Harrowing tales create support for deadly force bill

[forgethell]

http://www.news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050211/NEWS01/502110430/1075

[iverglas]

1. fascinating

The National Rifle Association-backed bill establishes a legal presumption a home intruder is there to do bodily harm. Any use of deadly force by a homeowner is then justified by definition. The same presumption applies to someone who forcibly enters a car.

"I became an NRA enthusiast after I was attacked," King said of an incident 10 years ago. "I was in bed, he came into my bedroom, held a gun to my head and said, 'I'm going to kill you, you fat son of a bitch.'"

And the good Senator King would need a legal presumption to tell him that he had grounds for using all necessary force again the individual in question because ... he's too stupid to figure it out for himself?

Its changes would alter the experience of Sen. Evelyn Lynn. The Ormond Beach Republican said she twice has awakened to intruders in her bedroom. Twice, she screamed and they ran off. Twice, police came to her house and warned her if she had shot a fleeing intruder she could have been subject to prosecution.

That wouldn't be the case under the bill sponsored by Peaden, a Crestview Republican. An intruder, while in the house or apartment, is fair game for deadly force by the resident.

"The basic premise: shoot the sucker in the house," King said.

I think I'll email Sen. King and suggest that he introduce a bill requiring all burglars to wear fluorescent vests emblazoned with big round targets, and shackles, just to make sure they don't get away and the householder doesn't waste ammunition firing off anything other than fatal shots.

Yeah -- here we go:

"There's nothing that's aroused the support that this has," King said. "As far as our area of Florida, they think it's long overdue and ought to be just the start and not the finish."

A mandatory extra three years for burglars who manage not to die and who weren't wearing their targets and shackles. But why stop there?

C'mon, let's help the fat son of a bitch out. Post your suggestions here, and I'll send 'em on.


(typo fixed)

[MrSandman]

2. It is the castle doctrine...

Which already is observed in many states...Not in WV.

In WV, I have a duty to retreat. If there is an armed invader in my home, I must make all reasonable attempts to retreat prior to using leathal force. What if my kids are in the other part of the house? I truthfully do not know whether I would be in violation if I did not retreat to avoid abandoning them. Probably not in violation.

Anyone who invades an occupied home is presumed to be a lethal threat under this doctrine. In most instances, this doctrine will not be relevant.

Even in a state with this doctrine, very few will employ lethal force without making attempts to retreat. OTOH, home invaders know that residents will consider their threat lethal.

[Lefty48197]

3. Senator gets assaulted, springs into action ten years later

Gosh, I'd hate to think how long it would take him to react if one of our lives had been endangered!
Funny how existing law would have given him the right to shoot that intruder, yet he still feels the need for new legislation? And he spent ten years thinking this up?

[Massacure]

4. Fine. Anyone stupid enough to break into a house deserves to be shot.

How bout shooting them is punishment enough and we not throw them in prison if they are shot?

[forgethell]

5. Where's the logic in that?

Shooting them is a defensive measure done, not by society, but by the intended victim. Prison is to 1)take them out of cirucaltion for a while so that they don't have the chance to do it again, 2)give thenm a chance to consider the error of their ways and the relationship between actions and consequences and 3) make a statement about how society feels about these crimes.

[Massacure]

8. I was being sarcastic.

Sorry I didn't make it clearer.

[forgethell]

9. Sorry I misunderstood n/t

[aikoaiko]

6. I support this law, but it will come with unintended consequences

I like the law because it makes explicit that it is reasonable for someone to fear for their life or loved one when someone intrudes into his/her home with or without a weapon and saying threats against life.

I always thought homeowners being prosecuted because they didn't retreat, because the intruder didn't have a gun, or because the person had a knife and the homeowner a gun was unreasonable. I'm not an expert on all states but I think I've heard of cases being prosecuted because homeowners didn't retreat or the prosecutor made the case that the homeowner with a gun shouldn't have feared for his/her life because the intruder didn't have a gun (i.e., excessive force).

Of course, it is possible (and likely) that this law will be used as a defense for people who shoot someone and then falsely claim the victim was an intruder. And if this law makes it more likely that people use deadly force, then nondangerous intruders (including people with no harmful intentions at all) may be shot in higher numbers. The former case of abuse of the law and the latter case of accidents seem like reasonable things to live with in order to help the homeowner defend him- or herself.

I hope Georgia follows Florida's example.

[forgethell]

7. Highly doubt

that many cases of the former will appear. There will be an investigation inany event, and if evidence surfaces of bad blood between the two, murder charges could be brought. Besides, what is the shootee doing in the shooter's house if there is a grudge between them?

In the second case, so what? No one is an intruder in someone else's house with malice aforethought. Maybe they didn't intend to kill anyone, but maybe they intended to burglarize the place. This is a risk they willingly assumed, sorta like rollerblading down the freeway, or placing their hands on a hot stove.

[aikoaiko]

11. Yeah, I'm still for the law, but just acknowledging that it may

...come with some unintended consequences.

More good than harm.

[MrSandman]

12. Kind of like when the AWB passed...

and AW sales skyrocketed...nt

[forgethell]

13. there are always unintended

consequences. but not always unexpected or unknown ones. yeah, there may be a few accidents or a few murders, but they happen now. but one thing for sure, there will be less burglaries.

[skippythwndrdog]

10. Sounds great!

I think it is a fair assumption that a home invader is there to to harm. I am a big fan of this bill.

[MyMouth]

14. Sounds good

Intruders getting shot is 100% preventable. Stop. Breaking. Into. People's. Homes.

Is it me, or has the concept of "He had it coming to him" been really waning in recent times? I'm 32, can anyone older clue me in as to how it was "back in the day"?

[iverglas]

15. "back in the day"

Ah yes ... the days when we swung from trees ... some of us not voluntarily ...

[MyMouth]

16. Please clarify?

I was asking if some of our older members here could clue me in as to what things were like when they were younger.

Do I deserve your insults and condescension for being inquisitive? Or were you stating that senior citizens are somehow ape-like?

[iverglas]

17. bad day?

You said:

Intruders getting shot is 100% preventable. Stop. Breaking. Into. People's. Homes.

Gosh, that intervening-step thing matters sometimes, but not others.

When yer firearm is stolen and used to kill somebody, why, that was an intervening step that absolves y'all of all responsibility and blame.

When somebody breaks into yer house and y'all kill him/her, why, that isn't an intervening step. No sirree. Break into house, get shot dead. It's some kind of law of physics, I think.

Now, given that it isn't actually (c'mon, admit it) a law of physics, maybe there really is some other way of preventing the people in question from getting shot. Like ... by not shooting them.

And by imposing a legal requirement that anybody who does shoot them will expect to have to meet: that s/he demonstrate that the shooting was necessary, to put it somewhat over-simply.


I was asking if some of our older members here could clue me in as to what things were like when they were younger.

Yep, and I did.

Going back a little farther than when I was younger: we were all swinging from trees, and had no compunctions at all about bashing somebody who stole our coconut over the head with said coconut -- and no rules that told us not to do that, and no punishment for doing it, as long as we won the fight.

Going back only as far as when I was younger: the concept of "he had it coming to him" that you cited was precisely the reason why some of us ended up swinging from trees less voluntarily. You recall "lynch mobs", right? (Damn, isn't explaining wordplay fun?) How if you ... allegedly ... did (or even were) something that your neighbours didn't approve of, they sometimes just gave you what you had coming to you? Or, at least, what they believed you had coming to you?

The concept of "the rule of law" is one that you might want to look into.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

19. nah

You wish to make the world a safer place for the law BREAKING.
Care to write a novella as to why that is so?

I'll just offer the friendly suggestion that you be careful what you get up to.

Somebody who objects to you jaywalking might just take a shot at you. And if you die, you'll apparently just have nobody to blame but yourself. After all, your death was completely preventable. All you had to do was not break the law.

And damn, it would be such a shame if the person who shot you had been looking at the wrong traffic light, and you weren't actually jaywalking at all ...

Remember, when it happens, that I did my best to stop it.


I sincerely hope that this post is dripping with 10% of the condescension any random post of yours is stuffed with, but I aspire to increase that to 45% eventually. Please be patient, though, as I'm still learning.

Of no interest to me, but objectively, a mark of D+. Another tip, though: ya can't condescend from a position lower than the one yer lobbing yer stuff at.

Did you know that "condescend" originally meant something good? If you'd read Jane Austin, you'd know. I know that not everyone has Dr. Johnson's 1756 treatise at hand, so I'll share:

CONDESCEND
To depart voluntarily from the privileges of superiority; to sink willingly to equal terms with inferiors. To consent to do more than mere justice can require. ...

Treating one's (social) inferiors like equals -- condescending to them, or, one might say, descending with them -- was regarded as going above and beyond good manners. Say thank you, now.