Florida, where murder is legal

Post Reply New Topic

You've clearly made up your mind. You're not going to persuade Roman or I any differently on the issue - so lets just put that aside and get back to the more interesting discussion. I believe there's another thread where you can go spout off on the evils of guns and how morally repressed those who carry them are.

I wasn't aware that open carry was *ever* statutorily legal in Illinois. The Heller & McDonald decisions were disappointing in that they completely avoided the issue of carry. Hopefully that will be addressed soon enough with states like Illinois and California.

Hi sliqua-jcooter,

Since your fog is so thick, have you considered following your own advice with your spout?

I do not wish to meet your standards of evil, nor your self-proclaimed impossible to reach levels of degrees as if required persuasion.

This thread of interest is about the Philosophy/Politics(Legalities)/Religion of "Florida, where murder is legal".

Tadzio

Here’s a few samples of just off of the first page and a half of this thread of what I’m talking about.





There have been a lot more threads than this one on this general topic over the years on WP. They have started with news stories or polls, all somehow gun related, and have gone on for several pages. Just do a search for the word "guns" on this site and see for yourself.
The anti-gun side has never been able to come to these discussions with anything that gives credit to their arguments. Always wanting “reasonable gun laws” although we already have loads of federal, state, city, etc. gun laws that have been growing a lot more than shrinking over the course of history. Some of them are far beyond "reasonable" to say the least.
When those fail to make an impact the cry goes up for more gun laws, conveniently and tastelesly riding the wave of a recent tragedy or two…
Sound familiar?
Some of them will tell you outright that guns have no place in modern society and should be totally banned.

This thread, although the original post is a bit hysterical, is about a case of an alleged illegal shooting. Instead of examining the shooting itself like I’d hoped we've had post after post attacking a law you claim to support. When you separate the wheat from the chaff you'll find they are against armed citizens and therefor enablers of the kind of predators we arm ourselves against.

I am definitely in support of the stand your ground law - however, people have brought up a good point in that there is a second law on the record in Florida (I think Tadzio brought it up here, but I didn't actually understand what was meant until I read a more sane explanation on another forum) that provides immunity from prosecution for cases where the homicide is proved justifiable. This I don't agree with, because instead of providing an affirmative defense like most other states, it actually pressures prosecutors to avoid pressing charges even in cases where there is substantial evidence pointing to a bad shoot.

If I shoot someone in self defense - I expect to be arrested, and possibly charged - it's then time for me to get a lawyer and get the charges dropped afterward. I don't need some law that pressures prosecutors to not even attempt to charge me just because I could sue them for quite a lot of money if I win.

Hi Raptor,

The original post has the paradox involving illegal laws. Under the Florida Law, without the curly-Q polemics, it involves a "legally" presumed LEGAL shooting. Such a shooting being presumed LEGAL is outrageous, and by other Florida Laws and by Federal Laws, the Law making the outrageous killing presumed LEGAL is itself illegal (NULL & VOID, but in an ideal "World Court", the particular Law itself is, or is near, "A Crime Against Humanity", as various Middle Eastern Countries appear to be presently & previously exemplifying). Whether or not the deceased automatically becomes "criminal" from the consequences of the presumed LEGAL shooting is a subsequent conclusion also involving additional outrageous legal logic.

As to your continued spiel of "When you separate the wheat from the chaff you'll find they are against armed citizens and therefor enablers of the kind of predators we arm ourselves against", while Dracula could have used mirrors to check who's in back of him, do you use mirrors to attack that well-armed person coming at you in your own reflection??? The mirror business must be hot & crackling as such.

Tadzio

Open carry is legal here. I do think that if people walk into a store with the idea to rob it, they will pick another store if they see a customer in there with a gun on his hip. I think it is a deterrant. If you know that the probability is high that you are going to get shot, you will take your chances in a place that has a lower probability. And, like Cornflake said in his post, in areas where there are no guns at all (not just a law against guns, but actually no guns) then there is no gun violence.

The practical downside of a place with no guns is that there would be no trips to the shooting range, but I suppose that's irrelevant to the discussion here.

EDIT: completely agree, btw - though that should be somewhat obvious

Last edited by sliqua-jcooter on 25 Mar 2012, 1:00 am, edited 1 time in total.

QFT


I'm leaning towards thinking this particular law is bad, but the verbiage being used against it is extremely unpersuasive. Hysterical ranting about how "murder is legal in florida, OMG" is just silly. If you guys had supported your assertion with facts and logic instead of emotional hyperbole, you might have persuaded me already.

So, there's actually 2 main laws being talked about here. The one everybody is going crazy over is the "stand your ground" law - which basically provides that, in a situation where a person has reason to believe they are in grave danger, they do not have the "duty to retreat", meaning that they can use their gun in self-defense without having to make some kind of effort to remove themselves from the situation.

The reason this law was passed was because in such a situation, it is almost never possible to retreat from the situation without putting yourself in unknown danger (for example, facing a guy in an alley with a knife who is threatening to kill you - you would have to turn your back on the attacker to retreat).

The other law is an "immunity from prosecution" law, which basically states that anyone who is involved in a self-defense shooting cannot have charges brought against them (meaning that, if a prosecutor tried to charge you with manslaughter and failed - you could sue them for quite a large sum of money). The law was created to deter prosecutors from harassing people who are legally justified in employing deadly force - but it has the side effect of pressuring prosecutors from not bringing charges against people unless they are 100% sure they can win in court because they're afraid of the repercussions if they lose. This is the principal obstacle to officially arresting/charging Mr. Zimmerman in this case, and I absolutely believe this law should be stricken. It's unnecessary and impractical.

So in the USA there is a law which says the prosecutor alone must be judge and jury in these "shoot to kill" cases and can be prosecuted himself for getting it wrong! WOW. You guys have some wierd laws.

I guess it is a way of getting around the expense of the court system and giving the judge the day off.
Much cheaper to buy a gun than hire a lawyer.

So an individual decides if another is a threat and whether or not to kill him for it, then the prosecutor decides whether or not the shooter is guilty, without ever bothering the courts except for sentencing.

The problem with this is that no-one is having to make the dead guy's point of view a priority. That would be the jury's job, shouldn't the dead guy have some rights to a fair trial, even if it occurs after he is shot for the crime? Even for his family? Even if he was guilty.

First instance the shooter only has to consider his own postion before shooting. Its very obvious the dead guy was at danger of death just before he died, but no-one considers that, its only about the shooter's opinion of his own danger.

Then the prosecutor must only consider if he can prove the shooter to be lying, difficult at the best of times.

He cannot refer the matter to the courts to decide because the law states innocent people cannot be brought to court for this.
Isn't everyone supposed to be innocent til proven guilty in a court of law?

So he is only allowed to bring guilty people to court while at the same time presuming their innocence? WTF

Without even touching the "facts" of this case as they're so widely disputed, I really have to wonder what it is about this particular incident that's gotten the net so riled when widespread and far more egregious police abuse is so common. This is basically a bad self defense shoot coupled with a seemingly cursory investigation from a lax police force, and a fairly isolated incident to boot. I follow civil liberties and firearms laws and incidents very closely, and this particular story, while tragic, is an outlier for both the circumstances surrounding it and the official response. Now these other stories from Florida alone are far more commonplace and much worse, and yet did not receive nearly the media response this shooting has:

http://www.tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dl ... /805120325

http://www.theagitator.com/2007/07/30/i ... ry-update/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/1 ... 92412.html

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20 ... LE/4201060

http://www.theagitator.com/2005/10/13/a ... -update-2/

(H/T Radley Balko)

So where was the outrage then? What makes this so different?
As a veteran of many a gun and self defense argument skirmish, I can't help but see ulterior motives here, as capitalizing on tragedy is de rigueur for the anti-gun set.

It could be minority vs. minority not only due to Zimmerman being a white Hispanic, but considering that Zimmerman is a common Jewish name (although I am not sure if George Zimmerman is Jewish), I fear another Crown Heights could be at hand.

Get this straight. Murder is NOT legal in Florida, but self-defense using deadly force IS legal under particular specified circumstances.

ruveyn

This Zimmerman punk is still walking free, so I think you are full of crap.

Besides, the point was on how backwards it is that we can kill people for little or no real cause in Florida with no consequences at all, but we throw cancer and AIDS patients in prison if they smoke a joint of marijuana.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 193338.htm

http://norml.org/news/2007/06/28/cannab ... erformance

Am I the only one who thinks that there is something wrong with this picture? Oh, and I don't do cannabis sativa. Kind of like inositol, it makes me feel uncomfortably like I have cotton stuffed in my ears. The point is, we have the most backward and revolting laws on Earth in this country.

And whose fault is that? It ain't hard to figure out!