Sergeant Sabre
Member
Yes, sorry if I implied that the other responses were not also admirable. It's just that Lonnie Wilson's really caught my attention.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why not tell this person how you feel about her article..
- Thread starter bg
- Start date
- Status
-
Not open for further replies.
MajMikeW
Member
My response
I chose the polite approach.
I chose the polite approach.
Ma'am
I don't know if you are just confused about this law or are speaking from an anti-2nd Amendment position, but you are taking this law way out of context. All the new law does is to say that, when confronted by deadly force a citizen no longer must use retreat as their first option, but can defend him/herself with like force.
A citizen will still have to show that the use of deadly force was justified, they still need a concealed carry permit to be carrying a weapon (which requires training), and they still have to exercise prudence. They just don't have to first try to retreat, if they see it as detrimental to their heath.
"The hole in Hammer's argument is that the new Florida law will turn deadly force into a justifiable option for an untrained citizenry." Wrong. Deadly force was and is always an option, except the attacked now can respond immediately instead of trying to retreat to God knows where. Plus, all CCW holders (the only folks allowed to carry in public) have training before they can be issued a permit, in fact many of us train with our weapons much more than Law Enforcement, who must only qualify annually.
"The idea that any state would sanction near carte blanche use of self-defense when violence is already so much a part of American culture, particularly in Detroit, strikes Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy as irresponsible. " What a crock, instead it is the idea that any state would NOT sanction the use of self-defense that should be seen as irresponsible. The police are great folks, but they cannot protect us from crime, all they can do is act after a crime has been committed, and if we're lucky discourage a few others. The bottom line is that your welfare is dependant on your ability and willingness to defend yourself.
"In states where gun laws have been relaxed, statistics have yet to show a correlation between legal gun ownership and violence. On that score, the nation has been lucky. But why should government push that luck and encourage people to mete out their own justice? Wrong. Statistics from the Department of Justice do show a decrease in violent crime in state where CCW's have been legislated as a must-issue item. Some studies have a shown a direct correlation, while some have said the exact causes are unknown, but the number of crimes has gone down and that is a fact. Ask a criminal, would they prefer to rob/attack a CCW holder or an unarmed victim, they will say the latter with surprising (to some) regularity.
And that last phrase, "encourage people to mete out their own justice", is completely misleading. We are not talking about justice or revenge shootings here, we are talking about heat of the moment, do or die self-defense! If there is no immediate danger then any shooting is illegal and the shooter will be prosecuted, this law only applies to an immediate life or death situation.
You have the right to your opinion and to state your mind, in fact I have shed my own blood to keep that right for you and all Americans. But, as a member of the press, you also have a duty to become knowledgeable about the subjects you write about and to present a balanced picture to your readers. I ask you to do a better job next time.
My letter to Ms. Christian
Ms. Christian,
In my public office as a Navy officer, it is my duty to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. It is the inherited legacy from my forbears and those of my sister services' that we enjoy our freedoms today -- including your freedom to disparage the very foundation of the rights you possess.
Pacifism would not have sufficed to make the British stop quartering their soldiers in American homes and go back to the U.K. Nor would it have sufficed to send the Nazis back to their holes in Germany, or to stop violent predators from preying on innocent victims every day on the streets of America.
It is the duty of every freeborn American man to meet violence on the part of predators with violence on the part of the righteous. You ought to be grateful that there are many righteous, well-armed men in America who wouldn't hesitate to use force to stop your being attacked by a rapist, murderer, or other thug.
We don't support violence for the sake of violence, but we especially do not support violence perpetrated by the wicked on the unarmed and helpless. Please reconsider your viewpoints.
Very Respectfully,
Jason
Ms. Christian,
In my public office as a Navy officer, it is my duty to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. It is the inherited legacy from my forbears and those of my sister services' that we enjoy our freedoms today -- including your freedom to disparage the very foundation of the rights you possess.
Pacifism would not have sufficed to make the British stop quartering their soldiers in American homes and go back to the U.K. Nor would it have sufficed to send the Nazis back to their holes in Germany, or to stop violent predators from preying on innocent victims every day on the streets of America.
It is the duty of every freeborn American man to meet violence on the part of predators with violence on the part of the righteous. You ought to be grateful that there are many righteous, well-armed men in America who wouldn't hesitate to use force to stop your being attacked by a rapist, murderer, or other thug.
We don't support violence for the sake of violence, but we especially do not support violence perpetrated by the wicked on the unarmed and helpless. Please reconsider your viewpoints.
Very Respectfully,
Jason
My response:
>Nichole wrote:
>You have to wonder whether the Florida Legislature has lost its mind.
>It's a legitimate question, given the dangerously nutty idea that body >recently passed with unusual speed.
>Gov. Jeb Bush is expected, any day now, to sign Florida Senate Bill 436 into >law. His pen stroke will make it 100 percent legal to use deadly force as a >self-defense option in the Sunshine State. Anyone who thinks they're under >attack could, as of Oct. 1, "meet force with force if the person is in a place >where he or she has a right to be and the force is necessary to prevent >death."
Hmmm....seems you missed the very point you quoted.....anyone who has a CCW and chooses to use deadly force, probably will have to prove that they felt they were in danger of physical harm or death. You would rather one chose death???
>If that isn't risky enough, the bill also extends immunity from criminal >prosecution and civil lawsuits to the person taking justice into his or her >hands, so long as another law isn't being violated.
As long as the law isn't violated. Again the person protecting himself must know the law and be sure of what he/she is doing.
>This is not only a break with sanity; it's a needless break with existing law.
>Florida already allows citizens to defend themselves when under attack, but >only after first exercising a "duty to retreat," some reasonable alternative to >the human urge to strike back immediately.
Again, any sane person will choose the "retreat" alternative. But when someone is bent on hurting/killing you, you see a problem with deadly force???
>That's a good thing considering that Florida, like Michigan, has recently >relaxed its rules for obtaining a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
Might just be due to the record of CCW holders....crime rate significantly below the general population, .005% vs. 5% last study I saw. And that includes all offenses including such things as inadvertently driving with expired license plate. Best you read the studies before you suggest the CCW holders are a bunch of radical, wild, wild west cowboys shooting everything in sight.
>But Marion Hammer, a past president of the National Rifle Association, who >also led the organization's four-month effort to get the bill passed in Florida, >argues that the duty to retreat unfairly favored criminals. "This just puts >things back to where the law will be on the side of victims and law abiding >citizens," she says. "Right now, if a criminal attacks you, the law says you >need to run away because we don't want you hurting criminals. It doesn't >matter if you get hurt."
>As proof, she cites the case of an elderly Pensacola man who last November >shot and killed an intruder who broke into his trailer and refused to leave. >Prosecutors, she said, took three months to decide what should have been >a clear case of self-defense.
>"When the law is doing that sort of thing, it's turned upside down, and it's >time to put a stop to it," Hammer said.
>"What's so wrongful about taking the life of someone trying to rob or rape >you, or take your life?"
>The hole in Hammer's argument is that the new Florida law will turn deadly >force into a justifiable option for an untrained citizenry.
Excuse me....like police are all that good. You better get to the range when police qualify...once, or at most, twice a year. Many common citizens can put them to shame in their shooting ability. Yes, I heard it from a Police Commissioner. Sorry to burst you bubble. And what about the police officer that shoots his wife or girlfriend? Training stopped that?
>Police officers get weeks of training in the use of all kinds of force, deal >much more often with pressure-packed situations and still make bad >judgments and deadly mistakes.
Now it doesn't take much to realize you are in personal danger. It really doesn't take weeks or months of training.
>Remember the Malice Green case in Detroit? Or Amadou Diallo, the 22-year->old man who died when four New York City police officers fired 41 shots at >him as he reached into his pocket for ... his wallet?
Now how would you know for what he was reaching in a situation like that? Police are taught to fire until the threat no longer exists. I don't know the case of which you are speaking, but I would guess the person was told to "freeze" and reached for his wallet to show his identity which was contrary to orders and a deadly mistake in this instance. That's what they learned in training and that's what they did. Are non-police citizens not able to protect themselves? Sounds like you don't think they should.
>What a nightmare Florida could have on its hands after empowering victims >of road rage, robbery or domestic disputes to make instant life-and-death >decisions. It's the sort of insanity that makes one cherish the miles >separating us from them.
This is the same doom and gloom argument that was used when the idea of CCW licenses were proposed. It hasn't happened and I venture to say that will not change with this new change in the law. But you would propose we err on the side of the criminal?
>But hold up.
>Michiganders ought not feel so comfortable so quickly, especially the >thousands of them who spend some part of the winter living down there.
>The obvious reason: Anyone who values human life should find a big problem >with government-approved retaliation.
>Hammer says that's knee-jerk rhetoric: "Folks never seem to give honest, >law abiding citizens the credit they deserve."
>Maybe.
>But she also concedes a day will probably come when someone twists a >claim of self-defense to justify violence.
>Write that off as Florida's problem, if you want. But be forewarned: The NRA >is already eyeing other states for similar efforts. Michigan does have >a "castle exception," a common law doctrine that allows citizens to use >force when attacked inside their homes. But other incidents of self-defense >claims are examined on a case-by-case basis.
>The idea that any state would sanction near carte blanche use of self->defense when violence is already so much a part of American culture, >particularly in Detroit, strikes Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy as >irresponsible.
>"The bill assumes that everyone is reasonable and rational. Let's just say >someone acts with this law as a defense and the 4-year-old in the yard or >the 90-year-old walking down the street gets hit," she says. "A bullet has >no name on it. How do you control that?"
>You can't control it, or the double message it would send to children who >are told, day in and day out, to say no to violence.
You're right, a bullet has no name on it. If one chooses to defend himself by firing a weapon, they should be pretty darn sure the target gets the bullet. That is why many who have a CCW license know the best ammunition to use for self defense and load their weapon accordingly.
>State legislatures in this country ought to remember that fact when the >NRA comes lobbying.
>This isn't about attacking or restricting an individual's right to own a gun >responsibly. In states where gun laws have been relaxed, statistics have >yet to show a correlation between legal gun ownership and violence.
>On that score, the nation has been lucky. But why should government push >that luck and encourage people to mete out their own justice?
Lucky...don't think so. Again check the studies. Good, solid citizens that have taken time to get a CCW are some of the best citizens this county has. I wish you would have done more research before writing this editorial.
>No doubt, our flawed justice system lets some awful people off the hook too >easily. But better to gamble on that system than a legal trend that could >easily become a quick-draw excuse for more violence in America.
Uhm.... So you're standing in a 7/11 and a criminal element comes in for a robbery. The clerk starts to retreat rather than be shot. The bad guy starts to shoot and you're standing next to a CCW holder. At least you'll have a chance of being protected and not shot in the back as you retreat.
Nichole,
Carrying a weapon is not for everyone. Using deadly force to protect themselves is not for everyone. You may choose to endure great physical harm or death as your only option as you are retreating. But please, become better educated on the subject. Take the CCW class. Hang around a range as you see folks practice what they have learned. Take a community police sponsored self-defense class. Know that the confidence in what you have learned will allow you to the best of your ability, make the split second decision. Learn that police are trained that they should not allow a threat to come within 21 feet of them before using force as necessary.
Many LEOs spend their whole career on without ever having to draw, let alone use their weapon, although in recent years they are taught to draw more quickly than in the past. Owning and being able to protect themselves with a weapon is not for everyone. And it bears a humongous responsibility. But until you become more knowledgeable by taking classes and seeing CCW holders mind sets, please don't bad mouth or make them to be the villains as you have done in your editorial. Become educated on a subject and not just shoot (no pun intended) from your gut feeling which could be erroneous.
Jon Zurell
>Nichole wrote:
>You have to wonder whether the Florida Legislature has lost its mind.
>It's a legitimate question, given the dangerously nutty idea that body >recently passed with unusual speed.
>Gov. Jeb Bush is expected, any day now, to sign Florida Senate Bill 436 into >law. His pen stroke will make it 100 percent legal to use deadly force as a >self-defense option in the Sunshine State. Anyone who thinks they're under >attack could, as of Oct. 1, "meet force with force if the person is in a place >where he or she has a right to be and the force is necessary to prevent >death."
Hmmm....seems you missed the very point you quoted.....anyone who has a CCW and chooses to use deadly force, probably will have to prove that they felt they were in danger of physical harm or death. You would rather one chose death???
>If that isn't risky enough, the bill also extends immunity from criminal >prosecution and civil lawsuits to the person taking justice into his or her >hands, so long as another law isn't being violated.
As long as the law isn't violated. Again the person protecting himself must know the law and be sure of what he/she is doing.
>This is not only a break with sanity; it's a needless break with existing law.
>Florida already allows citizens to defend themselves when under attack, but >only after first exercising a "duty to retreat," some reasonable alternative to >the human urge to strike back immediately.
Again, any sane person will choose the "retreat" alternative. But when someone is bent on hurting/killing you, you see a problem with deadly force???
>That's a good thing considering that Florida, like Michigan, has recently >relaxed its rules for obtaining a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
Might just be due to the record of CCW holders....crime rate significantly below the general population, .005% vs. 5% last study I saw. And that includes all offenses including such things as inadvertently driving with expired license plate. Best you read the studies before you suggest the CCW holders are a bunch of radical, wild, wild west cowboys shooting everything in sight.
>But Marion Hammer, a past president of the National Rifle Association, who >also led the organization's four-month effort to get the bill passed in Florida, >argues that the duty to retreat unfairly favored criminals. "This just puts >things back to where the law will be on the side of victims and law abiding >citizens," she says. "Right now, if a criminal attacks you, the law says you >need to run away because we don't want you hurting criminals. It doesn't >matter if you get hurt."
>As proof, she cites the case of an elderly Pensacola man who last November >shot and killed an intruder who broke into his trailer and refused to leave. >Prosecutors, she said, took three months to decide what should have been >a clear case of self-defense.
>"When the law is doing that sort of thing, it's turned upside down, and it's >time to put a stop to it," Hammer said.
>"What's so wrongful about taking the life of someone trying to rob or rape >you, or take your life?"
>The hole in Hammer's argument is that the new Florida law will turn deadly >force into a justifiable option for an untrained citizenry.
Excuse me....like police are all that good. You better get to the range when police qualify...once, or at most, twice a year. Many common citizens can put them to shame in their shooting ability. Yes, I heard it from a Police Commissioner. Sorry to burst you bubble. And what about the police officer that shoots his wife or girlfriend? Training stopped that?
>Police officers get weeks of training in the use of all kinds of force, deal >much more often with pressure-packed situations and still make bad >judgments and deadly mistakes.
Now it doesn't take much to realize you are in personal danger. It really doesn't take weeks or months of training.
>Remember the Malice Green case in Detroit? Or Amadou Diallo, the 22-year->old man who died when four New York City police officers fired 41 shots at >him as he reached into his pocket for ... his wallet?
Now how would you know for what he was reaching in a situation like that? Police are taught to fire until the threat no longer exists. I don't know the case of which you are speaking, but I would guess the person was told to "freeze" and reached for his wallet to show his identity which was contrary to orders and a deadly mistake in this instance. That's what they learned in training and that's what they did. Are non-police citizens not able to protect themselves? Sounds like you don't think they should.
>What a nightmare Florida could have on its hands after empowering victims >of road rage, robbery or domestic disputes to make instant life-and-death >decisions. It's the sort of insanity that makes one cherish the miles >separating us from them.
This is the same doom and gloom argument that was used when the idea of CCW licenses were proposed. It hasn't happened and I venture to say that will not change with this new change in the law. But you would propose we err on the side of the criminal?
>But hold up.
>Michiganders ought not feel so comfortable so quickly, especially the >thousands of them who spend some part of the winter living down there.
>The obvious reason: Anyone who values human life should find a big problem >with government-approved retaliation.
>Hammer says that's knee-jerk rhetoric: "Folks never seem to give honest, >law abiding citizens the credit they deserve."
>Maybe.
>But she also concedes a day will probably come when someone twists a >claim of self-defense to justify violence.
>Write that off as Florida's problem, if you want. But be forewarned: The NRA >is already eyeing other states for similar efforts. Michigan does have >a "castle exception," a common law doctrine that allows citizens to use >force when attacked inside their homes. But other incidents of self-defense >claims are examined on a case-by-case basis.
>The idea that any state would sanction near carte blanche use of self->defense when violence is already so much a part of American culture, >particularly in Detroit, strikes Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy as >irresponsible.
>"The bill assumes that everyone is reasonable and rational. Let's just say >someone acts with this law as a defense and the 4-year-old in the yard or >the 90-year-old walking down the street gets hit," she says. "A bullet has >no name on it. How do you control that?"
>You can't control it, or the double message it would send to children who >are told, day in and day out, to say no to violence.
You're right, a bullet has no name on it. If one chooses to defend himself by firing a weapon, they should be pretty darn sure the target gets the bullet. That is why many who have a CCW license know the best ammunition to use for self defense and load their weapon accordingly.
>State legislatures in this country ought to remember that fact when the >NRA comes lobbying.
>This isn't about attacking or restricting an individual's right to own a gun >responsibly. In states where gun laws have been relaxed, statistics have >yet to show a correlation between legal gun ownership and violence.
>On that score, the nation has been lucky. But why should government push >that luck and encourage people to mete out their own justice?
Lucky...don't think so. Again check the studies. Good, solid citizens that have taken time to get a CCW are some of the best citizens this county has. I wish you would have done more research before writing this editorial.
>No doubt, our flawed justice system lets some awful people off the hook too >easily. But better to gamble on that system than a legal trend that could >easily become a quick-draw excuse for more violence in America.
Uhm.... So you're standing in a 7/11 and a criminal element comes in for a robbery. The clerk starts to retreat rather than be shot. The bad guy starts to shoot and you're standing next to a CCW holder. At least you'll have a chance of being protected and not shot in the back as you retreat.
Nichole,
Carrying a weapon is not for everyone. Using deadly force to protect themselves is not for everyone. You may choose to endure great physical harm or death as your only option as you are retreating. But please, become better educated on the subject. Take the CCW class. Hang around a range as you see folks practice what they have learned. Take a community police sponsored self-defense class. Know that the confidence in what you have learned will allow you to the best of your ability, make the split second decision. Learn that police are trained that they should not allow a threat to come within 21 feet of them before using force as necessary.
Many LEOs spend their whole career on without ever having to draw, let alone use their weapon, although in recent years they are taught to draw more quickly than in the past. Owning and being able to protect themselves with a weapon is not for everyone. And it bears a humongous responsibility. But until you become more knowledgeable by taking classes and seeing CCW holders mind sets, please don't bad mouth or make them to be the villains as you have done in your editorial. Become educated on a subject and not just shoot (no pun intended) from your gut feeling which could be erroneous.
Jon Zurell
."..In states where gun laws have been relaxed, statistics have yet to show a correlation between legal gun ownership and violence." There also has been no increase in those same states in domestic violence, road rage, etc. involving guns. You need to give citizens more credit Ms. Christian! All the "blood on the streets" arguments that were rampant when concealed carry laws were about to be enacted were proven to be nothing more than the usual liberal rhetoric at best and out and out hysteria at worst! Please witness the recent panic over the lapse of the Assault Weapons Ban-where are those outbreaks of "mass mayhem" involving those weapons?! People have the RIGHT to defend themselves when being attacked without having to run away which by the way, would place them at a severe tactical disadvantage. You shouldn't have to abandon your home and allow it to be destroyed in the interest of "villains rights to the pursuit of happiness" while they are denying you of yours!
straightShot
Member
Why did this dolt bring up Malice Green? He was a crackhead who was whacked and killed by police using a flashlight to whack him. He wasn't shot.
Dear madam.
I have read your article and have decided that you have written about a subject about which you know nothing.
In the future, I would hope you would restrict your use of the bully pulpit of your position to only those subjects about which you have researched and studied.
It is obvious from your writing that you know nothing about the situation, The Florida Legislation concerns a gap in Florida Law that did not grant people the written right to defend themselves. In your situation as a woman, if a man were to assault you, would you be comfortable in being restricted BY LAW from resisting? Would you merely lie back and allow him to rape you content in your mind that you were not violating the law, only he was? the Florida Law in question is there to provide security that in the need to defend your life and person, you have the legal right to fight back with deadly force.
To quote your story. "the bill also extends immunity from criminal prosecution and civil lawsuits to the person taking justice into his or her hands, so long as another law isn't being violated"
YES EXACTLY! If a law abiding citizen is attacked or comes upon an attack about to happen or in progress, that citizen is protected by law if he tries to help. Michigan has a Good Samaritan law, consider this and extension of a Good Samaritan law. Consider your child being beaten savagely by an adult, a bystander sees this but fears to enter into the situation because they are afraid being charged with assault for hitting the person attacking your child. Should this be part of their thought process? No, of course not, but people every day do not get involved because they are afraid of getting sued or charged. The Florida law seeks to give the Good Citizen the benefit of the doubt and say yes we believe that good people will do good things if the situation arises, and if things fall apart, well at least they made an effort.
Again to quote you? "The hole in Hammer's argument is that the new Florida law will turn deadly force into a justifiable option for an untrained citizenry. Police officers get weeks of training in the use of all kinds of force, deal much more often with pressure-packed situations and still make bad judgments and deadly mistakes"?
Are you saying the police should not use armed force because they too make mistakes? Are you aware that many police only shoot their weapons once or twice a year? Are you also aware that many citizens train with their weapons on a weekly basis? are you aware that many of the people who reside in Florida are Ex military? People who have spent years in training. But even the military makes mistakes, should we disarm the military because we have had some friendly fire incidents? Or should we decide that direct action against criminal acts warrants the support of Law.
Have you had need to call 911 and ask for assistance on an emergency incident. how fast did they respond ? five minutes? Fifteen minutes till they showed up? Imagine a person with a heart attack falling in front of you, you sit there and watch them for ten minutes till they die because although you had CPR training, you were afraid to them for fear of a malpractice suit or a practicing medicine without a license charge, Is that right? Of course not, If a person has the means and know how to help someone, should they not provide assistance because of lawsuit? no. Florida had a retreat clause in the statutes. but people needed to be provided with a legal foundation to react if in their mind retreat for what ever reason was not the best policy. When I am in Florida with my mother, who is in her 80's and often restricted to a wheel chair, I will be protected by law if I stand up and defend her if the need arises.
Another quote "You can't control it, or the double message it would send to children who are told, day in and day out, to say no to violence."
Maybe you should rethink this, my children are not told day in day out to say no to violence, but rather to understand that they need to say NO to oppression, tyranny, lawlessness and criminality. My Daughter has taken self defense courses that in all likelyhood prevented her in being abducted and sexually assaulted. She responded to his attack by sticking her fingers into his eye socket. He ripped her swim suit nearly in half trying to grab her and get her into his vehicle but she FOUGHT BACK violently and aggressively and got away. Should she have just said no to violence? She was not evil nor was she irresponsible in her use of violence. Understand that there are bad people out there, who are willing able and intent on harming the good people who trust that it will never happen to you? they are not all named Abdul or Mohammed, Deadly Force is something no sane person uses with deep thought. All are affected by it. But if in the end, the use of Deadly Force prevents an innocent from being harmed by a criminal act, then it was used well.
Peter Franzen
I have read your article and have decided that you have written about a subject about which you know nothing.
In the future, I would hope you would restrict your use of the bully pulpit of your position to only those subjects about which you have researched and studied.
It is obvious from your writing that you know nothing about the situation, The Florida Legislation concerns a gap in Florida Law that did not grant people the written right to defend themselves. In your situation as a woman, if a man were to assault you, would you be comfortable in being restricted BY LAW from resisting? Would you merely lie back and allow him to rape you content in your mind that you were not violating the law, only he was? the Florida Law in question is there to provide security that in the need to defend your life and person, you have the legal right to fight back with deadly force.
To quote your story. "the bill also extends immunity from criminal prosecution and civil lawsuits to the person taking justice into his or her hands, so long as another law isn't being violated"
YES EXACTLY! If a law abiding citizen is attacked or comes upon an attack about to happen or in progress, that citizen is protected by law if he tries to help. Michigan has a Good Samaritan law, consider this and extension of a Good Samaritan law. Consider your child being beaten savagely by an adult, a bystander sees this but fears to enter into the situation because they are afraid being charged with assault for hitting the person attacking your child. Should this be part of their thought process? No, of course not, but people every day do not get involved because they are afraid of getting sued or charged. The Florida law seeks to give the Good Citizen the benefit of the doubt and say yes we believe that good people will do good things if the situation arises, and if things fall apart, well at least they made an effort.
Again to quote you? "The hole in Hammer's argument is that the new Florida law will turn deadly force into a justifiable option for an untrained citizenry. Police officers get weeks of training in the use of all kinds of force, deal much more often with pressure-packed situations and still make bad judgments and deadly mistakes"?
Are you saying the police should not use armed force because they too make mistakes? Are you aware that many police only shoot their weapons once or twice a year? Are you also aware that many citizens train with their weapons on a weekly basis? are you aware that many of the people who reside in Florida are Ex military? People who have spent years in training. But even the military makes mistakes, should we disarm the military because we have had some friendly fire incidents? Or should we decide that direct action against criminal acts warrants the support of Law.
Have you had need to call 911 and ask for assistance on an emergency incident. how fast did they respond ? five minutes? Fifteen minutes till they showed up? Imagine a person with a heart attack falling in front of you, you sit there and watch them for ten minutes till they die because although you had CPR training, you were afraid to them for fear of a malpractice suit or a practicing medicine without a license charge, Is that right? Of course not, If a person has the means and know how to help someone, should they not provide assistance because of lawsuit? no. Florida had a retreat clause in the statutes. but people needed to be provided with a legal foundation to react if in their mind retreat for what ever reason was not the best policy. When I am in Florida with my mother, who is in her 80's and often restricted to a wheel chair, I will be protected by law if I stand up and defend her if the need arises.
Another quote "You can't control it, or the double message it would send to children who are told, day in and day out, to say no to violence."
Maybe you should rethink this, my children are not told day in day out to say no to violence, but rather to understand that they need to say NO to oppression, tyranny, lawlessness and criminality. My Daughter has taken self defense courses that in all likelyhood prevented her in being abducted and sexually assaulted. She responded to his attack by sticking her fingers into his eye socket. He ripped her swim suit nearly in half trying to grab her and get her into his vehicle but she FOUGHT BACK violently and aggressively and got away. Should she have just said no to violence? She was not evil nor was she irresponsible in her use of violence. Understand that there are bad people out there, who are willing able and intent on harming the good people who trust that it will never happen to you? they are not all named Abdul or Mohammed, Deadly Force is something no sane person uses with deep thought. All are affected by it. But if in the end, the use of Deadly Force prevents an innocent from being harmed by a criminal act, then it was used well.
Peter Franzen
- Status
-
Not open for further replies.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 33
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 8
- Views
- 677