of there and made something of themselves.

Choice.


If there is no choice, what do we need with a forebrain?
 
Sigh. You're looking at this from a one-dimension view.

Yes, lots of criminals are not intelligent. Many come from bad backgrounds. Stipulated.

But there are some who are intelligent, well-educated, come from good family, grew up middle-class with work-ethic and so forth, law-abiding friends and neighbors... and the day comes when they decide to do something truly heinous and unlawful and there's nothing in their background to point to.

On the flip side, I've known people who grew up in broken druggie homes, in violent druggie/gang neighborhoods, with brothers and sisters who succumbed to it all, yet these individuals rose above their roots and worked within the law and got out of there and made something of themselves.

Choice.


If there is no choice, what do we need with a forebrain?

The forebrain (Pre-frontal cortex) is where consciousness exist. Everything else is subconscious. Anyways, I understand where you are coming from, look at it this way. For you to make a decision their is a reason, I'm hungry, I eat food, I'm happy, I debate politics, I'm thirsty, I get water, I'm tired, I sleep, I'm choosing a shirt, I choose one that matches (Unless you don't care about your appearance, you choose one seemingly at random). Where does that randomness come from. Obviously our thoughts can't just be random or it would seem that we are a sail caught in the wind. Our own thoughts would appear random to even us. Look in the criminal world, they are always looking for a motive. Do you think that all crimes have a motive? If so, then you have a chain of events that lead back to a cause to their criminal action.
 
I'am not in favor of the Stand Your Ground law. It could be used to push for "justifiable" homicides. JMO

I am very much in favor of Stand Your Ground Law. It will protect a person that has the misfortune of having to use deadly force to protect herself.
 
As an adult I've had guns and more often knives pulled on me. Yet there is only one time as an adult I pulled a gun on anyone, closest I came to killing someone, and that person was unarmed.

There are only a few things of topics I feel strongly about that may come on the forum. 1.) sexual assault, assaults against children and - circumstantially - non-sexual violence against women; 2.) pro-choice and 3.) gay rights, although not militantly.

I arrived at the scene of an extremely violent sexual assault of a young woman I knew extremely well, the assault fortunately stopped by three others - two men and a woman - only seconds before. Walking into that scene and realizing the who and what of it, I threw the assailant against the hard wall so hard he probably dazed unconscious momentarily and in the same motion drew my 45 chambering and cocking it to against his head. But the woman cried out louding in terrible pain, shifting my focus to her from my own rage and I felt that loudness of the gunshot would add more shock and stress in what was to become her battling for her life in the hospital, the injuries that great.

The first two arriving local officers who also knew her, beat him unconscious - chalking it up to "resisting arrest" in their report. No one cared.

This isn't NYC where than SOB as a first time offender probably would get 6 years and then be released in 14 months on shock probation after some sex offenders counseling program. He got the max on 3 sentences - aggravated sexual assault, attempted murder and burglary of a residence - each to run consecutively - which is Florida adds up to forever - and the judge and prosecutor both adding letters to the file for any future probation board that due to the nature of the crime he should never be granted probation. After sentencing back in his cell, in front of many officers, he was told that should he ever somehow get released decades from now and return here, they WILL kill him.

Although the majority of adults are now senior Yankee transplates, the generational old good ole boys and gals still have their ways they always have had. There are certain crimes, most notable extreme child injury, for which it is well understood that IF the cops get to that person first - but then later if that person ever came back here he would be killed and fed to the wild hogs as a missing person. Its always been that way for certain extreme crimes against children and women - generation to generation. And to be honest, I'm perfectly fine with that, but - circumstantially - I've always believed in jungle law in extreme instances anyway.

Were I on a jury and a person killed someone he saw someone released from prison who had AGGRAVATEDLY (not statutory/date) raped his wife, daughter, mother, or the same of a best friend or close relative, there's not a chance in hell I'd vote to convict. I'd call it "temporary insanity" and maybe when done and out of the courtroom thank that person for removing that person from our community.

The repeat rate for sex offenders is very high and even higher if against children.
Back in the days when men were men and threats to civilzation were eliminated, 95% of the Texas Rangers' prisoners were "killed while attempting to escape."
 
Back in the days when men were men and threats to civilzation were eliminated, 95% of the Texas Rangers' prisoners were "killed while attempting to escape."

Are you implying that they said, "He's coming right for us", just so they could shoot him, or did the escape attempt actually occur?
 
Back in the days when men were men and threats to civilzation were eliminated, 95% of the Texas Rangers' prisoners were "killed while attempting to escape."

And in the 1920s when the FBI or law learned where a mobster or gang leader was, they set up a firing line and just gun him down.

Very efficient.
 
Back
Top Bottom