DeSantis to expand Stand Your Ground

[ZiprHead]

You're defending the pwn the libs guys with the above?

While watching you two slap at each other futilely like Xander and Harmony has its charms, I have to wonder where in the above post you see anything that looks to you like a defense of anyone, pwn the libs guys or otherwise. Jason appears to be expressing skepticism about your level of self-knowledge.

If you got that from what JH said, I have to wonder about your level of knowledge, self or otherwise.

 

[ZiprHead]

At this point, I'm all for letting the south secede.

Although your claim will probably never get tested, I doubt it anyway.

For you, it isn't enough that your side win, the other side must lose. You don't just look forward to you living under laws you like, you look forward to people who disagree with you living under laws you like and they don't like. It isn't enough to win, everyone else must lose.

So if they do secede, I'm pretty sure you'll be leading the charge to force them back so that you can do your own new modern version of reconstruction on them. Force them to do enact every law you want and they don't want. It's all about forcing others to do things your way for people like you.

That's a lot of mind-reading from ten little words.

 

[Jarhyn]

At this point, I'm all for letting the south secede.

<DERAILMENT SNIP!>

So, now that we know your irrelevant thought* on secation what are your thoughts on DeSantis's attemptsnto expand authorization of lethal violence against non-lethal, non-capital inconvenience "offenses" at the hands of private citizens?

 

[Bomb#20]

You're defending the pwn the libs guys with the above?

... Jason appears to be expressing skepticism about your level of self-knowledge.

If you got that from what JH said, I have to wonder about your level of knowledge, self or otherwise.

I'm not going to be baited. Either you'll justify your "You're defending the pwn the libs guys with the above?" reading of his post, or you won't.

 

[ZiprHead]

If you got that from what JH said, I have to wonder about your level of knowledge, self or otherwise.

I'm not going to be baited. Either you'll justify your "You're defending the pwn the libs guys with the above?" reading of his post, or you won't.

You won't be baited after you baited me.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Can't we all just agree that it might not be the best idea for a State Legislature to expand the reasons why we'll allow people to murder other people, well beyond that of protecting one's or someone else's life?

 

[Jarhyn]

Can't we all just agree that it might not be the best idea for a State Legislature to expand the reasons why we'll allow people to murder other people, well beyond that of protecting one's or someone else's life?

Most of us can, I think. But if we are being honest with ourselves, we can all be fairly confident that whoever may have started this derail is probably pathologically incapable of actually stating their positions in the first place. It is hard, though, to imagine how anyone ever got past kindergarten with their "shit on floor" response intact WRT questions whose answers, when given, make the asked look bad.

 

[Gun Nut]

If he gets his way, you can legally kill protesters. What could possibly go wrong? I hate florida.

https://www.newsweek.com/gov-ron-de...r-ground-laws-cover-criminal-mischief-1546537

DeSantis has offered an "anti-mob legislation draft," proposing to expand the law's list of "forcible felonies" to include looting or "criminal mischief" that could result in the "interruption or impairment" of a business, according to The Miami Herald. Legal experts and advocates have expressed concerns that the proposal is aimed at those taking part in protests against police brutality and racial injustice.

"It dangerously gives armed private citizens power to kill as they subjectively determine what constitutes 'criminal mischief' that interferes with a business," former Miami-Dade prosecutor Aubrey Webb told the Herald. "Someone graffiti-ing 'Black Lives Matter' on a wall? Urinating behind a dumpster? Blocking an entrance?"

Open-carrying an assault-style weapon in near proximity to a business that has a no firearms policy posted would count as well, one could imagine.
Hell, attempting to bring 11 items to the 10-item-or-less lane in the grocery store would certainly qualify as "interruption" of a business.

 

[Gun Nut]

Can't we all just agree that it might not be the best idea for a State Legislature to expand the reasons why we'll allow people to murder other people, well beyond that of protecting one's or someone else's life?

Some states agree that deadly force is only responsive to deadly force directed at a person. Other states have the philosophy that property has rights not to be destroyed or taken and deadly force can be used to protect it. Yet other states extend that property right to others (in texas, you can use deadly force to protect the property of another person, if that other person charged you with that responsibility - i.e. "watch my stuff while I get a beer".

Yes, I personally agree that deadly force should only be a legal response to deadly force directed at an individual. In Colorado, that is attempting to murder, attempting to rape, and attempting to kidnap. Attempting to steal or destroy is not (unless it is done during a home invasion and a person residing in that home feels they are in personal danger - "residing" means an owner, tennant, or invited guest). I find all of that reasonable.

I do not find reasonable any state that prohibits the use of a firearm to respond to attempted or impending deadly force... unless such a state has the death penalty mandatory for ANY crimes committed in the general vicinity of any firearm... otherwise it is grossly imbalanced to favor criminals.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Can't we all just agree that it might not be the best idea for a State Legislature to expand the reasons why we'll allow people to murder other people, well beyond that of protecting one's or someone else's life?

Some states agree that deadly force is only responsive to deadly force directed at a person. Other states have the philosophy that property has rights not to be destroyed or taken and deadly force can be used to protect it. Yet other states extend that property right to others (in texas, you can use deadly force to protect the property of another person, if that other person charged you with that responsibility - i.e. "watch my stuff while I get a beer".

As far as I'm concerned, if you have the right you have the right to delegate that right. While I generally disagree with shooting to protect property, if you have the right to shoot to protect property you should also be allowed to delegate that right to someone else.

Yes, I personally agree that deadly force should only be a legal response to deadly force directed at an individual. In Colorado, that is attempting to murder, attempting to rape, and attempting to kidnap. Attempting to steal or destroy is not (unless it is done during a home invasion and a person residing in that home feels they are in personal danger - "residing" means an owner, tennant, or invited guest). I find all of that reasonable.

You don't count arson of an inhabited building?? (Oddly enough, Colorado law seems to consider this an acceptable form of defending property.)

Also, only murder? Not serious bodily harm? (Checking the law it seems to allow lethal force against serious bodily harm.)

As for burglary--that's not shooting to protect property. That's not requiring the shooter to attempt to determine if they're just a thief or they intend more. Home invasion is already serious violence, you know they're more than a thief.

 

[Derec]

If he gets his way, you can legally kill protesters. What could possibly go wrong? I hate florida.

Why are you equating looters, arsonists and rioters who vandalize businesses with protesters. Right to protest does not include the right to steal or damage other people's property, no matter how much #BLMers and Antifas try to justify it.

 

[Derec]

Watch out for the right wingers here defending murder with glee.

Defending your property from extremists is not murder.
And yes, same goes if Proud Boys try to burn your business down. You should be able to defend your livelihood no matter the politics of the extremists trying to destroy it.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Watch out for the right wingers here defending murder with glee.

Defending your property from extremists is not murder.
And yes, same goes if Proud Boys try to burn your business down. You should be able to defend your livelihood no matter the politics of the extremists trying to destroy it.

I'm guessing you can't read.

"It dangerously gives armed private citizens power to kill as they subjectively determine what constitutes 'criminal mischief' that interferes with a business,"

 

[laughing dog]

Defending your property from extremists is not murder.

So, if I had a store that did deliveries, and some protesters tried to burn down my delivery vehicle, I should be able to legally slaughter them?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

As far as I'm concerned, if you have the right you have the right to delegate that right. While I generally disagree with shooting to protect property, if you have the right to shoot to protect property you should also be allowed to delegate that right to someone else.

Yes, I personally agree that deadly force should only be a legal response to deadly force directed at an individual. In Colorado, that is attempting to murder, attempting to rape, and attempting to kidnap. Attempting to steal or destroy is not (unless it is done during a home invasion and a person residing in that home feels they are in personal danger - "residing" means an owner, tennant, or invited guest). I find all of that reasonable.

You don't count arson of an inhabited building?? (Oddly enough, Colorado law seems to consider this an acceptable form of defending property.)

Also, only murder? Not serious bodily harm? (Checking the law it seems to allow lethal force against serious bodily harm.)

As for burglary--that's not shooting to protect property. That's not requiring the shooter to attempt to determine if they're just a thief or they intend more. Home invasion is already serious violence, you know they're more than a thief.

I'm not certain Gun Nut was aware he was supposed to post a full thesis of the exact conditions required they believed deadly force is reasonable, otherwise, his post probably would have been much longer.

SYG has definitely muddled the law, instead of making things more clear. It was supposed to help people who resorted to self-defense in what were gray but justifiable areas. But SYG has been used in cases to allow people to instigate incidents. And now Florida wants to make things worse. Criminal acts are wrong. They are punishable. SYG, in theory, is supposed to allow someone to not become a vital statistic. Now SYG is being expanded well beyond that. We are talking about murder here. Legalized murder. Something that should be spared for only the most serious of situations.

 

[Gun Nut]

As far as I'm concerned, if you have the right you have the right to delegate that right. While I generally disagree with shooting to protect property, if you have the right to shoot to protect property you should also be allowed to delegate that right to someone else.

Yes, I personally agree that deadly force should only be a legal response to deadly force directed at an individual. In Colorado, that is attempting to murder, attempting to rape, and attempting to kidnap. Attempting to steal or destroy is not (unless it is done during a home invasion and a person residing in that home feels they are in personal danger - "residing" means an owner, tennant, or invited guest). I find all of that reasonable.

You don't count arson of an inhabited building?? (Oddly enough, Colorado law seems to consider this an acceptable form of defending property.)

Also, only murder? Not serious bodily harm? (Checking the law it seems to allow lethal force against serious bodily harm.)

As for burglary--that's not shooting to protect property. That's not requiring the shooter to attempt to determine if they're just a thief or they intend more. Home invasion is already serious violence, you know they're more than a thief.

Good questions. yes, you are correct about 'serious bodily harm'... I wasn't intentionally excluding it in my description. I personally agree that dismemberment counts as deadly enough force, for example. Arson of a residence with someone in it is certainly close enough to attempted murder to justify deadly force, both in law and in my personal opinion. With respect to protection of the property (unoccupied, for example), that counts as destruction, for sure... but I disagree with the law if it can be construed to be acceptable to use deadly force in the protection of property for sake of retaining the property alone.
Note there are all kinds of non lethal means of defending one's property. Just because you can't or shouldn't shoot someone for trying to burn down an unoccupied house doesn't mean you can't beat the living shit out of them until they stop moving and the police arrive - assuming you're not some MMA professional that can be thought of as a deadly weapon with bare hands.
Lastly, you are totally right about burglary, in terms of the spirit of the law in Colorado.. and how my instructors have emphasized the material in my experience as a trained, armed defender. On one hand, it's not legally defensible to shoot someone for "only" breaking and entering. They must commit another crime at the same time (burglary, for example), for deadly force to be defensible under the "stand your ground" implementation of the Castle Doctrine. So the moment they are doing nothing in your living room by the window they just broke into, they are Loitering. So now you can shoot them with a really weak defense since they committed another "crime". This came up in a class I was in. The instructor responded to the hypothetical, "it might not put you in jail, but if you want to shoot someone for trying to steal your TV, then kindly get the fuck out of my class". On the other hand, again you're right, that anyone with the capacity to break into your house can be assumed to be extremely dangerous and using deadly force to protect yourself or anyone else's life (against serious bodily harm, or worse) from a reasonable threat is and should be justified.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Larry Niven, a science fiction writer, once posited a world where organ transplants would vastly extend the life spans of humans. At the same time, strides in safety designs meant fewer and fewer dessths due to accidents, which limited the availability of donor organs. As a consequence, the citizens' demand for organs drove changes in criminal laws.
One short story in his world was about a guy who was arrested and certain to be executed. He escaped, desperate, but was eventually caught, sentenced to death and organ harvesting.
His crime was a traffic violation.

I was reminded of this story when i considered this expansion.
A substantial portion of this country really really hope to murder someone and get away with it, maybe even be applauded for it.
The problem is, there just aren't enough home intruders to go around, satisfying this demand.
So they write more and more laws justifying shooting someone. Not because protesting SHOULD carry a death sentence, but appropriate targets are a limited resource.

Niven was a little off target, but he had great grouping.

 

[Derec]

Not because protesting SHOULD carry a death sentence, but appropriate targets are a limited resource.

And yet again you are conflating real protesters with looters, rioters, etc. There was a guy beaten up by "protesters" not so long ago in Portland. Had the victim had a gun, I would say shooting the perps would have been justified self defense. Even if you call them "protesters".
Man arrested for downtown Portland assault sentenced to 20 months in prison

Way too short a sentence for beating somebody to a pulp, but that's Portlandia for you.

 

[Derec]

So, if I had a store that did deliveries, and some protesters tried to burn down my delivery vehicle, I should be able to legally slaughter them?

Not slaughter, no. You should not be eating their livers with fava beans and a nice Chianti either.

But you should be able to defend yourself. They are a violent mob, who is to say they would stop at the vehicle? Also, DAs should go more forcefully against such crimes. People engage in arson and the like because fauxgressive DAs in cities like Portland, Seattle, NYC and the like are giving them a slap on the wrist.

The far-left activists want to abolish police and prisons. What do you think will happen in a society like that? It will be ALL about people taking matters into their own hands protecting themselves against criminals. No arrest, no trial. After all, those things just got abolished. So you have to shoot them right then and there. This proposed Florida law is just a small amuse bouche for the future "abolish police, abolish prisons" will lead to.

 

[laughing dog]

So, if I had a store that did deliveries, and some protesters tried to burn down my delivery vehicle, I should be able to legally slaughter them?

Not slaughter, no. You should not be eating their livers with fava beans and a nice Chianti either.

But you should be able to defend yourself.

That is evasive. I will make this clearer. I am not in my delivery vehicle. How would killing protesters who wish to burn my vehicle be defending myself?

.