Turf Marking

All original material, except otherwise explicitly stated, is under this:
Creative Commons License
Creative Commons License
MMIII-MMVII
Warm Fuzzy Freudian Slippers, Ltd.
*Other People's Blogs

FYI

Things you need to know:
  • Some posts, or the links they contain, are NSFW. This is your only warning.
  • This blog serves the cause of my freedom of speech, not yours. I wield censorship like a 10 year-old boy who just found his father's handgun.

Wednesday, May 18, 2005

Ok, time to get back to what this blog has become famous for - my thoughts on the various aspects and implications of martial arts, self defense, and other gruesome violence-related stuff. It has been awhile, hasn't it?

A friend of mine emailed me another article in reference to Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law. Here it is (but I'm not sure for how much longer - you know how Yahoo! is with their news stuff).

I've writen that I'm basically down with the law. I'm glad one provision was scrapped, though...
Also gone from the version that passed 39-0 in the Senate and 94-20 in the House was a provision that prosecutors have said would have allowed people to shoot in defense of a neighbor's property.
It would have been different if the proposal was "in defense of a neighbor." To me, the fact that this was even proposed in the first place causes me to question the motives of the people supporting this law (*cough*NRA*cough*) and gives the law's opponents justifiable ammunition to do the same. I wondered where all this "Florida's going to become the Wild West" talk could reasonably come from.

Regardless, despite all the arguments I've heard against the law, no one has been able to answer an important question for me: Why shouldn't I be allowed to stand my ground when faced with potentially lethal force?

3 comments:

DATU_B said...

Exactly my point as well. Why should I legally *have* to run? Why should I acquiesce my personal space to every threat? That act empowers and emboldens criminals. Yet, if we stand our ground and play by all the rules, in the split second we may have, we still may be open to criminal charges and the ever present civil courts? I feel our judicial system is abused by those who don't care to have some minor crimes on record, who just are bullies and criminals who don't have to have a clean resume for a day job. Before I really get on a soapbox I'm going to end it here.

Don said...

Bull$hi+... preach on!

No one seems to want to address one other issue, either. The fact that if I want to get you bad enough, I'm going to get you. Heck, I'll probably plan what to do in the event that you try to run away. For someone who does their civic "duty to retreat," where does that scenario leave you?

datu_b said...

"For someone who does their civic "duty to retreat," where does that scenario leave you?"-A: Shot in the back.

What some don't understand is that criminals break laws, don't care about their victims and are self centered. That's why they purport their crime on the law abiding. When surveyed what ciminals fear (prison survey) you know what the over whelming answer was? An armed resisting home owner. The cops won't get them at he scene and if you think the cops can get thier to save you, you're richer and whiter than I'll ever be.

here's the article http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=117