Dirty Harry statute may let bad guys off - Fred Grimm

If I remember correctly, Dirty Harry, went looking for trouble.
I am willing to wager that most of us are not out looking for trouble.

In my opinion The Author Fred Grimm, needs to face terrorism charges for pushing fear in his articles.

Florida gun laws, while not perfect, are some of the best in the nation. Gun laws here are permissive and provide for harsh punishment when guns are misused by criminals. I will miss it here!

I'm really getting sick and tired of Fred Grimm. If The McClatchy Company is wondering why ...

Click to expand...

I'm really getting sick and tired of idiots like Gabriel Mobley who bring a gun to a fist fight.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/breaking_news/story/584732.html

So called "stand your ground" laws only protect someone involved in a legally justified shooting, and a jury gets to decide if the shooting was justified or not, if the case goes to trial. I suspect some prosecutors may be looking at the victims(?) and using the stand-your-ground statute as an excuse to not carry the matter further.

Also the anti's love to claim that their hands are tied to spur more legislation.

The stand your ground law says that force cannot be used if the person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity. The only thing the stand your ground law does is remove the duty to retreat. If, as was quoted in the story, the shooter fired his weapon at a man who had raised his hands, and another who was running away, then the law here does not apply:

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony;

Click to expand...

Nothing reasonable about that shoot, if it happened as reported.

The criminal is using the law to shield himself from his illegal actions, and the biased media is using this isolated incident to indict the entire self defense law. Nothing new in either case.

As for shooting two guys who are fighting with my friends, or anyone for that matter, well it depends upon whether or not t looked like there was a threat to the life, or threat of serious bodily harm, to innocents. It could well have been that deadly force was justified, or it could well have been that this guy overreacted. I think the state will be hard pressed to prove murder charges.

As for the guy who wrote the article, yes he seems to be an obvious over zealous anti-gun liberal mud slinging media type. I can understand being upset with him if he has written a number of such articles, but I feel almost obligated to comment on this:

Reprinted without permission because Fred Grimm can kiss my behind.

Click to expand...

I have to wonder why you would post such a provocative statement, then use copyrighted material, and take the chance of getting the owners of this site into hot water over it. I don't care so much if you get yourself into trouble, that is your concern. I do care about this site because I frequent it regularly, as do many others, and we all want to see it continue unabated. It was certainly less than High Road material to address the article or author in that manner. You could have just as easily disagreed with the article and author in what would have amounted to a manner which would be much less likely to cause problems by basically posting a challenge to his copyright.

I am not saying I am a saint, I have posted a few times with less than High Road material. What I am saying though, is you should not jeopardize this site's ability to continue offering a forum to gun enthusiasts by blatantly reprinting copyrighted material and then shoving your misuse of it into the face of the author or copyright holder in a nasty manner by way of this forum.


All the best,
Glenn B

I had to shoot him in order to protect myself from my own gun.
If he beats me up and finds the gun he could shot me.

For the same reason you would shoot a BG in the back if he tuned around to pick up the gun he had dropped

But Im not sure what I would do

It should be a simple matter to amend the law to require that the shooters receive immunity from prosecution ONLY IF they were NOT OTHERWISE ENGAGED in ILLEGAL ACTIVITY. That will eliminate the possibility of drug dealers and armed robbers using the law as a defense against murder prosecutions. Someone breaking into your home has no defense if they shoot you, because you had a gun in your hand. If you shoot a trespasser for walking through your illegal crop of weed, you get no defense. If you shoot a bank guard because he shot at you first, no defense. It is just a matter of common sense (too bad it isn't so common when lawyers are involved).

Initially, Mobley told Miami-Dade homicide detectives he shot Carrazana because he was ''reaching for something under his shirt. He did not see any weapons but he believed he was reaching for one,'' an arrest warrant said.

Mobley denied shooting Gonzalez. But video surveillance ''clearly showed Mobley shooting Gonzalez, whose hands were raised and free from any objects or weapons.'' One witness saw Mobley ''shoot Gonzalez as he was backing away'' and ``shoot Carrazana as he turned to run away.''


sounds like he should be charged
hes the kinda fool who becomes poster child for why guns are bad defending him is sad

But it wasn't as if Florida juries had been convicting folks willy-nilly for defending themselves. In 1986, a Miami-Dade grand jury refused to indict Prentice Rasheed, a crime-weary merchant who had booby-trapped his shop windows and managed to electrocute a burglar. Rather than a criminal defendant, Rasheed became a local folk hero.

Click to expand...

That strikes me as an awesome deterrent for that area's burglary. Kind of risky business though, since a passer-by may have gotten caught in it.

Mobley sounds like a losing ticket, but agreed that mr. grimm is quite the little domestic fear factory.

I've gotta protect Callahan here:

If I remember correctly, Dirty Harry, went looking for trouble.
I am willing to wager that most of us are not out looking for trouble.

Click to expand...

Dirty Harry wasn't looking for trouble, it's called pro-active policing.


;-)

It's funny how those newspapers hang on stories like that but forget stories like this one:

http://www.local10.com/news/13585335/detail.html?rss=mia&psp=news

There were several self-defense cases in the past 12 months where firearm possession in the hands of the good guys saved lives.

The good, the bad and the ugly...

It is a REAL shame that they are insulting 'Inspector Callahan' aka Dirty Harry by even using his name.

Catherine - A Clint Eastwood fan from the time he did RAWHIDE to his other mystery and western movies. I have had a 'crush' on him since I was a KID!

It's tricky for another reason also, if a person cannot withstand what someone else could, like a guy with a bad heart or several damaged or fused disks, he trully is in fear of his or her life. Even a few good punches in the chest or back, can kill a person with a disibility, that isn't obvious.

The Bill of Rights could let bad guys off.

So what?

People are confused with what protections are designed to accomplish. The government will never be able to protect society from other members of society completely, and that must be kept in mind when sacrificing freedom.

What protections can do is protect members of society from the government, because unlike the criminals the government is expected to follow the law.


Our entire court system is designed to give the benefit of the doubt to the defendent, even though that means bad guys will get off. The reason is because it is better to let 10 guilty men go free than to convict 1 innocent man.
Such protections mean that far fewer innocent men will actualy spend time in prison over circumstantial evidence.
That is why we have "beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal court. Not "most likely" guilty or as legaly put a "preponderance of the evidence". We reserve that for civil court.
It is people and as a result jury members failing to understand that which poses one of the greatest risks.

Things get twisted when the people start to think it actualy is the job of others to protect them in thier day to day lives. Your personal protection is your own responsibility, removing restrictions on government to help them 'protect you' ultimately leads to reduced freedoms without much additional protection, and a much worse legal system.

Many systems around the world are guilty unless you can prove yourself innocent. Essentialy if you are arrested and charged, the authority figures (whatever thier equal to a prosecutor is) and arresting officers must have had a good reason, and therefore you are guilty unless you can prove otherwise.
Another large number have the same burden of proof we reserve for civil court, a preponderance of the evidence.
In our nation we take it a step further, because we believe freedom is so important. We have "beyond a reasonable doubt".
It is one of the primary differences in the United States of America.

Does that mean the streets of America will be a little more dangerous because not all of the guilty and many of the innocent are locked up? That a system that locks up only some of the guilty and far fewer of the innocent puts more dangerous people back on the streets?
You bet. Freedom is not free.
Take steps to be able to protect yourself and loved ones. Because you are free you have the ability and right to do so.