Legal To Shoot Radio Stunt Participants?

[Dale]

Three people handcuffed and dressed as jail inmates were hitch hiking on a highway. It was a stunt put on by radio station WXTB in conjunction with a FOX network show, Prison Break. This is in an August 12 Associated Press story from Land O'Lakes, FL.

Between thirty and forty motorists called the Sheriff's Department, which was not amused. Kevin Doll, a spokesman for the Pasco County Sheriff, said that under Florida law, any motorist who felt threatened could have shot the masquerading stunt participants.

He is referring to the recently adopted "Castle Doctrine" law, which Jeb Bush signed surrounded by NRA officals(not by law enforcement). The "Castle Doctrine" does not mean what it says, for it not only gives people the right to shoot in their own home, but anywhere and any time they feel threatened.

I live in Florida and before this sweeping new law was passed I never heard one person say there was anything wrong with Florida law on self-defense. The new law isn't needed, it is just a series of disasters waiting to happen.

Associated Press story:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/INMATE_STUNT?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=customwire.htm

 

[Victory of the Cross]

remind me never to dress like an inmate while in florida

 

[TheRedFox]

Whenever threatened? On what basis? Where's the line drawn? I can think of an example that happened here in California. Someone felt threatened because someone was tailgating their car. So what happened? They shot them - one shot behind their car and they killed the tailgating driver instantly. Was this justified - at least, in Florida? Where next? I agree with you Dale, there's a hungry lion just waiting to be let out of its cage.

A good quoth to digest: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States." Noah Webster, "An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal States, at 56 (New York, 1888).

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

This is in an August 12 Associated Press story from Land O'Lakes, FL.

Is that where my butter comes from?

 

[MikeMcK]

Whenever threatened? On what basis? Where's the line drawn? I can think of an example that happened here in California. Someone felt threatened because someone was tailgating their car. So what happened? They shot them - one shot behind their car and they killed the tailgating driver instantly. Was this justified - at least, in Florida? Where next? I agree with you Dale, there's a hungry lion just waiting to be let out of its cage.

Funny, the left never seems to have a problem with this logic when it's introduced into abortion cases.

 

[mutantleader]

Hey, that guy over there has a gun. I feel threatened, so I'm gonna shoot him.

 

[mutantleader]

Funny, the left never seems to have a problem with this logic when it's introduced into abortion cases.

Apples and oranges my friend.

 

[MikeMcK]

Apples and oranges my friend.

Not at all.

The arguments made here against this law are the same arguments being made against the "health of the mother clause" in abortion cases.

Both are worded so poorly as to make virtually any excuse, credible or not, acceptable.

 

[Dale]

TheRedFox in post #3:
<< Whenever threatened? On what basis? Where's the line drawn? >>

This law hasn't been tested in court yet.

<< A good quoth to digest: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States." Noah Webster, "An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal States, at 56 (New York, 1888). >>

Webster is probably referring to the state militia, or National Guard, and overlooking the fact that the President can Federalize them at any time. The weapons possessed by gun owners in the US today do not impede injustice in any way. It would take far more than a bunch of guys with pistols or hunting rifles to take on a modern army.

Show me one case in American history where gun owners ever opposed injustice. Did they overthrow slavery? Nope. Did they oppose it? Nope. Did they oppose segregation? Nope. Lynching? Nope. There has never been an injustice opposed by gun owners, as a class.

 

[Norseman]

TheRedFox in post #3:
<< Whenever threatened? On what basis? Where's the line drawn? >>

This law hasn't been tested in court yet.

<< A good quoth to digest: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States." Noah Webster, "An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal States, at 56 (New York, 1888). >>

Webster is probably referring to the state militia, or National Guard, and overlooking the fact that the President can Federalize them at any time. The weapons possessed by gun owners in the US today do not impede injustice in any way. It would take far more than a bunch of guys with pistols or hunting rifles to take on a modern army.

Show me one case in American history where gun owners ever opposed injustice. Did they overthrow slavery? Nope. Did they oppose it? Nope. Did they oppose segregation? Nope. Lynching? Nope. There has never been an injustice opposed by gun owners, as a class.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendell_Fertig
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_war_of_independence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerrilla#Guerrillas_in_the_American_Civil_War

When the people have guns, it's very hard to oppress them.

 

[mutantleader]

Not at all.

The arguments made here against this law are the same arguments being made against the "health of the mother clause" in abortion cases.

Both are worded so poorly as to make virtually any excuse, credible or not, acceptable.

Not that this belongs on this thread, but fyi a women do not need excuses to have abortions.

I will tie the two thoughts together. Hypothetically, a radical pro-life advocate feels that an abortion provider is a threat to the life of all unborn children, and shoots the doctor. Since, the hypothetical assailant felt that his safety was threatened, he is protected by the law.

There, all tied together in a brown paper wrapping.

 

[MadeInOz]

that's just crazy...

 

[TheRedFox]

Not at all.

The arguments made here against this law are the same arguments being made against the "health of the mother clause" in abortion cases.

Both are worded so poorly as to make virtually any excuse, credible or not, acceptable.

Are you reffering to what I posted?

I kind of wish I had never participated in this thread. I feel bemused, misinterpreted, and beleaguered.


<3

 

[TheRedFox]

TheRedFox in post #3:
<< Whenever threatened? On what basis? Where's the line drawn? >>

This law hasn't been tested in court yet.

<< A good quoth to digest: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States." Noah Webster, "An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal States, at 56 (New York, 1888). >>

Webster is probably referring to the state militia, or National Guard, and overlooking the fact that the President can Federalize them at any time. The weapons possessed by gun owners in the US today do not impede injustice in any way. It would take far more than a bunch of guys with pistols or hunting rifles to take on a modern army.

Show me one case in American history where gun owners ever opposed injustice. Did they overthrow slavery? Nope. Did they oppose it? Nope. Did they oppose segregation? Nope. Lynching? Nope. There has never been an injustice opposed by gun owners, as a class.

Not tested in court? Okay. I was merely pondering the logic, and how it could even possibly become lawfull.

As for my quote, I do not feel that it produced the effect that I wanted. I founjd Webster's quote relevant to the subject. ". . . Because the whole body of people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." I thought that this one particular point would be observed, but what can I say? You all can't read my mind. Anyway, what Webster said would mean to me that the whole of America really do own guns, and that makes them a powerful lot, in the least. If they were given the freedom to use these arms with an even greater liberty, with the leisure justification of a "threatening" situation, then in my opinion - pardon my choice of words - all hell could break loose.

<3

 

[Vylo]

Gah, people abortion threads aren't allowed here, don't turn this into an abortion thread. Post that in philosphy and morality, not here, you just get threads closed.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendell_Fertig

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_war_of_independence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerrilla#Guerrillas_in_the_American_Civil_War


When the people have guns, it's very hard to oppress them.

All three examples that you cited were in wars. Are you equating the current state of play in the US to a war ? Do you really want citizens using the above examples to take up arms against the US govt if they believe that it is oppressing them – say, people opposed to the Patriot Act ?

What you end up with is anarchy.

 

[Dale]

TheRedFox

I'm sorry if I misread what you meant by the quote.

 

[mutantleader]

Gah, people abortion threads aren't allowed here, don't turn this into an abortion thread. Post that in philosphy and morality, not here, you just get threads closed.

I won't use that word again. So sorry.

Guns have their place, and it definitely is not in my face.

 

[Norseman]

All three examples that you cited were in wars. Are you equating the current state of play in the US to a war ? Do you really want citizens using the above examples to take up arms against the US govt if they believe that it is oppressing them – say, people opposed to the Patriot Act ?

No, not the Patriot Act. People tend to put lives on the line only when their lives are already on the line. Any attempt to, say, reenact slavery would go down in a hail of bullets. I think fear of that possibility keeps politicians from making the people use such measures.

What you end up with is anarchy.

In all 3 cases that is simply not true.

 

[Dale]

Norseman in post #10:
<< When the people have guns, it's very hard to oppress them. >>

This isn't true. There was a news story in the 1990's about archaeologists doing excavations of slave quarters, I believe in South Carolina. They found flints and other signs that the slaves had guns. They were probably squirrel guns, but still guns.

Jews at the time of Christ often carried swords; the Disciples carried two of them. Yet the Jews were oppressed by the Romans.

Having weapons isn't enough for a group of people to stand against a trained, disciplined army.