• 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

Turin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
1,479
Reaction score
813
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Last edited:
I agree 100% on the use of lethal force
 
I still think Zimmerman ignored the 911 Dispatcher and went after the kid anyways.
 

I disagree with the highlighted in sub-section 12:

(12) No license issued pursuant to this section shall authorize any person to carry a concealed weapon or firearm into any place of nuisance as defined in s. 823.05; any police, sheriff, or highway patrol station; any detention facility, prison, or jail; any courthouse; any courtroom, except that nothing in this section would preclude a judge from carrying a concealed weapon or determining who will carry a concealed weapon in his or her courtroom; any polling place; any meeting of the governing body of a county, public school district, municipality, or special district; any meeting of the Legislature or a committee thereof; any school, college, or professional athletic event not related to firearms; any school administration building; any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to such purpose; any elementary or secondary school facility; any career center; any college or university facility unless the licensee is a registered student, employee, or faculty member of such college or university and the weapon is a stun gun or nonlethal electric weapon or device designed solely for defensive purposes and the weapon does not fire a dart or projectile; inside the passenger terminal and sterile area of any airport, provided that no person shall be prohibited from carrying any legal firearm into the terminal, which firearm is encased for shipment for purposes of checking such firearm as baggage to be lawfully transported on any aircraft; or any place where the carrying of firearms is prohibited by federal law. Any person who willfully violates any provision of this subsection commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s.775.082 or s. 775.083.

Firearms should be allowed in all public schools.

****
What was the Florida law before this? Does this law move in the direction of more freedom or more control?
 
Last edited:
I disagree with the highlighted in sub-section 12:



Firearms should be allowed in all public schools.

****
What was the Florida law before this? Does this law move in the direction of more freedom or more control?

I think this law mirrors the federal guidelines on concealed weapons, but the general lean of the SYG law was more freedom since it replaced a strict castle doctrine type of law.
 
Castle Doctrine I fully agreed with, but in its absence, I can pretty much accept the Florida law for this as stated. Not perfect, but close enough.
 
I agree with the law. It protects both those who may be forced to defend themselves from serious harm, and those whose actions haven't warranted the use of deadly force
 
Firearms should be allowed in all public schools...

What was the Florida law before this? Does this law move in the direction of more freedom or more control?

I believe it is allowed in some/most. Why else would there be "gun free zones" for some schools? Dunno.

Florida has SYG law, the most liberal of self-defense laws in the country (iirc, ~14 other states also have it). It states that one may use deadly force against a forcible felony against oneself or another anywhere that it is legal for one to carry such. It's like Castle Doctrine, everywhere one legally goes with the firearm. Note, robbery is a forcible felony... "Give me your wallet" = *bang*.

I support SYG law.
 
Last edited:
I disagree with the highlighted in sub-section 12:



Firearms should be allowed in all public schools.

****
What was the Florida law before this? Does this law move in the direction of more freedom or more control?

That's where we disagree, but won't start that again.
 
It's also a good argument for the proliferation of the Second Amendment. If everyone is packing a gun and committing a felony against another is grounds to get shot, people would obey the law much more and more easily.

As far as I'm concerned, killing someone who is robbing or attacking you is cleaning the gene pool with a great success rate.
 
So is there a state where one could go to jail, if he/she shot and an intruder trying to harm them? I thought the stand your ground law came about to protect the victim of attempted violent crime? What are the chances of a victim defending themselves going to jail?
 
Last edited:
Shooting someone who is in the act of committing a violent crime, yes.

Chasing someone down and killing them because they look dangerous to you, not so much.

Now, what actually happened in the Zimmerman/Martin case? Do we know for sure?
 
So is there a state where one could go to jail, if he/she shot and an intruder trying to harm them? I thought the stand your ground law came about to protect the victim of attempted violent crime? What are the chances of a victim defending themselves going to jail?


Back-when, before SYG and Castle law became relatively common, it wasn't hard for someone defending themselves to go to prison. The burden of proof was on the accused, and scant evidence or contradictory witnesses could easily mean you go to prison. Duty to retreat could be used against you. It was all too easy to SAY the wrong thing after the incident and cast doubt on your SD claim.

It was way past time that the pendulum swung the other way and made honest citizens feel more confident about defending themselves.


This Zimmerman/Martin case is a rare exception where controvery has arisen, due in part to scarcity of evidence, and in large part due to the agitation of race-baiters. It is not, in itself, an indication that the law itself is fatally flawed.
 
Personally, I believe that the Florida law, and most other states laws on the use of deadly force are too RESTRICTIVE.
 
Even the law's author said that the syg law would not apply to Zimmerman if the events played out as the media tells us. Zimmerman's lawyer also says that he will not use the law to defend his client if charges are filed. Even if Martin attacked him, Zimmerman probably did not just "stand his ground." He followed Martin when the dispatcher told him not to, and he stupidly escalated the situation. SYG is meant to allow people more options when determining the best means in which to defend themselves, not to escalate the situation. At best, Zimmerman acted recklessly and foolishly. That is not a problem with the law, but with Zimmerman himself.
 
Do you agree with Florida Law on use of deadly force?

Yes you should be allowed to use lethal force for the following-
Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.
 
I think I disagree with the SYG law if it allows a person to create a context where an altercation ensues and said situation leads to the death of another person. I don't necessarily think that Zimmerman is guilty of murder, but I think he is guilty of something. That something may not necessarily be a law currently on the books, but perhaps one that ought to be (since we are talking about opposing and advocating laws). That is, Zimmerman may be legally innocent, but he is probably not innocent in this matter.
 
Zimmerman's lawyer also says that he will not use the law to defend his client if charges are filed.

Link? I'm not into the case enough to know/search but that's interesting.

I'd find that very strange unless Z threw the first punch (if M did, before Z committed a forcible felony - then that's end of case) or there was some kind of break in the action that somehow negated the battery. Following someone around (especially as a watch patrol) is not a forcible felony. Throwing a punch is.
 
I disagree with the highlighted in sub-section 12:



Firearms should be allowed in all public schools.

****
What was the Florida law before this? Does this law move in the direction of more freedom or more control?

Jerry I disagree with you; but gave you a like for posting the section of the law and explanation you disagreed with.
 
Link? I'm not into the case enough to know/search but that's interesting.

I'd find that very strange unless Z threw the first punch (if M did, before Z committed a forcible felony - then that's end of case) or there was some kind of break in the action that somehow negated the battery. Following someone around (especially as a watch patrol) is not a forcible felony. Throwing a punch is.

Mr Zimmerman’s lawyer says he does not intend to invoke the law if his client is arrested, while one of the law’s authors says it would not apply in this case, anyway, as Mr Zimmerman seems to have gone out of his way to confront Mr Martin.

The killing of Trayvon Martin: Because he was black? | The Economist

I don't know what happened, and neither does anyone else on this board, but considering the evidence, it is very unlikely that Zimmerman did not escalate the situation at all. Martin might have attacked Zimmerman, but this could have been out of fear caused by some guy following him.
 
I think I disagree with the SYG law if it allows a person to create a context where an altercation ensues and said situation leads to the death of another person. I don't necessarily think that Zimmerman is guilty of murder, but I think he is guilty of something. That something may not necessarily be a law currently on the books, but perhaps one that ought to be (since we are talking about opposing and advocating laws). That is, Zimmerman may be legally innocent, but he is probably not innocent in this matter.

If Zimmerman followed Martin, he probably forfeited whatever protections syg laws provided him and could be charged with at least manslaughter. Even if Martin attacked him, Zimmerman was incredibly stupid in following him. SYG laws are good, because they give people options on how to defend themselves. If a person has good reason to fear for their own or someone else's safety, that should come before any legal concerns they may have. If Stand your ground laws make it easier for people to defend themselves, so be it. Our legal system is based around making the burden of proof high for conviction in order to prevent innocent people from being punished for crimes they did not commit. The law does not make it OK for people to go off playing cops and robbers. It just makes it easier for people to defend themselves.
 
One cannot be baited into committing battery. What's next? Battered wives are responsible for their husband's actions? The chick in the sexy cloths escalated the attack against her thereby nullifying her right to self defense?

Forcible felony = *bang*
No excuses.
 
Back
Top Bottom