I just did some quick checking and it seems that the number of crimes and violent crimes in Florida in the first half of 2007 is higher than it was during the same time period in 2006. State officials have stated that the trend cannot be analyzed accurately until population and demographic data are released for the state and yearly crime statistics are released. State attorneys also commented that gangs have become more prevalent over the past year; it's worth noting that a huge portion of perpetrators and victims of acquaintance murders, robberies, and "child" murders (includes people up to age 24) are gang members, so we'll have to wait and see how the trend changed, if at all. There's also the slowdown of the economy to consider as a factor in property crime and robbery.
Overall, it looks like this new law in Florida may not have caused a decrease in violent crime, but it certainly hasn't caused the blood in the streets that anti-gun groups warned about. I suspect that the trend of increasing crime rate from last year that prompted this law will continue pretty much unchanged when population growth is factored in.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
All in all, what these laws imply is that the public is capable of making decisions that are normally within the realm of law enforcement. Ideally, it means the public is given responsibility beyond what is normally expected of them. It is a responsibility typically reserved for those who are both empowered and held accountable for enforcing laws and keeping the peace.
|
These laws very simple give people the right to defend themselves in public as they would in their home. I would probably err on the side of just giving the guy what he wants, but at the first sign of "Oh shit, I might die," he's on the ground while I call the police and make an attempt to perform first aid until medics arrive.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Strange Famous
The only justified reason to kill in self defence is to defend your own life, or the lives of others.
I agree with everyone who has said that to kill to defend property is unjustified.
I personally have been burgled this year. Did it piss me off? Of course. Would I for one second have considered killing the person who broke into my house, ending a human life, so that I could keep $2000 worth of consumer goods? Not for a second.
|
I also would not kill to defend property. Burglary is a crime against property and robbery is a crime against a person. If I caught someone running off with my TV (aside from the comedy factor of seeing a normal-sized human carry that thing,) I would call the police and file a report, and probably look around the neighborhood for a guy crushed under a 200 pound TV. It's only when a criminal displays will and intent to kill unjustly that I would consider preemptively using lethal force to defend myself. I also think I'd be more likely to use lethal force in defense of others around me.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
Perhaps, perhaps not. It is commendable of you, should you do. I've simply read of too many cases of public disorder that I believe laws such as these should be heavily scrutinized. There is no sense making it easer for people to kill one another without valid reason. There is a lot of room for corrupt practices.
|
Again, these laws only permit people to defend themselves when they reasonably believe that they are in imminent danger of death or severe bodily harm. It removes the duty to retreat if it isn't reasonable or possible to do so safely.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
"'Tis better to die while covered by warranty than be denied by best buy's shitty quality assurance plan."
|
I know you were being facetious, but I want to mention that you'll probably wish you were dead if you bought a service plan from Best Buy and actually tried to get the product serviced.