• 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
The law dictates that you can use deadly force if you merely see someone being raped. Again, when has it become custom to shoot a rapist? If these are easy questions their must be easy answers that aren't strawmans.

you make a good point-castrating rapists is a preferred response but you'd better be an expert shot as I am before attempting that with a handgun
 
Not relevant-most cops are lousy shots anyway. I trust my kid to shoot someone holding a knife to my throat (Think Mel Gibson and his tomahawk whacking the guy about to cut Heath Ledger's throat) than most big city cops

This is what the law says though:

Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.

It doesn't seem to be circumstantial to me. That is why I clicked no because it needs to be like, he has a knife to her throat or something. It can't just be the guy has her pinned to the ground because he is bigger...
 
I was able to find some sheriff in Iowa against SYG. There were some police officers concerned about the Indiana SYG may be interpreted to allow citizens to use it against police officers. There were some district attorneys in Philadelphia against SYG but i cannot find anything near what your implying that there is significant opposition. I didn't look up "law enforcement organizations" since that is too vague a term.

There are police officials who want citizens defenseless - including the police.
The right to use force and deadly force against the police is very complex. The Waco Branch Dravidians proved it is not simplistic a question. If police are attempting to kill you or your loved ones - even if in official capacity and in good faith too - you still have a right to use deadly force to defend yourself and your loved ones.

What it seems so difficult for some people to grasp is that when there is a shooting death that doesn't many anyone committed a crime even if both were shooting and regardless of who wins.
 
you make a good point-castrating rapists is a preferred response but you'd better be an expert shot as I am before attempting that with a handgun

That is why cops have handcuffs along with their gun :). (Jail ftw)

Edit:

Yay, I won an argument with Turtle, Score:

Jryan: 1
TurtleDude: I've lost count :-0.
 
This is what the law says though:

Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.

It doesn't seem to be circumstantial to me. That is why I clicked no because it needs to be like, he has a knife to her throat or something. It can't just be the guy has her pinned to the ground because he is bigger...


He might have aids or herpes or warts. all would justify killing him before he can penetrate his victim
 
Not relevant-most cops are lousy shots anyway. I trust my kid to shoot someone holding a knife to my throat (Think Mel Gibson and his tomahawk whacking the guy about to cut Heath Ledger's throat) than most big city cops

Most people are rotten shots with a handgun and then even worse under stress. Even many if not most police officers. Shooting at a range versus a stress situation, possibly life and death.
 
He might have aids or herpes or warts. all would justify killing him before he can penetrate his victim

But he is in the process of raping the victim, not stripping her clothes off and saying, "Come here baby..."

BTW, the thought of what someone "could" do doesn't hold up in court, does it Turtle?
 
Most people are rotten shots with a handgun and then even worse under stress. Even many if not most police officers. Shooting at a range versus a stress situation, possibly life and death.


Yeah that's why I competed internationally in one shooting sport (world championships, championships of the Americas, America Cup) and professionally in another (Pins, USPSA). closest thing you can get to the pressure of a street fight with a gun or a knife (been in a couple of those too so I know)
 
Kill rapists.


Only to stop them. its idiotic to make rape a capital offense if captured because that means killing their victim is a freebie and there is no incentive for a rapist not to kill his victim if he knows he will be caught or figures there is a chance he will be
 
Yeah that's why I competed internationally in one shooting sport (world championships, championships of the Americas, America Cup) and professionally in another (Pins, USPSA). closest thing you can get to the pressure of a street fight with a gun or a knife (been in a couple of those too so I know)

Unfortunately most people who carry only use their guns at a shooting range, not in a RL situation (That is a good thing though I suppose).
 
Unfortunately most people who carry only use their guns at a shooting range, not in a RL situation (That is a good thing though I suppose).

sort of hard to practice real life shooting unless you are a

1) contract killer

2) go out hunting criminals

3) join the SEALS or the Rangers or work as a mercenary in some African Hell hole
 
Not everyone agrees with NYC doctrine that criminals are just misunderstood nor does the government want to spend money on crime - rather than themselves, while innocent citizens are insignificant sheep never to defend themselves in total dependency and submission to government.

What I think many on this forum can't grasp, is not only are the people, but even the majority in communities, that only only believe in the right to STG and use deadly force against violent threats, burglars, robbers, assailants. They go beyond that to WANTING them shot and killed. This removes that person from the community with certainty. If someone is in the act of or attempting a violent assault, burglary, robbery, rape... they want the person shot and killed, not just a right to do so.

"Community standards" are not the same across the country or in all communities.
 
sort of hard to practice real life shooting unless you are a

1) contract killer

2) go out hunting criminals

3) join the SEALS or the Rangers or work as a mercenary in some African Hell hole

It involves very repetitious real-life-like circumstantial training using real people in unpredictable situations to condition the person to instinctively act - rather than make decisions. This is intense, complex and protracted training that only some people are suitable for.
 
Not everyone agrees with NYC doctrine that criminals are just misunderstood nor does the government want to spend money on crime - rather than themselves, while innocent citizens are insignificant sheep never to defend themselves in total dependency and submission to government.

What I think many on this forum can't grasp, is not only are the people, but even the majority in communities, that only only believe in the right to STG and use deadly force against violent threats, burglars, robbers, assailants. They go beyond that to WANTING them shot and killed. This removes that person from the community with certainty. If someone is in the act of or attempting a violent assault, burglary, robbery, rape... they want the person shot and killed, not just a right to do so.

"Community standards" are not the same across the country or in all communities.

But, and this is reasonable doubt whether you buy into it or not, I can argue that the robber/assailant/criminal doesn't have freewill and he is controlled by his sub-concious. So how is he responsible for his actions? (Remember I'm not saying he should be freed. Obviously we can't allow murderers/rapist/etc etc to run rampant, nor can we not use any means, short of torture, to stop a criminal from murder)
 
It involves very repetitious real-life-like circumstantial training using real people in unpredictable situations to condition the person to instinctively act - rather than make decisions. This is intense, complex and protracted training that only some people are suitable for.

Right, their subconscious mind has to be programmed to make the correct response. If you have to think fight/flight in the moment you are not prepared.
 
But, and this is reasonable doubt whether you buy into it or not, I can argue that the robber/assailant/criminal doesn't have freewill and he is controlled by his sub-concious. So how is he responsible for his actions? (Remember I'm not saying he should be freed. Obviously we can't allow murderers/rapist/etc etc to run rampant, nor can we not use any means, short of torture, to stop a criminal from murder)

in some rare cases, some criminals should be broken on the wheel or subjected to "the pear". for example, no punishment could be too cruel for those two asswipes who raped and murdered that woman in CT and her daughters and then burned alive the two girls. The father should have been given a crowbar-a blow torch and 4 hours of time for which he would get a full governor's pardon for whatever he did
 
Only to stop them. its idiotic to make rape a capital offense if captured because that means killing their victim is a freebie and there is no incentive for a rapist not to kill his victim if he knows he will be caught or figures there is a chance he will be

I don't think any rapist calculated lesser punishment. Criminals don't think they will get caught. The deterrent is it prevents that person from ever assaulting anyone again.
 
in some rare cases, some criminals should be broken on the wheel or subjected to "the pear". for example, no punishment could be too cruel for those two asswipes who raped and murdered that woman in CT and her daughters and then burned alive the two girls. The father should have been given a crowbar-a blow torch and 4 hours of time for which he would get a full governor's pardon for whatever he did

Sounds just and fair to me. Or he could hire someone to do it if he doesn't have the capacity. However, I think a bullet in the head is enough.
 
Yeah that's why I competed internationally in one shooting sport (world championships, championships of the Americas, America Cup) and professionally in another (Pins, USPSA). closest thing you can get to the pressure of a street fight with a gun or a knife (been in a couple of those too so I know)

IMPRESSIVE!:applaud:applaud:applaud:applaud:applaud
 
I don't think any rapist calculated lesser punishment. Criminals don't think they will get caught. The deterrent is it prevents that person from ever assaulting anyone again.

You might read the book The Onion Field
 
It involves very repetitious real-life-like circumstantial training using real people in unpredictable situations to condition the person to instinctively act - rather than make decisions. This is intense, complex and protracted training that only some people are suitable for.

very true-force on force type training

places like this

Tactical Defense Institute -- Ohio Firearms - Gun - Rifle - Shotgun - Pistol - CCW - Concealed Carry Permit -- TDI --www.tdiohio.com -- Cincinnati - Dayton - Columbus - Cleveland - Lexington - Louisville - Wheeling - Huntington - Indianapolis


Highly recommended by Turtle
 
Sounds just and fair to me. Or he could hire someone to do it if he doesn't have the capacity. However, I think a bullet in the head is enough.

depends which head we are talking about-then I could agree:mrgreen:
 
in some rare cases, some criminals should be broken on the wheel or subjected to "the pear". for example, no punishment could be too cruel for those two asswipes who raped and murdered that woman in CT and her daughters and then burned alive the two girls. The father should have been given a crowbar-a blow torch and 4 hours of time for which he would get a full governor's pardon for whatever he did

Wrong

What if, ignore honesty here because that is not the question, at a later date he attempted suicide because of the fact that he killed these two girls. What if at a police interview when asked why he didn't untie the two girls from the bed before burning the house down with 4 gallons of gasoline (They died from smoke inhalation BTW :)) he responded, "It never crossed my mind". If something never enters ones consciousness how can you be responsible? If the live/die never enters someones consciousness when they kill someone how are they responsible. What if we found a tumor in this persons head and upon removal they became perfectly normal people, this would indicate that what they have is a disease not a sick sinful soul (or whatever you want to describe it as).

I think the problem with our country is that it is based around the thought of freewill. I have told COUNTLESS people on these forums to pickup books that question their beliefs to no avail. How can you sit their and claim to be right when you aren't armed with the facts. I don't believe in Freewill and if you would like to join me you should pick up a copy of Freewill by Sam Harris (66 pages so don't say you don't have the time).
 
Back
Top Bottom