Posted on 06/11/2006 5:24:08 AM PDT by Brilliant
Self-defense shooting claims since Jan. 1 What 'Stand your ground' does:
Enacted Oct. 1, the law says that a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and who is attacked has no duty to retreat and has the right to 'stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.'
Michael Brady didn't think about his rights when he shot and killed a stranger in his front yard. He says he was just scared.
Brady is one of at least 13 people in Central Florida who pulled the trigger this year under a new law that loosens restrictions on the use of deadly force in self-defense.
They killed six men and wounded four more. All but one of the people shot were unarmed. So far, three of the shooters have been charged. Five have been cleared; the other cases are under review.
It is too early to tell whether the law makes Floridians safer or puts them at greater risk. There are no statistics on the number of self-defense claims statewide before or after the law took effect Oct. 1.
But an Orlando Sentinel review of five months of court records in Orange, Osceola, Lake, Polk, Seminole and Volusia counties shows widespread differences in the way claims are investigated and prosecuted.
The head of the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association said the law has given people who are too quick to fire a weapon "another defense."...
"You're not talking about freaks and geeks slinging guns around like Dirty Harry. . ." said Brady, 43, of Winter Haven, who in April killed a stranger who was threatening him with his fist...
(Excerpt) Read more at orlandosentinel.com ...
First, the obvious question is whether these kinds of shootings have increased since the law was passed. The writer avoids that question, so I suspect the answer is "No."
Second, it's mystifying how this law could be blamed for all of these shootings when the law doesn't even apply to a lot of them, as demonstrated that 3 of the shooters are in fact being prosecuted and 5 more of the cases are under review.
They add this at the end:
Henry Pierson Curtis can be reached at 407-420-5257 or hcurtis@orlandosentinel.com.
They all deserve a prize from the top shelf.
Sounds like the writer is including some random shootings that have nothing to do with self defense.
Well, I don't about that--especially the cop who was drinking and started shooting at a party. What it shows is that these laws can also be abused by criminals who pull the trigger, and then try to justify it by this law. But that really isn't the issue, I don't think. To me, the issue is whether the law is causing unnecessary shootings to increase. The writer doesn't really address that.
The ones that are being prosecuted - the writer goes into zero detail.
The rest of the shootings happened on the victims own property.
Wasn't the Brady Bunch screaming of rampant "road rage" if this law passed? And yet the writer chose not to pursue that either.
look at all the court costs and prison space it saves
A couple of years ago a local cop (Jackson Mi.) who got drunk and became angry about a neighbors party started shooting. That sort of thing happens with or without these laws.
the print media today is one gigantic editorial...that's why we hear the screams of a dying sector of the 'news'....what the internet, especially FR has done is to get out the real word on practically everything and the MSM can only sputter and rage......
in the Atlanta Constitution yesterday the headline "Did Marines Kill al-Zarqawi?" the average person reading this would get a typical one-sided depiction of what the AJC wants its readers to know, nothing more......well, those days are over....
This is not an objective piece of news reporting, even though it falsely masquerades as such.
There is nothing in the article that proves that "the gun law caused the shootings."
The only difference I see is how the shootings are handled by the prosecutor.
As usual, the msm gets it wrong.
There are no statistics on the number of self-defense claims statewide before or after the law took effect Oct. 1.
These two sentences would seem to conflict with each other.
The Orlando Sentinel is a full fledged, lisp talking, homo encouraging, Disney boot licking, socialist commune cheer leader.
They cheered on the rats when they forcably entered Republican party offices around the city during the '04' election.
They have back every socialist, Constitution breaking law ever proposed.
They devote volumns of print to their cherised Disney Gay Days.
If it wasn't that they were complete idiots, they could compete with the NY Times for the Masters of Socialism awards.
Oh sthop it you brute...LOL
It ain't just the print media, either. In fact, I think the "print media sector" was actually the last "real news" sector to succumb to propagandizing. The "video media" fell long ago.
"Michael Brady didn't think about his rights when he shot and killed a stranger in his front yard. He says he was just scared."
Like the old saying goes:
"An Armed society is a polite society"
Drive-by media at it again.... selective use of statistics (some that are not even applicable to the story) to justify a leftist anti-gun, and anti-self defense viewpoint.
You can also add that we must first know more about each of those incidents. It states that "all but one of the people shot were unarmed."
Well, if they were people "of dubious intent" going up against women or clearly weaker potential victims, then who cares.
As well, does "unarmed" mean w/o a gun? What about a knife that may be hidden, or open? Was that considered "armed" or not? How about a screwdriver? Or a hammer?
The only difference I see is how the shootings are handled by the prosecutor.
As usual, the msm gets it wrong.
Solid point.
>>Just the title to the article tells you the point of view of the author from the get-go. <<
General comment - not specific to this article.
Titles are generated by staff independent of the writer of the article. Agencies know that most only read the headline and they often play loose and fancy to promote their agenda. I once had a two-week running debate before the local newspaper would retract their headline which was NOT supported in the article and, in fact, was false.
Of course, the writers know that most of those that read beyond the headline read only the first paragraph or two so they put their agenda driven point in the first and the "other-side" at the end where it is continued on page B-23 that few ever read.
(Denny Crane: "Every one should carry a gun strapped to their waist. We need more - not less guns.")
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.