Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Shoot First, Ask Questions Later Gun Laws Empower Criminals

Posted 2 years ago on March 26, 2012, 9:58 p.m. EST by Puzzlin (2898)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

These "stand your ground" laws empower the criminal gun happy people blast our brains out as long they claim self defense with no witnesses. Airtight. This is how these laws work. The NRA drowned out all rational voices telling the genius law makers that dire consequences would ensue if these laws passed. But nobody heard it. We turned into the wild wild west and we didn't even know it.

Johnny and Sally git your guns because the bullets will be a flyin' now that we have our god blessid new founded freedom. The evidence has become clear and abundant. We have turned a new corner in America. More guns than ever. Never has there been more guns in America then right now. Hee Haw! I'm ready, are you?

I could suggest a gun, but you'll have to consider your own application of immediate security. Generally, you'll want to be pre-loaded, snap the safety and quick shoot. He who gets off the first shot at close range wins. Big guns are harder to conceal, must always consider the application. In public concealment is important and not to be taken lightly.

Anyway, please let me know how we can explore the uses of our newly founded freedom of justifiable homicide. I have personally experienced having a gun held in my face when I was ten years old so I know first-hand that helpless feeling of having no defense. I ended up running and the shot didn't come. But, in a moment, I was really there, I couldn't see anything but the end of the chamber, and, in a way, I always will. There's more that happens, it's more physical, it's like getting close to passing out. Anyway, enough there. I think most of us, given the circumstances would kill to survive. But FEAR can override the crap out of us. People with too much are more likely to kill and therefore wouldn't be very wise under fire.

Anyway, I spoke my piece. We don't need to stand ground when the madman comes. I say run. If I get cornered, and the criminal catches up, and he's armed with a gun, it's bang bang time. I'm a pretty good shot but it all happens too fast. First bullet with a name on it wins. Since I was ten I stared death down plenty of times. When it's time I'll go reluctantly.

14 Comments

14 Comments


Read the Rules

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

That's quite a misrepresentation of the "stand your ground laws."

They do not empower criminals; they allow average Americans, who feel the police can no longer adequately protect them in many circumstances to arm themselves and protect themselves, without retreating, if they believe they are in imminent danger.

The idea is that no one, who has a legitimate reason for being in a given location, should be forced to retreat from a grievous threat. Frankly, I don't see anything wrong with such a law, given the society in which we live.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

Titus says: "...average Americans who feel the police can no longer adequately protect them in many circumstances to arm themselves and protect themselves..."

The police can no longer protect us?

So when was it that they could they protect us? The good old days?

And, yes, this stupid law does empower the criminals.

Have you been paying attention to the Trayvon Martin case? Did he deserve to die?

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

I don't know whether Trayvon Martin "deserved" to die. I don't have all the facts; neither do you.

You make my case when you rhetorically ask, "So when was they could protect us?"

People have a right to protect themselves from imminent danger without retreating, which was the purpose of the "stand your ground" laws.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

The fact is Zimmerman should have been arrested that night. And as we now know, the lead investigator recommended it and SOMEONE went against his recommendation.

If you think the Sanford police have been doing a wonderful job down there then you are almost alone in your belief based on a lack of evidence.

The Puzzler

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

The fact is the police did not arrest him. I don't know anything about the Sanford police aside from a lot of spin, especially from those advocating a quick lynching.

Why don't we wait for a thorough investigation before charging or arresting anyone. You may want to read this article to get a more complete picture of the incident and of Trayvon Martin: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/trayvon-martin-shooting-details-emerge-facebook-twitter-accounts-180103647.html

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

What you kidding?

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

Is this a joke? The police had every right and should have arrested Zimmerman. Somebody made some sly deal and yes we know soon about that. Since he wasn't arrested, it was the very reason the police chief had to step down.

Zimmerman can wait in jail which is where he should be. It's disgraceful.

Are you republican? It does seem most republicans side with the shooter here since they love these gun happy laws. Shoot first, ask questions later and go free.

You like that Titus, is that what your hankering for?

You own a gun, like to conceal it and take it for a walk in public?

[-] 0 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

Yes, I own a gun, actually quite a few guns. I don't conceal any gun, since I don't have a concealed-weapon permit, but if someone entered my house uninvited, I would not wait for the police to respond; I would use the gun at hand, disregarding the vilification I would most certain suffer.

As to my political party, currently I am not registered, since I believe voting is a waste of time, just as I believe talking nicely to an aggressor is a waste of time.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

Well, Titus, you seem to be quite honest and I can't fault you on that. In fact, I applaud you. I used to own a gun but it was stolen. I not against people defending themselves. But it's always better to run away.

I had a gun held to my head when I was ten years old so I know exactly what it's like to be on that end. I could kill if I had to, no doubt about it. But dreadful fear can cause the gun play to go horribly wrong. If your not nervous and not easily rattled you can use the gun responsibly.

Standing ground is for soldiers in combat fighting an obvious enemy but not for the general public. That is bullshit! I learned this very well when I learned karate and stopped being fearful of others wiping me off the earth. If you have a chip on your shoulder somebody will knock it off, it's not an excuse to kill. I fear the idiots with guns like the one that found at the ripe age of ten.

You should vote but I imagine you already know this. And no you don't have to, it's your right to exercise anyway you want, but still, you should. Anyway, let's just try to find some truth out of this chaos which our lives play out in.

The Puzzler

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

Absolutely agreed, except for the voting, which I no longer believe will change American life for the better.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

Well, this may surprise you, but I share your pessimism. But, I decided to be with the minority who really pay attention and know when we get smoke blown up you know where. We have crooked useless politicians because they not accountable to anyone because mostly they aren't watched and get a free ride. They appeal the worse in people because they angered hateful people do vote because this compels them.

I'm out on a limb because I'm only compelled by the evident truth, and nothing else.

You do seem to be well grounded. It would be wonderful if you joined with those few of us who get off in putting out the self evident truth even if it's in an echo chamber. We're in good company however, Thomas Jefferson stands solidly with us even though he left the planet 186 years ago.

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Thomas Jefferson

I really love the part about unalienable rights. The way I see it is if someone wants to take away my rights, the only way it could ever be possible is over my dead body. And I mean it. I not living here without them, ever.

My father fought in WWII and from him I know about what a good fight is. I don't shy away from that fight. It's the main reason I never stop. It's why I'm here now. Without it, I just wouldn't be here at all.

Good Luck Titus! Thanks for the good conversation! We always have more to learn and we never have to stop. It's the good part of this life. I think it's why we're here anyway.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

Here's a link to the gun laws, state by state. As we all realize now, it's important to know them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_%28by_state%29




[Removed]

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Here is the actual text of the law:

The 2011 Florida Statutes

Title XLVI CRIMES Chapter 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE View Entire Chapter

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or

(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or

(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

(5) As used in this section, the term:

(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.

(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.

(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property. History.—s. 1, ch. 2005-27.

Here is the link if you want to read the entire text:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

"he right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another"

In this case, the slippery slope is: reasonably believes and the criminal move freight train through there. It is this along with no witnesses and legal murder is not only possible it's already happening exactly this way and will now happen much more frequently as criminals cover their rear ends after the killing.

Who wouldn't protect themselves even if they know their wrong. It's typical human behavior. Yes, there's always the exceptions but aren't those heroes because it's so unexpected.

So, who still doesn't get it. Think about it. Judge. Jury. and a GUN.

The Puzzler

[Removed]