Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New law gives too many people a license to kill
Miami Herald ^ | August 24, 2006 | Fred Grimm

Posted on 08/24/2006 2:21:29 PM PDT by KstoDC

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 next last
To: KstoDC

The is a reason the Miami (leftist) Herald is nervious.

Since theives will know everyone ELSE is armed, Herald reporters will be easy pickings.

Does anyone know if the Herald building uses armed guards?
Do people pass through security?
Is there a security desk?

The Herald is spining a lie, this law has ALWAYS been thus in FL.

this law is really about TORT REFORM. Real, live, and lawyer crippling tort reform.


21 posted on 08/24/2006 2:36:45 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Colorful fellows.


22 posted on 08/24/2006 2:37:26 PM PDT by youngandgungho (If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: KstoDC
What a shock.

Liberal anti gun cooks predicting blood in the streets...again! Now otherwise law abiding folks will go on a killing rampages, just because they're now allowed to, GASP, DEFEND THEMSELVES!!!

Just because they've been wrong every time before, is no reason we shouldn't listen to them now. Don't you people see how much smarter they are, and how much they care?

23 posted on 08/24/2006 2:39:29 PM PDT by Jotmo (I Had a Bad Experience With the CIA and Now I'm Gonna Show You My Feminine Side - Swirling Eddies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fighting Irish

Grimm is a fraud who writes puff pieces like this to excite people. He is hardly relevant to the real world. Since the Herald is, like all other papers, becoming smaller and smaller and has fewer advertisers. It is only a matter of time for his unemployment.


24 posted on 08/24/2006 2:39:34 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: msnimje

``If a bad guy is defending himself against another bad guy, the law applies to him, too.''


Y'know, I'm not too sure I have a problem with this...until not too long ago (40 years or so), it was a defense to a murder charge in Texas that the decedent "needed killing".


25 posted on 08/24/2006 2:41:34 PM PDT by jagusafr (The proof that we are rightly related to God is that we do our best whether we feel inspired or not")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

The point is that the new law eliminates the ambulance chaser lawyers from filing a suit and winning.

"Police say," as if police in miami have had credibility since the 1980's. Between the drug dealing cops, drop guns at crime scenes, cover ups, proven lies in the courtroom, fradulent DUI records, the cops in miami have NOTHING to say.


26 posted on 08/24/2006 2:43:33 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: TChris

I consider myself as strong on crime and do not see this as a gun control issue. It is about holding people responsible for their actions. I think this law prevents that.

Guessing that that is probably not the point of your question, I am a moderate on gun control issues. I have not problems with people owning guns and I do not have a problem with reasonable regulation.


27 posted on 08/24/2006 2:44:16 PM PDT by KstoDC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: KstoDC
So the law was put into place to help the victim of a crime to defend his property.

The two people stood there own ground. And someone killed a little girl. The person who shot the bullet is responsible for the girls death.

Why does it complicate the case? The two were thugs, one killed a person with his actions, doesn't matter if he was shooting at the other in self defense.

My guess is the prosecutor wants to try both of them for the death and can only legally prosecute one of them.
28 posted on 08/24/2006 2:44:35 PM PDT by PureTrouble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jagusafr

not in the commission of a crime. Grim is just baiting us. The worst thing that can happen to a looser like Grim is to be ignored.

He is a classic mediot. forget him and he ceases to exist.


29 posted on 08/24/2006 2:45:05 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: PureTrouble

This example shows this is about tort lawyers.

In year one law school there is the tort example of the two hunters who accidentally shoot a third person. Nobody can tell if hunter a or b fired the fatal shot.

It is a liability example.

It is her as another BS liability example.


30 posted on 08/24/2006 2:46:59 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

KstoDC registered 2006-8-24


31 posted on 08/24/2006 2:48:28 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

I registered today so that I could post this article. I like to know what people on all sides of an issue are thinking.

So far, I think it has generated quite a bit of discussion. What is the problem?


32 posted on 08/24/2006 2:51:44 PM PDT by KstoDC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: KstoDC

Greasy criminal lawyer uses self-defense law to defend criminals, so leftie editor blames law-abiding gun owners. typical all around.


33 posted on 08/24/2006 2:51:48 PM PDT by ozzymandus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KstoDC
It is about holding people responsible for their actions. I think this law prevents that.

How does this law prevent holding people responsible for their actions? A jury can still decide if his claim of self-defense is legitimate. All the law did was remove the requirement that a person must cower and retreat in the face of an attack on their life. It has done nothing whatsoever with regard to the basic question of the threat itself.

The fact that both shooters were hoodlums is beside the point, IMO. There are probably some additional circumstances that should be considered as far as other crimes, etc. But the core question of self-defense against a lethal attack remains unchanged. The jury can hear the evidence and decide.

34 posted on 08/24/2006 2:53:34 PM PDT by TChris (Banning DDT wasn't about birds. It was about power.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: KstoDC
...Damon ''Red Rock'' Darling and Leroy ''Yellow Man'' LaRose...

I guess "Double D" and "Rosie" would not have had the desired street cred effect.

35 posted on 08/24/2006 2:57:15 PM PDT by Sender (“Dream as if you'll live forever, live as if you'll die today.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TChris

A very good point. It will be interesting case to follow and to see what happens. I hope that is what happens. I want justice for Sherdavia.


36 posted on 08/24/2006 2:58:47 PM PDT by KstoDC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: KstoDC
It is about holding people responsible for their actions. I think this law prevents that.

So you think people should be arrested on the spot in the abscence of evidence of malice or for that matter, negligence?

37 posted on 08/24/2006 3:00:15 PM PDT by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: jagusafr
until not too long ago (40 years or so), it was a defense to a murder charge in Texas that the decedent "needed killing".

We changed that?? Why????

38 posted on 08/24/2006 3:03:15 PM PDT by Texican72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: KstoDC
``If a bad guy is defending himself against another bad guy, the law applies to him, too.''

In theory, if the police did their jobs, neither would legally carry a concealed weapon.

39 posted on 08/24/2006 3:27:02 PM PDT by Cobra64 (All we get are lame ideas from Republicans and lame criticism from dems about those lame ideas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fighting Irish
"...with a righteous hail of bullets."

That "hail of bullets" phrase is so inaccurate and contrived.

40 posted on 08/24/2006 3:30:44 PM PDT by Cobra64 (All we get are lame ideas from Republicans and lame criticism from dems about those lame ideas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson