Please hit this poll - Florida

The Miami Herald is pushing for a change in florida's "stand your ground" law using gangs as the reason. They would prefer we call a cop than be able to defend outselves. Please hit the poll at the link below. Thanks

http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/08/04/1761938/stand-your-ground-works-for-criminals.html

So... people were attacked and defended themselves?

I see no directly connected problems there.

Hit it.

51 yes, 49 no.

Get going people

AFS

I voted.

I want a poll to crack Miami off from the rest of the state and send it adrift...

Recall that lawyers routinely try to sway juries by saying that they should always give the accused the benefit of doubt. We've all heard lawyers say, "Better that a hundred guilty people go free than one innocent person be wrongfully convicted." Whyso then does this same principle not apply in cases of self defense? Should not an occasional gang-banger go free so the rights of the people at large can be protected?

Just saying...

- - - Yoda

Done.NO is up by 9, 54 to 45

I question Judge Terry Lewis' ability to interpret Florida law. This is a plian and simple concept. If the ones (known gangbangers or not) who claimed self-defense were not engaged in crinimal activity at the time they returned fire, then the case falls under the "Stand Your Ground" law. Now, if the gangbangers claiming self-defense were slinging crack on the streets, or breaking into someone's home or vehicle at the time, then it does not.

Everyday old folks give up driving when they are no longer reasonably capable of doing so. In the same vein, Judge Lewis should resign if he is unable to properly and judiciously interpret Florida law.

It sounds to me like the judge did not like the law, and he applied it inappropriately in order to bolster support for his opinion. There should be a mistrial and the judge should be fired. 77 no, 54 yes now.

Yes 64
37%
No 107
63%
Total Votes: 171

Okay as a Florida native I read the comments on article and was most displeased. It seemed a lot of foreigners were commenting on the matter.

I love 'Stand Your Ground' I just thought we called it Castle Doctrine, maybe some anti cry baby made it up.

So some gangs decided to fight it out in the street and one of them got killed....Help me see the negative in that. Had it been an innocent party then the two guys charged with homicide would be going to prison. Granted I have no use for living criminals so that may be the obstacle in my lens of understanding.

Why do people want to empower criminals and endanger law abiding citizens, is there some sick desire behind it, I can't figure it out. What happened to the days when the bad guys got their just desserts and we all gave a nod of approval to it.

A bunch of gangbangers went into another 'territory,' with the intent to cause trouble, they filled the threshold for reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm and one of them wound up dead. Whatever I could be sorry about that in that situation will be left unmentioned because of thehighroad.

There's zero rational, intelligent, of healthy mind, justification to strip law abiding citizens of their rights to lawful self-defense. You can't shoot someone for 'fighting words,' you can't shoot someone for being an aggressive little fangless punk, you can't shoot someone for looking angry.

I love 'Stand Your Ground' I just thought we called it Castle Doctrine, maybe some anti cry baby made it up.

"Stand Your Ground" and "Castle Doctrine" are two separate legal concepts.

Castle Doctrine is the concept of having the ability to immediately use deadly force in your home when someone enters your home forcibly - it gives you the assumption that the person entering your home forcibly is doing so with the intent to harm or kill you. In states without castle doctrine laws, one must first determine that a person who has entered their home illegally has intent to do them harm or kill them prior to using deadly force. In states with castle doctrine laws, the act of forcibly entering a home by itself manifests that intent.

Stand your ground law is the concept that you have the absolute right to defend yourself against criminal activity by the use of force in any place that you are legally present at. It removes the necessity to attempt retreat before acting in defense. Stand your ground law does NOT give one the automatic right to use deadly force, however. In public, there must still be reasonable fear of grave bodily harm or death prior to using deadly force.

Voted no.

It's appalling whenever anyone - right, left or center - decides that one particular group is not morally entitled to equal protection. Gang banger or college president, everyone has a right to defend themselves. The method depends upon the circumstances, not upon whether I like the person applying self defense.

That said, the judge and apparently some others prefer a law that actually favors a wrong doer over a person enjoying their legal rights. That is is not equal rights.

This article is plainly slanted in opposition to the stand your ground law. I see nothing wrong with the law at all. It's upsetting though how many people seem to have no backbone these days. It is these kinds of people who hate this law.

All I can say is that if it's dismantled or altered to such a degree that it no longer represents what it was intended for, I still won't call the police first. I'll just walk away. If they knock this law down, there is going to be no way that anyone can defend themselves and not be thrown into prison and stripped of all their rights. You won't catch me calling in ANYTHING. I'll handle my business and get the hell out of dodge. I figure I'll have an equal, if not better chance of maintaining personal freedom.

Voted NO!

I voted no, we need to nip this sillyness in bud.

I don't understand the logic, a couple gangs go at eachother which is fine by me I don't care if they want to kill eachother. They are doing society a favor as far as I'm concerned. But now they want to strip innocent people of their rights to defend themselves? Nuts.

Yes 90 no 213 I added my no.

No as well.

From the article: "...when this law was shoved through the Legislature by the National Rifle Association..."

Since when does the NRA mandate legislation at any level?

Total BS article by an idiot author.

Voted... the article seems to imply that the law makes it so no one can be held responsible. That is just plain wrong. The attacker or the person who incited the act of violence is still responsible. All it says is that the victim of the attack has no duty to retreat... which makes sense if we want to have a society that's intolerant of criminal violence.

No as well.

From the article: "...when this law was shoved through the Legislature by the National Rifle Association..."

Since when does the NRA mandate legislation at any level?

Total BS article by an idiot author.

lolwut?

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you. The NRA may not mandate legislation in, but they are a lobbying behemoth. I'd say that's a baby step back from physically doing it themselves.

Yeah, that evil NRA.

"Right now the NRA is frantically shoving dangerous bills through Congress that would make it easier for criminals to get guns."

More shoving bills. And through the Congress! It must be true, because these guys (http://www.nrablacklist.com/) say so.

I stand corrected. This must be a sane, rational article by a genius author.

I want a poll to crack Miami off from the rest of the state and send it adrift...
Can we do that? I will even use paypal to donate toward the cause.

Naw we cant crack it off and set it adrift. All the Dorado in the Atlantic will be swarming around it and the fishing everywhere else will be horrible!

Plus the state will look funny without it.

Cant we just run all of the terds out of town and ship them up to New York where they belong?

Didn't vote. I hate polls. Poll administraters can skew the result any way they wish.

The judge said it was like the "Wild West" so no one could be prosecuted. HUH? In the wild west gunfights, if the guy who drew 1st won, he was hanged or stood trial. If you drew last and won, you walked.

Drawing last means that you're defending yourself. Drawing 1st mean that you're trying to commit murder. Plain & simple.

think about it.... If no one draws 1st, there is no gun fight.

The newspapers link came up as "this page can not be found"

Maybe they saw it getting slammed and pulled it down?

;)

MinnMooney, if no one drew first, we wouldn't be talking about carrying concealed. That's just the way the world - some people are gratuitously deadly, and the rest of us choose to survive anyway.

Yes, stand your ground.... and feel free to take cover behind the nearest lawyer.

Worked for me.

78% no and 22% yes.

Poll hit and commentary added:

"Fred Grimm makes me want to puke. His liberal bias toward the second amendment is one of the top reasons that I canceled my print subscription. Bad guys will always be bad guys. They don't deserve any protection under the law. But to support the taking away of EVERYONE'S rights because of a few bad apples defies common sense. Obviously the poll numbers reflect my thoughts too. "Like the Wild West" Those were the words that the liberal media tried to use to prevent concealed carry from becoming a reality almost 25 years ago. We have almost 2,000,000 (two million!)concealed carry permits issued in Florida. I'm still waiting for the Wild West. Truth is, it isn't coming."

:cuss:

"JimmyK's comment is abusive and has been removed."

Did I expect any different response? Not really.

:banghead:

Wow... they removed your comment for that? Typical libtards, burying any voice that disagrees with their agenda.

Vote NO I love to see Stand your ground in All 50 states.

i posted this on other gun forms i visit and the site still works there

It's a damned shame that we have to legislate the ability to protect yourself or your loved ones.

voted

I just added a NO vote as well.

Tally so far:
Yes 113 18%
No 525 82%
Total Votes: 638

I hope they get the point.

Another no vote. Some of these people just irritate me so much.

Sorry sig228 the real numbers as of 6-30-10 is this:

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/licensetypecount.html

Total licenses by type 907,834

Concealed Weapons/Firearms ( that means ordinary people ) 732,263

Perhaps what you meant was that since 1987 there have been a total of around 2,000,000 licenses issued but that is not how many licenses are currently valid. None the less, 732,263 licenses held by ordinary people is quite a lot.

Naw we cant crack it off and set it adrift. All the Dorado in the Atlantic will be swarming around it and the fishing everywhere else will be horrible!

Plus the state will look funny without it.

Cant we just run all of the terds out of town and ship them up to New York where they belong?
Where do you think they originally came from?

Like everyone here, I'm a keeper and bearer of arms and will fight like hell to retain that status. Apparently, not like at least some people here, I have no use for the so-called "conservative/liberal" dichotomy, and while I expect to get a lot of heat on this - I'm sick and tired it.

"Liberal" was - WAS - expected to mean enlightened, striving for betterment, in favor of individual rights. That's how self-identified "liberals" wish to be seen. Conservative was - WAS - expected to mean maintaining existing views, marked by moderation or caution. It is or should be clear to all but the most obtuse that these badges of identification have been perverted in the extreme.

It IS NOT LIBERAL to oppose the right to self defense - it's just stupid or somehow fashionable in some naive circles. It IS NOT CONSERVATIVE to seek overthrow of the established government by force of arms - it's RADICAL, and hardly a constructive approach in these times. The demonization of "one side" by "the other side" would be comical if it weren't so destructive - as if there really are two and only two ways to see anything.

It is useless to tag the newspaper writer as "liberal". It is useful to ask him pointed questions, it is useful to articulate what Anglo/American law has long recognized - that the right to self defense AND the right lawfully to be in a particular place are, and by all reason ought to be, inviolable.

I'm hoping against hope - and I'd love to find reason to be more optimistic - that the name calling will be left on the elementary school playground, and that reasonable, humane, fair and intelligent questions and statements will prevail in discourse of this basic, core issue of human rights.

It's 87% no currently. Pour it on.

This logic in the story amazes me.
"Before this law, I kind of had an obligation to call the police."
Yeah, and then what? Wait for them to put the yellow tape around your body?

Can't legally carry bullets or guns into Mexico. Law abiding citizens are disarmed. Bad guys break in, last word I got from locals, you better just leave cause if you shoot to protect yourself you will not like a Mexican jail.
Military captured a drug person last month that had over one million dollars worth of some serious weapons.
Used to have many friends who went Dove hunting in Mexico. I tried to call and find out how they brought their guns or did they rent; think they all playing golf? Anyway, the population, except for some upper echelon who live there with money are unarmed. The "Gulf" mafia are the Robin Hoods who only smuggle drugs and kill Zetas. Zetas are the ones who shake everyone down. Drive a bus and give me X-number Pesos a week.... If you are in real estate and sell a house give me half of what you made(kinds nice of them)....Think there were over 25,000 Mexicans killed in the last couple of years..look at the Brits who made almost everyone disarm 20 odd years ago: now Bobbies have to go about armed because of so many Bad guys with guns. Gulf Mafia now runs Matamoras came in about 3 months ago and killed Zetas' chief local bad guy to include wife and kids (was told I was not there). Zetas who were able to leave Matamoras went to several different places however several went to Houston.
Boarder patrol is great for capturing peons and crop pickers. But the big guys move freely until some government starts pointing fingers at them. Governments are like a pack of dogs; one barks and they all come after you. Matamoras is OK now I go there all the time but I think half the town is Kin to my wife....Stop the press!! Friend just called said they always rented their shot guns but stopped going due to guys showing up in the middle of the night and demanding large American dollars or their gringo lives. Lets all give up our guns so we can be like Mexico or half a dozen other places. Guess we would all have to get in shape so we could run or hand to hand it...Yea I know get the tin foil out!

So two rival gangs meet and shoot each other. What exactly is the problem?
I voted no!

Perhaps what you meant was that since 1987 there have been a total of around 2,000,000 licenses issued...

That's EXACTLY what I meant. Trust me, I went to the same site that you did for a fact check before I posted. I actually thought the # was 4 million. (I can only wish).

We are killing it now

I voted. At the time 85% said NO CHANGE.

It sounds to me like the judge did not like the law, and he applied it inappropriately in order to bolster support for his opinion. There should be a mistrial and the judge should be fired. 77 no, 54 yes now.

+1. Irresponsible handling simply to promote his agenda or views. Just my opinion. We haven't had a problem with our rendition of the law here in Houston. There was an incident involving a burglary that was controversial, but I think it will discourage burglaries all over Texas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Horn_shooting_controversy

Typical of the media and government to absolve our rights based one type of incident instead individually rectifying the problem. "If anyone around here uses their car as a weapon, cars will be banned!"

Very well said. I'm glad you left that commentary. I'd let you speak on my behalf anyday.

Poll hit and commentary added:

"Fred Grimm makes me want to puke. His liberal bias toward the second amendment is one of the top reasons that I canceled my print subscription. Bad guys will always be bad guys. They don't deserve any protection under the law. But to support the taking away of EVERYONE'S rights because of a few bad apples defies common sense. Obviously the poll numbers reflect my thoughts too. "Like the Wild West" Those were the words that the liberal media tried to use to prevent concealed carry from becoming a reality almost 25 years ago. We have almost 2,000,000 (two million!)concealed carry permits issued in Florida. I'm still waiting for the Wild West. Truth is, it isn't coming."

:cuss:

"JimmyK's comment is abusive and has been removed."

Did I expect any different response? Not really.

:banghead:

DOH!

Very well said. I'm glad you left that commentary. I'd let you speak on my behalf anyday.

Thank you!

HA! This guy will have burnt umber colored underwear that was white in the morning. He starts this poll and then finds it shoved very deeply where the sun don't shine. Judge not, that ye may be judged.

Voted no.

Hey sig228, go post this there!

http://www.save-now.com/news/archives/Charlton-Heston-Gun-Controle.htm

We see how Mr. Grimm feels about anyone's 1st Ammendment rights other than his own, maybe this will hit home.