• 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
Jryan said:
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).
Click to expand...

both those guys should be crucified. If it had been my wife and children, that would have been an easy death for those two. gut wrenching pain for hours is what someone like that deserves. Same for charlie Manson and his "family". Roman Polanski should have been given a branding iron and a few hours with those clowns
 
TurtleDude said:
both those guys should be crucified. If it had been my wife and children, that would have been an easy death for those two. gut wrenching pain for hours is what someone like that deserves. Same for charlie Manson and his "family". Roman Polanski should have been given a branding iron and a few hours with those clowns
Click to expand...

So you think that if someone murders someone else and then after these things pass he complains about headaches and we give him an fMRI. Then we see a tumor in his pre-frontal cortex and it is then proven that it is directly related to his murders. When we then remove this tumor he returns to "normal", he should answer for his crimes that HE HAD NO CONTROL OVER?

In fact, if you are indeed a lawyer, you should agree with me 100%.
 
Jryan said:
So you think that if someone murders someone else and then after these things pass he complains about headaches and we give him an fMRI. Then we see a tumor in his pre-frontal cortex and it is then proven that it is directly related to his murders. When we then remove this tumor he returns to "normal", he should answer for his crimes that HE HAD NO CONTROL OVER?

In fact, if you are indeed a lawyer, you should agree with me 100%.
Click to expand...

why? he still killed someone who did nothing to deserve it. I don't believe in state sponsored executions. However, I believe in aggrieved families having the primary right of vengeance. If the family doesn't want to do the mope-then lock him up. Your attempts to excuse criminal behavior is common among the far left. In order to get rid of individual rights you have to also get rid of individual responsibility as well
 
TurtleDude said:
why? he still killed someone who did nothing to deserve it. I don't believe in state sponsored executions. However, I believe in aggrieved families having the primary right of vengeance. If the family doesn't want to do the mope-then lock him up. Your attempts to excuse criminal behavior is common among the far left. In order to get rid of individual rights you have to also get rid of individual responsibility as well
Click to expand...

But the person was merely a victim of a mental disorder...
 
Jryan said:
But the person was merely a victim of a mental disorder...
Click to expand...

I am sure if your family members had been gunned down by charles whitman junior you'd feel the same way.
 
TurtleDude said:
I am sure if your family members had been gunned down by charles whitman junior you'd feel the same way.
Click to expand...

Right, and I'm sure you agree that family members should be on the jury...

Being emotionally involved is the reason we don't allow this to happen in the US.
 
Jryan said:
Right, and I'm sure you agree that family members should be on the jury...

Being emotionally involved is the reason we don't allow this to happen in the US.
Click to expand...

making excuses for criminals is why we have so many
 
TurtleDude said:
making excuses for criminals is why we have so many
Click to expand...

lol, so you think that punishing criminals helps our society (and when I use the word punishment, remember what I am referring to)?

An excuse would say, "Well he doesn't have free will so he can go free". I'm saying he doesn't have free will so he should be detained but not harmed....
 
Jryan said:
lol, so you think that punishing criminals helps our society (and when I use the word punishment, remember what I am referring to)?

An excuse would say, "Well he doesn't have free will so he can go free". I'm saying he doesn't have free will so he should be detained but not harmed....
Click to expand...

what's this free will crap-something you got in your latest philosophy 101 lecture today?
 
TurtleDude said:
what's this free will crap-something you got in your latest philosophy 101 lecture today?
Click to expand...

The "freewill (sic) crap" is something that has been pointed out to me as wrong. Unlike you, I can change what I believe in, as philosophy goes, and I read philosophical books on a regular basis. This is how I have arrived to the conclusion that freewill does not exist and it does matter whether you believe in it or not because I wouldn't be able to use the arguments I did had it not mattered.
 
Jryan said:
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.
Click to expand...

Rapists are shootable and have been shootable for as long as I've been paying attention to such things. (and that's a long fricken' time... try 30 something years...)
 
Goshin said:
Rapists are shootable and have been shootable for as long as I've been paying attention to such things. (and that's a long fricken' time... try 30 something years...)
Click to expand...

As a police officer, yes if the officer feels endangered (IE Sees a gun or sees him reaching for a weapon). A police officer would arrest if he just saw rape. I honestly don't think you are okay with civilians making law enforcement decisions Goshin. I think civilians should be able to detain (in non-violent acts, which rape is NOT violent unless the rapist takes it to another level).
 
Jryan said:
The "freewill (sic) crap" is something that has been pointed out to me as wrong. Unlike you, I can change what I believe in, as philosophy goes, and I read philosophical books on a regular basis. This is how I have arrived to the conclusion that freewill does not exist and it does matter whether you believe in it or not because I wouldn't be able to use the arguments I did had it not mattered.
Click to expand...

I don't buy into that garbage. and you can pretty much pretend that there should be no criminal punishment if you believe that crap. but I will put it to you this way

If I am sitting in my yard say playing frisbee with my son and some dog comes running up and bite my son

here is what is going to happen

1) I am going to kill the dog as fast as possible

2) then I will find out where the dog came from

a) if someone sent the dog to attack, then I kill him or cause him to be arrested depending what else goes on

b) if the guy had tortured the dog and made it vicious then I will sue him after he goes to trial for cruelty to animals.

now in either case it might not be the "dog's" fault but it still needs killing.
 
Shadow Serious said:
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.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean to imply that there's a majority percentage in opposition to these laws. But there is some, and I think they have well-founded concerns about the effect on potential hostile situations. I honestly don't see the need for extra wiggle room in the use of deadly force. The right of self defense is applicable in any situation, be it in your home, on the street or in a mall. If you are confronted with serious harm, you have a right to stop the threat and restore your safety. SYGLs, as I've said, simply gives people too much leeway in their use of deadly force.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
I don't buy into that garbage. and you can pretty much pretend that there should be no criminal punishment if you believe that crap. but I will put it to you this way

If I am sitting in my yard say playing frisbee with my son and some dog comes running up and bite my son

here is what is going to happen

1) I am going to kill the dog as fast as possible

2) then I will find out where the dog came from

a) if someone sent the dog to attack, then I kill him or cause him to be arrested depending what else goes on

b) if the guy had tortured the dog and made it vicious then I will sue him after he goes to trial for cruelty to animals.

now in either case it might not be the "dog's" fault but it still needs killing.
Click to expand...

So ignore reason. If you, TurtleDude, on a test are given a mathematical question. But say you studied ALL NIGHT before the test and just can't remember. Is that your fault?
 
Jryan said:
So ignore reason. If you, TurtleDude, on a test are given a mathematical question. But say you studied ALL NIGHT before the test and just can't remember. Is that your fault?
Click to expand...

self defense seems to be something beyond your comprehension. Individuals and society both have a right to self defense. no matter what motivates a pathogen
 
Jryan said:
As a police officer, yes if the officer feels endangered (IE Sees a gun or sees him reaching for a weapon). A police officer would arrest if he just saw rape. I honestly don't think you are okay with civilians making law enforcement decisions Goshin. I think civilians should be able to detain (in non-violent acts, which rape is NOT violent unless the rapist takes it to another level).
Click to expand...


:doh

Rape is a violent crime.

In most jurisdictions you can shoot (as a cop, or as a private citizen) in order to prevent a violent felony from occurring in your presense.

You really ought to study up on this stuff before taking an entrenched position.
 
Goshin said:
:doh

Rape is a violent crime.

In most jurisdictions you can shoot (as a cop, or as a private citizen) in order to prevent a violent felony from occurring in your presense.

You really ought to study up on this stuff before taking an entrenched position.
Click to expand...

I wonder if he will claim a rapist cannot help himself since the little head has taken control of the big one?
 
RadicalModerate said:
GTFOH. I'm pretty sure if you were raped, you'd think it was violent.

Get a clue, dude.
Click to expand...

well you know what Coach Bob Knight once said

if rape in inevitable you might as well lie back and enjoy it

i guess Jryan is saying if the rapist is not acting out of free will its not only not a crime but uncontrollable love?
 
TurtleDude said:
well you know what Coach Bob Knight once said

if rape in inevitable you might as well lie back and enjoy it

i guess Jryan is saying if the rapist is not acting out of free will its not only not a crime but uncontrollable love?
Click to expand...

I don't like rape being minimized.
 
TurtleDude said:
well you know what Coach Bob Knight once said

if rape in inevitable you might as well lie back and enjoy it

i guess Jryan is saying if the rapist is not acting out of free will its not only not a crime but uncontrollable love?
Click to expand...

Surely, this is satire of some sick sort or other.
Rape is not love. It is done as an assault.
 
As a Resident of the State of Florida for my ENTIRE life, a Gun Owner, A Concealed Weapon Permit Owner, and as a Citizen of the United States I 100% agree with the Florida law. The entire trayvon thing going on...was CLEARLY a violation of Florida law. There is a duty to retreat when that is an option, and standing your ground is only allowed when you cannot retreat (as in into your vehicle, your home). What happened to Trayvon was a disgrace because the man pursued Trayvon. Not to mention Zimmerman should not be allowed to have a gun because of his criminal record.

Anyway. The Florida law is GREAT.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom