Fairlane63
Member
From the Pensacola News Journal-- a paper that I find to be pretty pathetic on non-gun issues too...
"I suppose a state where everyone is presumed armed and dangerous would deter crime to some extent."-- at least she got that part right.
http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050923/OPINION/509230307/1020
Published - September, 23, 2005
New law raises your risk on the street
Chemarryn [email protected]
There's lots of spin out there.
But there's one fact that can't be manipulated by those left or right of center: No man is perfect. There may be those who are closer to perfection than others, but all of us make mistakes.
Because man is not perfect, it would defy logic to assume that every law made by man is infallible. The act of amending or rescinding laws wouldn't be necessary if that were true.
Most decent citizens will abide by the law, even when their principles come into conflict with the legislation. Laws, after all, are the modern-day commandments that protect and serve us.
But what happens when a law goes into effect that shakes your very core? A law that gives Floridians the right to take a life, as long as those who feel threatened are where they have "a right to be"?
What happens when a law goes into effect that masquerades as self-defense for you and your loved ones, but actually places them in more danger than they would be without it?
Senate Bill 436, which takes effect Oct. 1, is just that kind of law.
The bill "provides that a person is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for using deadly force" unless probable cause exists showing the force was unlawful.
I am a fan of self-defense; I firmly believe that if you are threatened or in imminent physical harm, you should act quickly and appropriately. Prior to SB 436, however, there already were laws in place regarding self-defense.
We need laws to discourage killing, not encourage it.
This law does not help me and you -- clear-thinking people who live our day-to-day lives with little or no thought of ill will toward others.
It helps the tiny minority of those who would do harm, giving them a reason to believe their way of doing things is not only the right way, but the lawful one.
Floridians had the right to use deadly force while defending themselves in public as long as they attempted to retreat beforehand. Believing that was too much to ask, SB 436 declares "that a person has no duty to retreat" and to meet "force with force" as long as that person is where he or she "has a right to be."
Proponents of the law argue that now citizens should feel safer, knowing they have the same right to protect themselves outside of their homes as they do inside. I believe, however, that the average citizen is not often, if at all, armed with a deadly weapon outside of his or her home. On the other hand, the average person looking to do harm just might be.
So what are we left with? Citizens armed at all times because, if they are not armed, what good does the law do them? I suppose a state where everyone is presumed armed and dangerous would deter crime to some extent.
But, then again, I wonder about questionable individuals who might seek to abuse and take advantage of a law that gives them the green light to take a life in the name of self-defense wherever they have the "right to be."
You should wonder if your loved ones are truly in less danger when such a law goes into effect next month.
News Journal staffer Chemarryn Thornton is a graduate of the Savannah College of Art and Design.
"I suppose a state where everyone is presumed armed and dangerous would deter crime to some extent."-- at least she got that part right.
http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050923/OPINION/509230307/1020
Published - September, 23, 2005
New law raises your risk on the street
Chemarryn [email protected]
There's lots of spin out there.
But there's one fact that can't be manipulated by those left or right of center: No man is perfect. There may be those who are closer to perfection than others, but all of us make mistakes.
Because man is not perfect, it would defy logic to assume that every law made by man is infallible. The act of amending or rescinding laws wouldn't be necessary if that were true.
Most decent citizens will abide by the law, even when their principles come into conflict with the legislation. Laws, after all, are the modern-day commandments that protect and serve us.
But what happens when a law goes into effect that shakes your very core? A law that gives Floridians the right to take a life, as long as those who feel threatened are where they have "a right to be"?
What happens when a law goes into effect that masquerades as self-defense for you and your loved ones, but actually places them in more danger than they would be without it?
Senate Bill 436, which takes effect Oct. 1, is just that kind of law.
The bill "provides that a person is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for using deadly force" unless probable cause exists showing the force was unlawful.
I am a fan of self-defense; I firmly believe that if you are threatened or in imminent physical harm, you should act quickly and appropriately. Prior to SB 436, however, there already were laws in place regarding self-defense.
We need laws to discourage killing, not encourage it.
This law does not help me and you -- clear-thinking people who live our day-to-day lives with little or no thought of ill will toward others.
It helps the tiny minority of those who would do harm, giving them a reason to believe their way of doing things is not only the right way, but the lawful one.
Floridians had the right to use deadly force while defending themselves in public as long as they attempted to retreat beforehand. Believing that was too much to ask, SB 436 declares "that a person has no duty to retreat" and to meet "force with force" as long as that person is where he or she "has a right to be."
Proponents of the law argue that now citizens should feel safer, knowing they have the same right to protect themselves outside of their homes as they do inside. I believe, however, that the average citizen is not often, if at all, armed with a deadly weapon outside of his or her home. On the other hand, the average person looking to do harm just might be.
So what are we left with? Citizens armed at all times because, if they are not armed, what good does the law do them? I suppose a state where everyone is presumed armed and dangerous would deter crime to some extent.
But, then again, I wonder about questionable individuals who might seek to abuse and take advantage of a law that gives them the green light to take a life in the name of self-defense wherever they have the "right to be."
You should wonder if your loved ones are truly in less danger when such a law goes into effect next month.
News Journal staffer Chemarryn Thornton is a graduate of the Savannah College of Art and Design.
