1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

florida's "stand your ground law" A good idea?

Discussion in 'Legal' started by megatronrules, May 17, 2005.

  1. megatronrules

    megatronrules Well-Known Member

    I just read a news story on yahoo about this personally I feel it is a good law becuase we here at the high road and other responsible gun owners are just that,responsible. we not going to blow a guy brains out for cutting us off on the way to work. I strongly feel we have a right to defend ourselves wether we're in our homes or coming out of a shopping mall,we have the right to defend our lives and those of our loved ones.

    Infact I think this law makes us safer and ironicly it makes it safer for the anti's as well. The thing is I'am sure bad guys will think twice before trying to rape a woman or mugg someone. Ofcourse theres dire predictions of bodies piling up in the streets but thats just the typical redoric,just like we see everytime another state gets a "shall issue" carry permit law passed. So let me know what you all think.
  2. ksnecktieman

    ksnecktieman Well-Known Member

    Just because someone is a criminal does not make him stupid. If he is facing a world full of unarmed sheep, he will ply his trade (armed robbery?) with impunity. If he can not tell the difference between sheep, and sheepdogs, he may hesitate.

    If it was totaly legal to carry firearms,, would you EVER "flip someone the bird"? (obscene gesture inferred).

    NOW,,, for the good part? Most criminals will not instigate a problem with an armed man,,,, That is good,,,,,,,,,, BUT IF someone instigated something with you? would you respond or hesitate? If you are unarmed you can respond and the law does not care, if you are armed, you may be national news. (so what if I do not know my daddy,,, big deal, I will keep my .45 in my holster.)

    Not only does the law stop the criminals,,, I think it also keeps us from responding the same. I leave it to you to decide if that is good or bad.
  3. P95Carry

    P95Carry Moderator Emeritus

    It matters not - culpability remains IMO unchanged and so - a shoot will still generate all the sequele (most unwanted) but inevitable.

    I don't think any law like this makes it in any way ''easier'' or let's say '' more practicable'' to enter a shooting match - it just simplifies the ground rules a bit, without in any way altering the potential backlash.

    Bottom line, every time - ''was it justified'' - that will always be the question that needs answered. Even when your ground rules seem better defined.
  4. Hawkmoon

    Hawkmoon Well-Known Member

    Good law. It essentially extends the "Castle Doctine" beyond the walls of the castle. Why should a victim be forced to risk his or her life trying to retreat before they are allowed to defend themselves?

    That's a rhetorical question. Obviously, I believe they should not be asked to retreat. Most people would anyway, if given the opportunity, but the new FL law means you don't have to lose any response time agonizing over whether or not you have retreated enough before initiating defensive measures.
  5. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Many states don't require law-abiding citizens to retreat before criminals, and never have and never will, either.

    The leftist extremists are just huffing and puffing and snivelling and whining over yet another loss.
  6. beerslurpy

    beerslurpy member

    Speaking as someone who has a very low opinion of most human beings' intelligence and decency and as a resident of Florida, I have to say that I still think this is a good idea.
  7. mhdishere

    mhdishere Well-Known Member

    My take:

    If you shoot someone because he called you a name or gave you the one-finger-salute you ought to go to jail, stand-your-ground-law or not. You're not in danger, remember what your Mom told you about sticks, stones and names?

    The thing I see in this law is that it eliminates the Monday morning quarterbacking of a (potentially politicially motivated) DA who can spend a couple hours walking over the scene then decide you could have retreated. You, on the other hand, had a matter of seconds to make a life-or-death decision. You were in danger. You could have retreated but you didn't know that and didn't want to take your eyes off the danger to look for an escape route.

    The only issue ought to be if you reasonably believe yourself to be in danger, not if you reasonably believe yourself to be in danger AND you have no safe escape route. Now it is.

Share This Page