Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
I'm Floridian; Don't Fuck With Me

By loteck in Op-Ed
Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 02:16:52 PM EST
Tags: Humour (all tags)
Humour

I've got Good News and I've got Bad News.

Recently, the government of Florida managed to pull together to pass HB 0249, a law now commonly known as the "Stand Your Ground" law. This law provides for the following:

"A person, not engaged in an unlawful activity, who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so, to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself, herself, or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

So, finally, this Christmas, when we all leave our trailer parks and go to line up outside Walmart to score those cheap 40" TVs, and there is a riot when they finally open the doors, I can light you up like 2Pac when you get in my face.

Now, on to the bad news.


The Bad News

As always, there are the inevitable party poopers and black clouds that hang over truly awesome and totally sweet ideas like this one. That god damned liberal media has responded by inciting fear, uncertainty, and doubt about whether or not the streets of this great state will soon run red with blood, Tale of Two Cities style. All across the city, nay, the world, commies, who would be the first to defend a wild animal's right to "stand their ground" and maul the shit out of you, are getting their dirty red panties in a twist over the possibility that people might be afforded the same privilege.

One of the more "aggressive" examples of this is a recent advertisement published by the Brady Campaign (which has been successfully identified as being aligned with the Reds) that warns tourists that they could be shot. Headlines read like:

Florida tourists warned that locals could shoot them. -(The Scotsman)

This is humorous to Floridians for one reason: it is so fucking true and we are positively ecstatic that the socialists are doing us the favor of spamming it all over creation, especially in that over-hyped, lucky-charm-eating pit of anus called Scotland. Every time I think of what I can now do to the next fatbody with curly red hair sticking out from underneath his Micky Mouse-ears who yells at me or manages to risk damage to his pasty-white skin by sticking out his middle finger at me, I quietly squeal with joy, not unlike a baby or a pig might do in their moments of unbridled happiness.

In summary, let me just agree with what all the liberal rags out there are whining about in all their little newspapers, which goes especially true for all you tourists who want to bring your hellspawn offspring down here and pay big dollars to wander around in the most God-forsaken, awful humidity the U.S. has to offer just to take pictures with pedophiles dressed in Disney costumes: do not be rude to us. Mind your manners in public like your trash mother told you to do between Bingo games and chains of cigarettes. Do not be aggressive. Do not yell at me in my car if I make a mistake, or I will chase you down EPCOT Center Drive with my Desert Eagle .50 caliber delivering sweet, hot round after round into your rented Taurus while you and your family simultaneously lose all bowel control and accidentally drive into the wave pool at Blizzard Beach. If you do intend to come here with an attitude, you better bring a bigger gun than mine, as well as a desire to use it against 200,000 locals who are just itching to Stand Their mother-fucking Ground. Moving on...

The Haters

Inevitably, there will be those who won't like this law. You will be able to identify these people by their trademark freedom hating and over sensationalizing. They will probably be French, or will at least sympathize with the French. They largely fall into one or more of the following groups, and probably belong to official organizations that help them pool their collective loathing of all things Apple Pie to achieve some kind of unnatural maximum worthlessness.

Commies

Don't think for even a minute that the Reds aren't still alive and operating in this great country, or that they don't positively loathe any kind of gun legislation that doesn't involve hording us all into camps and stadiums. Most Communists in the U.S. today are Democrats and cowards who hide behind the organized liberal fronts that are setup to conceal their identities. The Washington Committee for Democratic Action is a perfect example of this. Also, reputable sources have linked many of the mainstream news media organizations to the Commies, like The New York Times and CNN. Florida is now specially equipped to deal with Communists and we suggest you send them all down here so that we can either adjust their attitudes to be kind and loving Republicans like we are, or slaughter them on the streets and send a huge barge of dead commies drifting towards Cuba where they rightly belong.

Pussies

The state of the American Male, as a gender, is a very disheartening thing to behold, right now. Gone are the days when men made quick, rational choices and took immediate and decisive action to deal out righteousness and justice. In the good 'ol days, if you believed that another man behaved inappropriately towards you in a public place, you would slap him with your glove and then you would shoot it out in the streets with your trusty six-shooter until the guy who was in the wrong died, leaving the victor righteously vindicated. Now, all we have is feminists and homosexuals running rampant over the country with their bra-burning and pillow-biting, castrating the male gender by criticizing their natural desire to be the keepers and enforcers of respect and dignity in our society. Pussies positively cannot stand the idea of the use of force or the necessity of causing pain unless they are talking about anus sex or ball gags. They will be the ones decrying the sanctity of human life and not giving two shits about the victims that they are creating by their defense of criminals. Pussies are not a real threat to the cause of freedom because if you bitch slap them enough they will eventually shut the fuck up and go form a support group, go to their cave, and find their power animal.

Hippies

You know the type. When presented with the situation of being on the wrong end of gun, hippies always seem to have a flower handy. They probably grow them in their dirty, unwashed hippy asses and pluck them when needed. They will place one of these ass-flowers into the barrel of the gun while taking a hit off the bong and singing some Bob Dylan song. Oh, by the way, Bob Dylan fans are the worst. Who could possibly be able to enjoy listening to that no-talent hack and his nasally voice and simplistic guitar riffs? I'll tell you who: the worst of the worst, those who probably fall into all 3 of our Haters groups, the Commie Hippy Fag. You shouldn't have to worry too much about Hippies opposing this law because they are typically too busy smoking dope and dancing naked in the woods to notice when shit like this happens. The worst case scenario is that Radiohead will release some hippy song that no one can decipher the lyrics to, Susan Sarandon will make a comment that will be attributed to her senility, and Al Gore will grow more facial hair.

Champions

However, there are those who will stand behind this bill and support every aspect of every remote possibility that this law might introduce. These are the heroes that we should align ourselves with. They set an example for all of us to follow by being examples of intelligence and fortitude in a world that is being infested with aforementioned Haters. We need the cream of the crop to rise up and show us how to best manage our problems, and so the number one champion of our cause should come as no surprise.

George W. Bush

God has truly blessed America, and we have only Him and his followers to thank for elevating such an honorable and capable man to the most powerful position in the known universe. He is the ambassador of justice, the champion of morality, and a stalwart against which wave after wave of unethical, unwashed, heathen societies are impaled and smitten. It was this man who has inspired a whole generation of young men to "fight them over there instead of fighting them here", which is a principle that underscores this most recent Florida law. For those of you who are good, polite, and upstanding folk who do not choose to carry weapons, you can look at this law as my opportunity to liberate you from the oppressive forces of cynical depravity that have taken our streets. Those of us who are armed, we will carry your banner out there, keeping constant vigil against those that we would Stand Our Ground against, so that you don't have to worry about fighting them in your homes, schools, and places of work.

Dirty Fucking Harry

Florida is now living in the world that Dirty Harry has been living in since 1971. Dirty Harry knew how to get things fucking done in a society where armed men are the defenders of the public interest. I would recommend that each and every gun-toting Floridian immediately rent all 5 Dirty Harry movies and study them. You are looking to understand Harry and how he handles the criminals who attempt to use any kind of force on him. Usually, he just pulls out his ample sized sidearm and guns the criminal down in the street, sometimes while they are unarmed, trapped, and retreating. This is obviously the best method for you to model your own behavior on. Other times, Harry will beat the everloving shit out of an aggressor. While effective, this introduces you to unnecessary risks like broken bones, or even worse, self-restraint. You're better off just firing at the aggressor from as much of a distance as your aim will allow.

Shut Your God Damned Pie Hole and You Won't Get Shot

Here are some practical suggestions for those of you who don't wish to test the quality of Florida's understanding of GSW treatment.

Don't Yell At Me. Yelling at me makes me angry and I will execute you like a foreign war criminal if you do it.

Don't Flip Me Off. Flipping me off pisses me off so fucking badly that I wish this law made it legal for me to immolate you right on the spot instead of shooting you. That's right, when you flip me off I want to set fire to your body and watch you and your middle finger cook until charred. Maybe we can get that on the next session.

Don't Flirt, Stare, Gaze Longingly, or even Glance at my Bitch. People will come out of the woodwork to shoot you for this. Not only will I methodically empty clip after clip into you, but so will my bitch, and so will everyone else that is in the general area at the time. Even kids will get their .22's out and come over to shoot your dead body until it literally doesn't exist anymore and we are all standing around shooting a big red spot on the asphalt.

Finally, The Respect I Deserve

In conclusion, I am really happy this law was passed and has finally been enacted. This country is increasingly loaded down with trailer trash and buttloving hippies who have no respect for anyone else or any decency to speak of, and it is about time that us vaginal-sex-havers took matters into our own hands to remedy the whole problem. For you decent folk who would come here to visit our fine attractions and to be courteous and polite and who would be civilized, we welcome you.

To the rest of you, I have only one thing to say to you: We are Floridians; Do Not Fuck With Us.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Who else would you add to the Champions list?
o John Wayne 18%
o Gang Members 11%
o Andy Sipowicz 11%
o Master Chief 22%
o Joan of Arc 37%

Votes: 27
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o HB 0249
o successful ly identified
o warns tourists
o Florida tourists warned that locals could shoot them.
o The New York Times
o CNN
o all 5 Dirty Harry movies
o Also by loteck


Display: Sort:
I'm Floridian; Don't Fuck With Me | 161 comments (123 topical, 38 editorial, 0 hidden)
Good stuff (3.00 / 12) (#2)
by Hung Fu on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 11:11:19 PM EST

But because I know the gun nuts are about to shit all over this story, I'll pre-emptively point out the issue here - it is now legal to kill someone that you reasonably believe will commit a "forcible felony". A "forcible felony" in Florida law does not necessarily involve actual force or violence, it can just involve the perceived threat of physical force or property crimes.
776.08 Forcible felony.--"Forcible felony" means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.
So now it's perfectly legal to kill anyone you "reasonably believe" is about to commit any of the above acts, regardless of whether you are threatened with bodily harm or death. I don't  think I need to point out how insane this is.


__
From Israel To Lebanon
Not quite (3.00 / 7) (#11)
by Zastai on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 06:59:07 AM EST

Actually, what it says is that if you are attacked, you are allowed to use force to prevent a forcible felony being committed. So it's not quite as insane as you make it out to be.

[ Parent ]
But what does that mean, exactly? (3.00 / 3) (#14)
by Hung Fu on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 08:15:26 AM EST

Define "attacked". I'm not aware of any special legal meaning, and the common English usage is particularly broad including violence and verbal criticism. At what point does general aggression become an "attack"? Threats? Touching? Illegal entry? Pushing and shoving? Bruising? Serious injury? It's not a particularly good limitation if basically anything can be defined as an attack.

__
From Israel To Lebanon
[ Parent ]
Are you (none / 0) (#107)
by jeremyn on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 06:44:23 AM EST

Forcibly and illegally entering a house or car? Yes? Good. Now someone with a concealed weapon may draw it, and if necessary, fire.

[ Parent ]
Ask a lawyer. Seriously. (none / 0) (#142)
by joebob2k5 on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:43:27 AM EST

Yes words have shorcomings. Ambiguity and double meanings abound.

You are not the first person in the world to notice this. Lawyers get around the problem by agreeing up front on the meanings for their special words. Where that is not done, there are agreed-upon principles which are not always intuitive to people who have not spent any time studying the issues.

Even if you RTFA, and RTFL, you would still not be done. you would need to read on the topic of law in general, and the problems it tries to solve, in order to find context.

It's not magic, but it takes time and application to understand. Just like whatever it is you do to get money.

[ Parent ]

The text is ambiguous enough (2.50 / 2) (#16)
by bml on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 08:19:36 AM EST

It's not clear whether you really need to be attacked in order to draw your gun.

The Internet is vast, and contains many people. This is the way of things. -- Russell Dovey
[ Parent ]
Try it and find out. (none / 0) (#141)
by joebob2k5 on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:31:38 AM EST



[ Parent ]
You just say (3.00 / 6) (#35)
by tdillo on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 01:07:18 PM EST

"IT'S COMIN' RIGHT FOR US!" and you'll be covered.

[ Parent ]
Nice southpark refference. (1.66 / 3) (#40)
by The Amazing Idiot on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 05:04:22 PM EST

Note: It was about 'hunting' of endangered species. They couldnt hunt certain ones unless they were endangering their lives. Hence the saying.

[ Parent ]
The choir stands preached (nt) (3.00 / 2) (#46)
by nkyad on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 06:05:15 PM EST


Don't believe in anything you can't see, smell, touch or at the very least infer from a good particle accelerator run


[ Parent ]
It's been that way in Utah for years. (none / 0) (#13)
by wiredog on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 08:13:01 AM EST



Wilford Brimley scares my chickens.
Phil the Canuck

[ Parent ]
The same with polygamy. (3.00 / 2) (#57)
by Hung Fu on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 08:42:32 PM EST

Doesn't make it right

__
From Israel To Lebanon
[ Parent ]
What's wrong with polygamy? (3.00 / 2) (#72)
by wiredog on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 08:15:04 AM EST

I mean, in theory, not the way the FLDS practices it.

Wilford Brimley scares my chickens.
Phil the Canuck

[ Parent ]
Good point (none / 0) (#108)
by Hung Fu on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 07:12:48 AM EST

In theory it's fine, in practice it's associated with incest and country music

__
From Israel To Lebanon
[ Parent ]
Please explain (none / 0) (#126)
by Keepiru on Sun Oct 09, 2005 at 05:21:57 PM EST

I concede country music, but what's wrong with a little brotherly love?

[ Parent ]
What the fuck... (2.83 / 6) (#18)
by BJH on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 09:02:17 AM EST

...is "aggravated stalking"?

Is that where you stalk somebody while acting real angry? Or am I missing some fine legal point with a Latin name?
--
Roses are red, violets are blue.
I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
-- Oscar Levant

[ Parent ]

Aggravated (3.00 / 2) (#83)
by awgsilyari on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 06:26:34 PM EST

It is the crime which is 'aggravated', not the criminal. To put it only mildly accurately it refers to one crime committed in order to facilitate another, for example shooting somebody in order to steal his wallet.

Looking at it linguistically, you have the root of the word "grave," in other words, an aggravated crime is one which is made "more grave" by some other circumstance.

Aggravated stalking, therefore, might refer to (for example) stalking a person with the intent of intimidating them not to testify at trial. In that case the stalking is aggravated by the intimidation.

I'm not a lawyer and I might be pulling this from my ass.

--------
Please direct SPAM to john@neuralnw.com
[ Parent ]

Yes, You Do (3.00 / 2) (#33)
by ewhac on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 12:57:00 PM EST

So now it's perfectly legal to kill anyone you "reasonably believe" is about to commit any of the above acts, regardless of whether you are threatened with bodily harm or death. I don't think I need to point out how insane this is.

Uh, no, actually, I'm afraid you are going to have to point out how insane this is. In particular detail.

Read the statute. The citizens of Florida have not all been issued double-0 licenses. The statute does not authorize killing. The statute authorizes the use of force. And while the statute appears vaguely permissive in the use of deadly force, such force is always very closely examined in the courtroom (and yes, if you shoot someone, you will be going to court). If the court determines a lesser degree of force would have accomplished the same ends, then the use of deadly force is unlawful, and you'll become a guest of the state.

That hardly qualifies as insane. But that's IMHO, of course, and I'm prepared to hear well-reasoned counterarguments.

Schwab
---
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions. Priest, Internet Oracle.
[ Parent ]

Not true (none / 0) (#51)
by Hung Fu on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 07:26:32 PM EST

If the court determines a lesser degree of force would have accomplished the same ends, then the use of deadly force is unlawful, and you'll become a guest of the state.
No, all you need is a "reasonable belief" that the deadly force is necessary. The force doesn't actually have to be necessary. It's an important distinction.


__
From Israel To Lebanon
[ Parent ]
True (none / 1) (#58)
by fairthought on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 09:12:59 PM EST

But you still need to convince a court that your belief was reasonable.

[ Parent ]
I love this state. [nt] (1.33 / 3) (#8)
by Empedocles on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 02:17:17 AM EST



---
And I think it's gonna be a long long time
'Till touch down brings me 'round again to find
I'm not the man they think I am at home

I'm OK with this (2.80 / 15) (#10)
by ubernostrum on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 05:51:38 AM EST

As long as you realize that your repeated threats made in this article authorize me to use deadly force against you the minute I cross the state line into Florida. Heck, we can use this thing to kill all the idiots who live down there; it's like the Free State project's wet dream, just kill everybody in the state and take over!




--
You cooin' with my bird?
Any chance that you could include a reference (none / 1) (#20)
by Sesquipundalian on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 09:49:55 AM EST

to "difficult people?"


Did you know that gullible is not actually an english word?
article length (none / 1) (#30)
by loteck on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 11:45:13 AM EST

your comment should be editorial, btw, not topical. in interest of article length i'm probably not going to add anything that isn't a glaring or critical omission.

if i have to eat your -1 for that then i guess that's just what i'll have to do. sorry.
--
"You're in tune to the musical sound of loteck hi-fi, the musical sound that moves right round. Keep on moving ya'll." -Mylakovich
"WHAT AN ETERNAL MOBIUS STRIP OF FELLATIATIC BANALITY THIS IS." -Harry B Otch

[ Parent ]

+1 FP - guns, profanity, hippy bashing $ (1.00 / 3) (#32)
by creativedissonance on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 12:41:04 PM EST




ay yo i run linux and word on the street
is that this is where i need to be to get my butt stuffed like a turkey - br14n
So, that leaves... (none / 0) (#60)
by carbon on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 10:26:11 PM EST

the first line?

Wasn't Dr. Claus the bad guy on Inspector Gadget? - dirvish
[ Parent ]
Thank you, Florida (2.40 / 5) (#34)
by localroger on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 01:00:10 PM EST

It's nice that every once in awhile some other state does something that makes them the laughingstock of the country instead of Louisiana.

/Yes, Edwin Edwards is still in prison.
//No, David Duke isn't.

I am become Death, Destroyer of Worlds -- J. Robert Oppenheimer

er .. (none / 0) (#157)
by naught on Fri Oct 28, 2005 at 04:28:58 PM EST

in addition to .. not instead of.

--
"extension of knowledge is the root of all virtue" -- confucius.
[ Parent ]

awesome until... (none / 1) (#36)
by anometer on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 03:41:09 PM EST

i read about gwb. but still i'll vote it +1 section.

LOL (2.00 / 3) (#37)
by t1ber on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 03:50:21 PM EST

This is getting my +1FP when it moves to the voting queue.  It's a bit Maddoxesque at times, but funny.

If you want to make an actual political case, I suggest pointing to PA's concealed-carry-laws.  1 in 20 people in PA has a CCW (don't quote me, I haven't looked the stats up in a long time) and shootings are rare outside of the major cities.  PA is truely the example of "An armed society is a polite society" and I wholly intend to stay.

And she said...
Durka Durka Mohammed Jihad
Sherpa Sherpa Bak Allah
Hadji girl I can't understand what you're saying.

this post offends me... (3.00 / 2) (#38)
by neozeed on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 04:52:08 PM EST

We can draw on the streets if you like.

-----------------------
Unless you're alive you can't play. And if you don't play, you don't get to be alive.

Yay! Sidewalk art! /nt (3.00 / 9) (#42)
by Ignore Amos on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 05:33:04 PM EST


And that explains why airplanes carry cargo on small boats floating in their cargo aquarium. - jmzero
[ Parent ]

um not quite the draw I had in mind... (3.00 / 2) (#73)
by neozeed on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 08:39:13 AM EST

but Im sure it'll be colourfull.

-----------------------
Unless you're alive you can't play. And if you don't play, you don't get to be alive.
[ Parent ]

Come to Scotland... (2.80 / 5) (#39)
by gordonjcp on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 04:54:00 PM EST

... where we just cut loose on you fat fuckers as you step off the plane. Or terrify you with our speed limits (roughly twice the state-wide Florida limit of 35mph).

Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll bore you rigid with fishing stories for the rest of your life.


120 km/h? (3.00 / 2) (#47)
by nkyad on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 06:08:52 PM EST

Pretty impressive, we have those down here in Brazil too. And we're better at killing people on sight. On the other hand, speed-limitwise the Germans own us all hands down and blindfolded. Thinking of it, they  have also already proved themselves better at killing people on sight.

Don't believe in anything you can't see, smell, touch or at the very least infer from a good particle accelerator run


[ Parent ]
True on all counts (none / 1) (#71)
by gordonjcp on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 08:04:37 AM EST

Don't forget though, just because the speed limit is 70mph it doesn't mean that anyone sticks to it. If you slow down below 90mph in the left-hand lane (slow lane - we drive on the left) then you're highly likely to have an 80-year-old grandmother in a rusty Yugo heavily rear-end you. Go for the outside lane below 110mph and they will just put "Suicide" under Cause of Death.

Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll bore you rigid with fishing stories for the rest of your life.


[ Parent ]
Could have fooled me (none / 0) (#102)
by simon farnz on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 04:58:50 AM EST

My car can't even reach 90mph most of the time. I'm still able to drive perfectly safely on the M275, the M27, the M25, the M6, the M1 and many other UK roads, even leaving the left-most lane to overtake (I'm usually doing around 70mph).
--
If guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns
[ Parent ]
aye, but (none / 1) (#49)
by minerboy on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 06:20:03 PM EST

ye nay go straight, ye mak a roundabout, an' canna git yer speed up.



[ Parent ]
hoots mon (none / 1) (#62)
by The Diary Section on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 02:28:47 AM EST

only tourists brake for roundabouts.
Spend 10 minutes in the company of an American and you end up feeling like a Keats or a Shelley: Thin, brilliant, suave, and desperate for industrial-scale quantities of opium.
[ Parent ]
What I want to know is... (3.00 / 3) (#79)
by DavidTC on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 04:31:34 PM EST

..what the fuck people who are confused WRT to roundabouts are doing on the road.

Look, it's simple. You can circle around the middle to the right (Or whatever side you drive on.), or you can split off to the right when the road forks. There are no other choices.

You cannot:

1) Circle to the left. No. That's just stupid.

2) Circle to the left even for a small amount. No, you cannot create a tangent to the circle if, at any point on the circle, you are facing the wrong way. Yes, in geometry class, a tangent to a circle does not involve more than one point on the circle, and thus you cannot be going 'backwards'. This is not a geometry class.

3) Turn at more than 90 degrees backwards into an entrance-only street. Entrance streets are one way. Some of them are not labeled because no normal person would turn 155 degrees backwards and drive down a road that is clearly merging into the one they are on. You people should never be allowed near expressway offramps.

4) Cut from one entrance to an exit without entering the roundable, even if you are going the right direction. I do not care if that's paved, that is not a road, you idiot. Roads do not have stripped lines diaganolly across them. I do not care if that lets you avoid traffic in the roundabout.

All the small northeast Georgia towns have a 'roundabout' in the middle of it, around the old courthouse. Lots of them are tourist town. Tourists come up there and do all sorts of absurd behaviors WRT to them. I'm surpried some places don't wake up and find them wedged in the front door of the courthouse. (Some of the fixed some problems with red lights.)

-David T. C.
Yes, my email address is real.
[ Parent ]

They've curtailed the speed limits ... (3.00 / 2) (#52)
by Ignore Amos on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 07:51:39 PM EST

... in Baldrsonia.

And that explains why airplanes carry cargo on small boats floating in their cargo aquarium. - jmzero
[ Parent ]

I love montana nt (none / 0) (#55)
by minerboy on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 08:27:13 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Pot & Kettle ! (none / 0) (#97)
by vyruss on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 11:49:50 PM EST

"especially in that over-hyped, lucky-charm-eating pit of anus called Scotland" OK, and this article got voted up? I don't give a shit about the guy who wrote this, but just to set the record straight, I've lived in Scotland for years and it's one of the most beautiful countries in the world, and the people are great. Apart from some wankers. Florida, on the other hand, is hot and shitty, and is ruled by Jeb Bush. QED.

  • PRINT CHR$(147)

[ Parent ]
May Florida be an example to the rest of the U.S. (none / 1) (#44)
by alevin on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 05:55:41 PM EST

A fine day for human dignity and stoicness. Go champions.
--
alevin
+1fp: Still laughing after all that text. n/t (none / 1) (#61)
by fyngyrz on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 12:01:00 AM EST


Blog, Photos.

It wanders off a few times. (1.50 / 2) (#63)
by Pirengle on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 02:41:23 AM EST

Maybe because if it returns to the topic, the native Floridians will beat the ever-lovin' shit out of it. And to think, you had enough material to make posts bashing liberals AND hippies.

New York abstains, courteously.


♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫
A sure-fire way to make friends and influence people: transform the letters "l" and "i" into "-1"s whenever posting. Instant wit!
I don't really get it (2.25 / 8) (#68)
by joto on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 05:38:20 AM EST

This piece seems to be some sort attempt at satirizing a law that, at least to me, seems fairly reasonable, and not at all very different from the law in many other countries.

Most countries laws allows their citizens to break the law in order to save something that is more important. If you have to break a window to save a baby from a burning house, you are allowed to do so. If someone is attacking you, you have the right to defend yourself. If someone is attacking the grandmother across the street, you have the right to defend her too. And if someone tries to steal you wallet, you are entitled to do a civil arrest, and hold them untill the police arrives.

If you had to shoot three thugs to save that wallet from being stolen, you will have a problem explaining why you felt that was reasonable to the court, but if the circumstances were right (i.e. they were threatening, and you felt your life was in danger, and had reason to believe that giving them the wallet would not help), it is possible that any charges against you could be dismissed.

Even without this law.

So if you are going to satirize, why not pick something else, such as why they felt they needed another law, when most, if not all, of it probably was there in the first place...

I don't think so (none / 0) (#77)
by Elija on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 03:12:00 PM EST

In English law self-defence is a legal defence against assault, but I don't think defending someone else is. At least that's what I've been told. I suppose if you see someone attacking the grandmother you could try and put yourself between her and them without using force and then use force to defend yourself as necessary. But if you just go and hit the attacker on the head from behind, say, then you could get at least a criminal record if not a punishment. Probably your only way of getting out of it would be to try to convince the court that you thought the attacker was going to attack you next and for some reason you were unable to run away (injured ankle or something) so it was self-defence after all.

[ Parent ]
The English have to run away (none / 0) (#78)
by minerboy on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 03:55:12 PM EST

American's don't. In the 1800's, the supreme court ruled that you can't expect a man to show cowardice to avoid a fight.



[ Parent ]
Well... (none / 1) (#82)
by joto on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 06:21:18 PM EST

I suppose if you see someone attacking the grandmother you could try and put yourself between her and them without using force and then use force to defend yourself as necessary. But if you just go and hit the attacker on the head from behind, say, then you could get at least a criminal record if not a punishment.

If you just go and hit the attacker on the head from behind, you deserve to be imprisoned. You are now the aggressor in a fight, not someone nice who saves the grandmother.

If, on the other hand, you scream out "Stop! Or I'll hit you in the head with my hammer!", and you have reason to believe they heard you, but they refused to stop anyway, and you then proceed to hit them on the head with your hammer, my guess is you'll walk away free, providing the attacker(s) were bigger/stronger than you, and you have witnesses to back you up.

While the details of the law varies a bit from country to country, mostly you will not get punished for being a nice guy. But yes, be careful, and do the absolute minimum of what you have to do, whenever you use force against someone. Also make sure to get the name and phone# to as many witnesses as possible as soon as possible, as well as informing the police.

[ Parent ]

You must be kidding (3.00 / 2) (#93)
by esrever on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 10:32:36 PM EST


If you just go and hit the attacker on the head from behind, you deserve to be imprisoned.

How about instead of our hypothetical villain merely 'attacking' the grandmother, as the GP posits, we say they are 'raping' the grandmother.  Are you still so damn sure that someone rescuing her by incapacitating the villain 'deserves to be imprisoned'?

Thought not.  Your whole post is bleeding-heart liberal nonsense.

Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
[ Parent ]

It makes no difference... (none / 0) (#115)
by joto on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 01:07:50 PM EST

There's a difference between incapacitating someone, and hitting someone on the head. Hitting someone on the head is dangerous, and can result in serious damage. There are other ways of incapacitating someone that results in less damage to the villain (although it becomes much harder if you are alone). If you could incapacitate the villain without hurting him, that would obviously be better.

If you could simply tell (or coerce) the rapist to go away, that would be even better (apart from the fact that the rapist is now free on the streets, which would probably make me prefer to try to incapacitate him anyway, if I could do it in a way that would not put me at extensive legal risk).

There is a difference between what legally and morally makes you "deserve to be imprisoned". If you choose to seriously hurt or kill the rapist, because you hate rapists, then that's really your problem, and legally, you "deserve to be imprisoned". The police are generally found of people "helping out", but they are not found of people taking the job of punishment of criminals into their own hand. Whether the rapist deserves to be hit on the head, is a decision that should be left to the court system.

If it was absolutely necessary to hit him on the head to avoid the crime to continue, the decision is up to you if you want to risk the legal repercussions of such an action. But before you do such a thing, you should make sure that you have a plausible explanation (as well as vitnesses) for the court, as to why it was "absolutely necessary". You should also be prepared to explain why it would be better to risk permanent damage to the villain than to let the crime continue (in this case, that would be pretty easy, but not in e.g. the case of a pickpocket).

[ Parent ]

Pacifist nonsense... (none / 0) (#161)
by rtechie on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 02:30:19 AM EST

If you just go and hit the attacker on the head from behind, you deserve to be imprisoned. You are now the aggressor in a fight, not someone nice who saves the grandmother.

Ever heard the saying "live by the sword, die by the sword"? Once someone has initated force against someone else, they've given up the right to bitch if someone counterattacks. This is the entire principle behind "law enforcement". You think if you call the cops they're just going to politely ask him to stop? In they USA they will threaten to kill him before beating him and hauling him off.

What's the bad precedent here? That if you're attacking an innocent grandmother someone might bash your head in? I've got NO PROBLEM with this. If you had any ethical sense whatsoever, you'd be agreeing with me.

[ Parent ]

The "Castle" Rule is law in other States (none / 0) (#86)
by deadcow on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 07:34:23 PM EST

Not just in foreign nations. This is actually a pretty common rule that usually applies only in a person's private residence (hence the name "castle" rule).

This rule is bascially a variation on the rule of self-defense, which normally says that you're allowed to use like force when fighting off an assailant, but if it is a reasonable choice, you must run.

[ Parent ]

this is some funny shit (1.12 / 8) (#70)
by Trollasaurus Erectus on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 07:36:31 AM EST

And I'm glad at least some of you fucktard5 have enough sense of humor left to vote it up, really.

I don't understand (3.00 / 5) (#75)
by zenofchai on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 11:21:59 AM EST

Where does the law provide for being able to use deadly force against someone who makes you angry, flips you off, flirts with your girlfriend, or yells at you?

This article would be more effective if it portrayed useful and believable scenarios, such as "I honestly thought that boy scout was stealing that old lady's purse, not helping her cross the street. That's why I shot him in the leg. It's a shame he died.". Etc.
--
The K5 Interactive Political Compass SVG Graph

I had the same problem (none / 1) (#87)
by Shimmer on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 07:43:05 PM EST

Got lost in the hilarity, skipped to the bottom, and then couldn't figure out why we were suddenly killing loud people and the outrageously flirtatious.

I also couldn't figure out what "GSW treatment" is and couldn't be bothered to spend more than 10 seconds scanning back up the article for the antecedent.

Other than that, great article.

Wizard needs food badly.
[ Parent ]

fyi (none / 0) (#91)
by loteck on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 09:13:19 PM EST

GSW is a common acronym used when discussing guns and when watching crappy tv medical dramas. it stands for Gun-Shot Wound, and im on the fence about whether i would again use the acronym or actually spell it out.

i think most people have heard the acronym. i could be wrong.
--
"You're in tune to the musical sound of loteck hi-fi, the musical sound that moves right round. Keep on moving ya'll." -Mylakovich
"WHAT AN ETERNAL MOBIUS STRIP OF FELLATIATIC BANALITY THIS IS." -Harry B Otch

[ Parent ]

But that's the point of hysterical activism ... (none / 1) (#95)
by duncan bayne on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 11:03:13 PM EST

... you don't have to deal with the facts :-)

[ Parent ]
Interpretation of "necessary" (none / 1) (#109)
by smithmc on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 10:32:27 AM EST


Where does the law provide for being able to use deadly force against someone who makes you angry, flips you off, flirts with your girlfriend, or yells at you?

"if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so, to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself, herself, or another..."

[donning devil's advocate hat] If you're crazy or angry enough to walk up to me in a public place and just start yelling at me, then how can I know what you're going to do next? Maybe I scare easily, and I think your yelling is a prelude to violence. I mean, yelling at a stranger in a public place is hardly civilized behavior; what's to say you're not capable of even more uncivilized behaviors? [/devil's-advocate]

[ Parent ]

That's what self-defence courses are for (nT) (none / 0) (#119)
by jeremyn on Sun Oct 09, 2005 at 12:09:22 AM EST



[ Parent ]
I've actually had a rather long discussion ... (none / 0) (#125)
by Sairon on Sun Oct 09, 2005 at 01:51:47 PM EST

involving just this sort of situation with someone with extensive legal knowledge. The 'reasonable' part is where these sort of things happen. It's assuming there is this 'reasonable' person who has none of the fears, etc that you have. I.e. it has to be rather provable that, yeah, that guy was gonna kill you.

Jared

[ Parent ]

Hey! You! Yeah! YOU!! (none / 1) (#76)
by greyrat on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 01:48:47 PM EST

I got your 'politeness' RIGHT HERE! Bring it on baby!
~ ~ ~
Did I actually read the article? No. No I didn't.
"Watch out for me nobbystyles, Gromit!"

Bonus points.... (2.00 / 3) (#80)
by DavidTC on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 04:36:11 PM EST

...to the first person who figures out how to use this against spammers.

Is spamming a 'forcible felony'?

-David T. C.
Yes, my email address is real.

vs. the Police? (3.00 / 4) (#81)
by The Rizz on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 05:50:28 PM EST

A person, not engaged in an unlawful activity, who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force

This little snippet doesn't mention any exclusion for police officers ... so does this mean that next time there's a protest and the cops start to fire tear gas into the crowd, the protesters can legally open fire on the police?

Can protesters finally refuse to leave a "no-protest" zone on the grounds that they have every right to "stand their ground" as the law states?

...is Florida the only state that will now allow all citizens every right to ignore the so-called "no free speech zones"?

better question (none / 1) (#84)
by loteck on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 06:31:23 PM EST

why did i bother linking to the actual text of the bill?
--
"You're in tune to the musical sound of loteck hi-fi, the musical sound that moves right round. Keep on moving ya'll." -Mylakovich
"WHAT AN ETERNAL MOBIUS STRIP OF FELLATIATIC BANALITY THIS IS." -Harry B Otch

[ Parent ]
"not engaged in an unlawful activity" (1.00 / 1) (#85)
by deadcow on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 07:30:27 PM EST

Which part of that didn't you understand? :) If protestors don't have a permit and refuse to leave sensitive areas (which i assume is the case in the tear-gas scenario), they're breaking the law. Ergo, they won't be allowed to fight back

[ Parent ]
FL = part of US = protest is protected (3.00 / 3) (#89)
by The Rizz on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 09:04:49 PM EST

Protesting is explicitly protected under the first ammendment, and you do not need a "permit" to complain.

The current "no free speech zones" are blatantly unconstitutional, and as such illegal - hence protesting inside one is legal. The problem comes from the fact that in order to actaully protest there, you will have to clash with the cops. So, even though you can't successfully be charged with anything just from being there, you can get charged with assaulting an officer and/or resisting arrest.

This is all irrelevent in the current discussion, however - as the post below yours suggested, I followed the link and read the actual bill - it does have a provision that this law cannot be used against any law enforcement officer who can be identified as such (section 1,(2)(d)).

[ Parent ]

No, it is not (1.75 / 4) (#111)
by falkenberg on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 03:57:14 PM EST

The 1st Amendment does not include any mention of protest. Here is the full text: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." If you see the word "protest" in there anywhere, you've got much stranger eyes than I do. Petitioning for redress and protest are NOT the same thing, neither logically nor legally.

[ Parent ]
My strange eyes (3.00 / 2) (#123)
by localroger on Sun Oct 09, 2005 at 12:54:59 PM EST

...the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

Actually, what we call "protest" today is exactly what this phrase is describing. It is also exactly what our own founding fathers did many times in the course that led up to our own separation from Britain.

Note that the Constitution doesn't say "the right of the people to peaceably assemble at a place of the Government's choosing, away from our business and the media." It was assumed that the whole reason you peaceably assemble is to show those in power your numbers and your determination, to encourage them to think seriously about the changes you want.

I am become Death, Destroyer of Worlds -- J. Robert Oppenheimer
[ Parent ]

Strange days (3.00 / 2) (#139)
by pyro9 on Tue Oct 11, 2005 at 04:45:42 PM EST

or the right of the people peaceably to assemble

In other words to gather together in a group (presumably in a public space)

and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Keep in mind, petition as used in the Constitution is not restricted to signing a statement, it means making a request by varouus means including verbal and written, such as chanting in unison and holding up signs.

Sounds like a protest to me!

Before we get all caught up in sophistry, abridge doesn't just mean prohibit, it means to reduce by any amount in any way whatsoever.

So, the most the police are ACTUALLY permitted to do in the event of a peacful and orderly protest in a public space is potentially start handing out tickets for jaywalking, but only if they customarily enforce jaywalking (otherwise, selective enforcement is widely recognized as a dodge and there is considerable prescident for not allowing it).


The future isn't what it used to be
[ Parent ]
*used to be* protected (none / 0) (#149)
by Thyrsus on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 08:10:16 PM EST

Contempt for the constitution has a long and ignominious history in the U.S., and Florida is no shining exception.  The current warlords are particularly uninterested in the niceties intended to protect those who don't own gigadollar media.


[ Parent ]
Alienate at your own risk (3.00 / 4) (#88)
by overstim on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 08:11:24 PM EST

Every time I think of what I can now do to the next fatbody with curly red hair sticking out from underneath his Micky Mouse-ears who yells at me or manages to risk damage to his pasty-white skin by sticking out his middle finger at me, I quietly squeal with joy, not unlike a baby or a pig might do in their moments of unbridled happiness. Do you really think it's wise to alienate all of those pasty white tourists that flock to your got-forsaken greenhouse of a state by the busload, carrying soggy fistfulls of cash? The tourists are the ONLY thing keep your state from being wall-to-wall Waffle Houses, Penthouse Superstores and stinking, foetid swampland. You're running about 95% as it is.
--What do you think happened to Cameron when his dad came home and saw the Ferrari?
newsflashes (none / 0) (#90)
by loteck on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 09:06:04 PM EST

i live in las vegas. i support gun ownership. i dig radiohead and bob dylan.

lucky charms are an irish thing, not scottish.

hence.. this article is filed under humor. as in, like, satire. unfortunately a great majority of the topical comments do not reflect an understanding of this point...
--
"You're in tune to the musical sound of loteck hi-fi, the musical sound that moves right round. Keep on moving ya'll." -Mylakovich
"WHAT AN ETERNAL MOBIUS STRIP OF FELLATIATIC BANALITY THIS IS." -Harry B Otch

[ Parent ]

luck charms are irish??? (none / 0) (#104)
by Paul Jakma on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 05:52:15 AM EST

lucky charms are an irish thing, not scottish.

How do you work that one out? The breakfast cereal is American, not Irish. I think they tried introducing it over here a while ago, but the advertising with that leprechaun and it's "Gotham Police Chief" dodgy Irish accent are a bit distasteful.


[ Parent ]

And hopefully... (1.60 / 5) (#92)
by famanoran on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 09:50:11 PM EST

Everyone else in Florida who are just like you will Stand Their Ground, and you'll all end up shooting each other. Good riddance to bad redneck trailer trash.

Would you find 1st ammendment parody funny? (1.20 / 5) (#94)
by duncan bayne on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 10:57:01 PM EST

Maybe I should write a parody piece mocking the 1st Ammendment and activists in favour of it - perhaps suggesting all the while that the framers never intended it to apply to citizens, just to Government-approved media outlets.

Oh well ... I guess that people are easier with the idea of the law forcing them to retreat in the face of threats to life and limb.  It's easier than being responsible for your own life and all.

depends (none / 0) (#98)
by loteck on Thu Oct 06, 2005 at 11:50:52 PM EST

could you make people laugh with it? then i might like it.

but then again, i actually have a sense of humor.
--
"You're in tune to the musical sound of loteck hi-fi, the musical sound that moves right round. Keep on moving ya'll." -Mylakovich
"WHAT AN ETERNAL MOBIUS STRIP OF FELLATIATIC BANALITY THIS IS." -Harry B Otch

[ Parent ]

Ha ha (none / 1) (#100)
by m50d on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 02:55:33 AM EST

Would you find 1st ammendment parody funny?

No, because the 1st amendment is a fundamentally good idea. Give it a try if you like.

The reason this parody is funny is because it's unnecessary. The law itself is fucking hilarious.

[ Parent ]

Well, give it a try (none / 0) (#101)
by bml on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 04:28:18 AM EST

Let's see if it flies.

The Internet is vast, and contains many people. This is the way of things. -- Russell Dovey
[ Parent ]
Everyone already knows... (none / 0) (#131)
by skyknight on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 11:06:54 AM EST

that the founding fathers did not envision such things as the Internet, and clearly did not intend for such dangerous things to be in the hands of common citizens. We must abolish this anachronistic part of our constitution.

It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
[ Parent ]
$ is not a subject (2.33 / 3) (#103)
by the77x42 on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 05:11:23 AM EST

Three people of different nationalities walk into the bar. Two of them say something smart, and the third one makes a mockery of his fellow countrymen by acting dumb.


"We're not here to educate. We're here to point and laugh." - creature
"You have some pretty stupid ideas." - indubitable ‮

This is what poor schooling yields.. (1.00 / 7) (#105)
by Panic101 on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 06:07:58 AM EST

I feel sorry for your countrymen for having to share their space with a ignorant, deluded mouthpiece like yourself..

We can only hope that the average american male isnt as stupid as you lead us to believe by your embarassing yourself on this website..

this is satire. (none / 1) (#129)
by CAIMLAS on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 01:40:11 AM EST

It is also very politically neutral satire. Get a clue.
--

Socialism and communism better explained by a psychologist than a political theorist.
[ Parent ]

That is what poor schooling yields. (none / 1) (#130)
by slaida1 on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 06:22:40 AM EST

The irony is strong with this one.

[ Parent ]
Good way to (1.66 / 3) (#106)
by jeremyn on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 06:28:33 AM EST

Make yourself look like a fucking idiot.

It would be funnier. (none / 0) (#110)
by Craevenwulfe on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 01:36:59 PM EST

If he could get his racial epithets right. As it is, it just screams of "internet tough guy" rather than amusing.

[ Parent ]
So? (none / 0) (#118)
by jeremyn on Sun Oct 09, 2005 at 12:05:11 AM EST

I even hate jokes that reinforce the lies over the Floridia self-defence law change.

[ Parent ]
Umm... (1.25 / 4) (#112)
by Armada on Fri Oct 07, 2005 at 03:57:17 PM EST

If you don't like a law, writing a satire piece to a bunch of liberal atheists isn't going to help.

If you're really concerned, buy a gun. You should probably own one anyway if you live in a sh!thole like Florida.

If Florida is a shithole... (none / 0) (#128)
by CAIMLAS on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 01:01:07 AM EST

If Florida is a shithole, I odn't want to know what the likes of Chicago, New York, New Jersey, and California are. They all have significantly higher crime rates which are not dropping, unlike Florida's.

Surprise, surprise. All those states have incredibly facist (by American standards) firearm restrictions.
--

Socialism and communism better explained by a psychologist than a political theorist.
[ Parent ]

I agree (none / 0) (#132)
by Armada on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 04:30:16 PM EST

While I consider myself a liberal (classical liberal or libertarian, that is). I agree that the availability of a firearm does decrease crime. It's a whole lot more senseless to rob someone if there's a chance they have a gun than if there's no chance they have one. For example, New York or Chicago are perfect examples where you can be relatively certain no one owns a firearm in "upstanding" parts of the city. Precisely for the reason that it is illegal to own one. So if you take your gun and head up there, you've pretty much got free reign to use force to rob people blind.

[ Parent ]
What you make up in your mind ... (none / 0) (#135)
by Alienated Buddha on Tue Oct 11, 2005 at 02:24:37 AM EST

Does not follow in real life. Strict gun laws allow for less people to have guns. Even if you are talking about the black market, or buying guns legally; as I pointed out to the poster to which you replied. Also crime is not simply determined by how many people have guns or not, there are of course economic factors that play into the equation as well.

[ Parent ]
I've got news for you (none / 1) (#138)
by CAIMLAS on Tue Oct 11, 2005 at 03:22:46 PM EST

I've got news for you: firearms are stolen from police and military establishments all the time.

Economics be damned, the statistics are pretty clear thta introducing concealed carry laws into even a 'blighted' area will reduce the crimerate, as the lawful poor will be more able to protect themselves.

Not only that, but it is trivial to manufacture a firearm. Look at Britan, if you want an example. There have been several reports of firearm manufacturing facilities having been found: you don't need much, I can tell you that (and not even for a shitty little 'tube gun', either, but for some much more complex firearms like an AK).

They've had firearms all but completely banned for many a year now, and yet their armed crime rates are increasing, as are their unnarmed crime rates. If nobody is armed, you don't -need- a weapon to perform a crime, as there won't be as much resistance. It's gotten to the point over there where its not safe to go out after dark in the better parts of town due to chavs.
--

Socialism and communism better explained by a psychologist than a political theorist.
[ Parent ]

What about homocide then? (none / 0) (#148)
by Alienated Buddha on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 03:19:39 AM EST

See comment above. You might curb armed robbery, but you're certainly not curbing murder; in fact you're making it worst. Which is more important to you?

[ Parent ]
Uhh.. (none / 1) (#145)
by Armada on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:27:49 PM EST

Strict gun laws allow for less people to have guns.

Please back that with a reference. I've never heard of any case where a stricter gun law was implemented and gun ownership amongst criminals actually went down.

Armed crimed increased in every instance I've been able to find, Britain, Austrailia, etc.

Banning guns is like banning drugs, it only creates an underground market that you can't draw accurate statistics from.

[ Parent ]

Okay let's see ... (none / 0) (#147)
by Alienated Buddha on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 03:17:26 AM EST

I'll back down on my arguement of armed robbery since that's not what I was really going for. But then what about homocide? The US still tops Britain in murder. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/325/23/1615 By the way I wonder how many armed robberies are commited with guns bought legally. I would imagine that because of being able to easily trace it back to a purchase legalization would not affect the black market. Guns are not like drugs.

[ Parent ]
Wow you don't know shit do you? (none / 1) (#133)
by Alienated Buddha on Tue Oct 11, 2005 at 02:02:31 AM EST

If you check out the crime rate in NYC you will realize it has been dropping for the last 10 years or so years. If you check out crime rate by states you will realize that the south (including Florida) has a much higher crime rates than the northern states. Perhaps if you stop watching all that TV you would realize not all is at it seems.

[ Parent ]
gee... (none / 1) (#137)
by CAIMLAS on Tue Oct 11, 2005 at 03:17:02 PM EST

That couldn't have anything to do with a huge influx in illegal immigration over the last 10 years, could it?
--

Socialism and communism better explained by a psychologist than a political theorist.
[ Parent ]

Well ... (none / 0) (#146)
by Alienated Buddha on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 02:58:43 AM EST

How does one measure the rate of people that techincally do not exist? Yes you can point to the Census, but when you don't speak English and are afraid of the authority, signing the Census is the last priority on your list. So I really can't say the Census is an accurate portrayal of the number of illegal aliens. We can try to estimate but that's just mere speculation. Yes most people say we undercount illegal aliens, but just the fact that the Census is not trusted does not allow us to draw straws.

[ Parent ]
Here's a quick link for you as some proof ... (none / 0) (#134)
by Alienated Buddha on Tue Oct 11, 2005 at 02:12:44 AM EST

http://www.doc.state.ok.us/MAPS/incrimUS.htm If you look at NY it ranks at a whopping 44th, while Florida ranks at ding ding ding .. 4th place. Research all you want, having loose gun laws does not produce low crime. You can also research Japan and Britain while you're at it : http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=3231

[ Parent ]
roffel. (1.00 / 2) (#113)
by sir q on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 12:01:23 AM EST

This is the funniest thing I've read in weeks.

Random Slaughter (none / 1) (#114)
by mettaur on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 12:19:18 PM EST

Mr. X is walking down a street. Mr. Y is walking in the opposite direction, towards Mr. X.
Mr. X begins to scratch his left armpit.
At this point Mr. Y fears that Mr. X is going to pull a gun, and begins to draw his own.
Mr X sees Mr Y drawing a weapon, and then really does go for his gun...
--
[Applying business theory to trolling]
Well then. (none / 0) (#124)
by Sairon on Sun Oct 09, 2005 at 01:48:23 PM EST

I'm kind of surprised that I'm replying to this but... don't jump up and down with such madness. I live under law that sounds almost exactly the same and its not a problem. I don't expect many issues with this, as it is very hard to reasonably prove that someone intends you harm.

Jared

[ Parent ]

North going zax (none / 0) (#144)
by capt hij on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 03:29:13 PM EST

Calm down dude! This is really quite gude. Now when the north going zax meets the south going zax on the prairy of prax, the south going zax will pull out his uzi, and the mess that is made will be quite a doozy. And we can soon all go out looking for a floozy!

[ Parent ]
The sad part is... (2.50 / 2) (#116)
by localman on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 03:25:57 PM EST

I can't tell for the life of me if this is sarcastic or not.  I mean, not for the lack of effort on the part of the author, who took it over the top and then around again a few times like a ferris wheel.  But it sounds about the same as the stuff I read in more serious works by Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter.

Reminds me of rap music in the 90's.  I once tried to parody rap, (check out Kill Da Bitch), but within a few years real, serious rap had gone beyond what my poor white ass could even parody.  Real life was too ridiculous.  It's like trying to parody the Holocaust.  It's just too over the top to go over the top with.

Anyways... serious or sarcastic, great article.  It reminds me what a whacked out world we live in.

Cheers.

La yers (none / 1) (#117)
by levesque on Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 06:17:42 PM EST

authorizing a person to use force, including deadly force, against an intruder or attacker in a dwelling, residence, or vehicle under specified circumstances; creating a presumption that a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm exists under certain circumstances; creating a presumption that a person acts with the intent to use force or violence under specified circumstances

From what I've read the law does not presently give you the right to assume, this version would create the right to assume about yourself: "a presumption that a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm exists under certain circumstances" and the right to assume that the other: "a presumption that a person acts with the intent to use force or violence under specified circumstances". IANAL but I think the present law says you must ascertain the situation before you act, this version says you could pre assume a perticular interpretation of the situation.

Again IANAL but I think the present law is relatively reasonable in it's balance concerning action under these situations. This version of the law would raise "unreasonably" the chance of random acts of violence, and the rights of property ownership. A few examples: What happens when someone claims to be "law enforcement" to gain entry or as justification for their presence, what happens when someone knocks on your door for directions and youre convinced they are evil so you take a few steps back to get closer to your gun and the "evil" individual takes a step closer to you, did they cross the line, can you reason at this point? close enough? Bang. What about the wandering child hiding in your in your basement, the simple of mind or the repairman who got the instructions wrong. What about the neighbor who enters your bedroom to wake you from a dazed sleep to take you away from the raging fire downstairs you are not even aware of.

What if you abandon your house and someone literally dying of thirst and hunger breaks in hoping to find some food or water, when you return this law gives you the right to first assume your life is in danger, second to assume the intruder is out to kill you and third you will not be arrested and questionned.

providing immunity from criminal prosecution or civil action for using deadly force ... prohibiting the agency from arresting the person ... providing for the award of attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and other expenses to a defendant in a civil suit who was immune from prosecution under this section

This whole thing reminds me too much of upper class insecurities and their personal problems in dealing with authority.

WPDs (none / 1) (#122)
by John Thompson on Sun Oct 09, 2005 at 11:02:59 AM EST

La Yers wrote:

From what I've read the law does not presently give you the right to assume, this version would create the right to assume about yourself: "a presumption that a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm exists under certain circumstances" and the right to assume that the other: "a presumption that a person acts with the intent to use force or violence under specified circumstances". IANAL but I think the present law says you must ascertain the situation before you act, this version says you could pre assume a perticular interpretation of the situation.

So, maybe I can presume that you have WPDs (weapons of personal destruction) available and are willing to use them against me, so I can pre-emptively smoke you on that basis. I've heard that this is acceptable on a large scale, so why not on a personal scale as well?



[ Parent ]
Escalation, lateral and hierarchical . (none / 0) (#127)
by levesque on Sun Oct 09, 2005 at 07:07:53 PM EST

(Correction: My previous post needlessly stereotyped "upper class")

[ Parent ]
I disagree (none / 1) (#136)
by The Real Lord Kano on Tue Oct 11, 2005 at 03:18:16 AM EST

I live in Pennsylvania. Here we have no duty to retreat under certain circumstances. Namely if an intruder is in your home. If I wake up at 2:30 in the morning to someone robbing my house, I can assume that this person has illegally entered my home for the purpose of doing me bodily harm and I can use deadly force to defend myself and my property.

And there's nothing wrong with that.

What happens when someone claims to be "law enforcement" to gain entry or as justification for their presence

Then he or she will have valid ID. I HAVE been visited by federal agents and they displayed their ID before they even told me their names.

what happens when someone knocks on your door for directions and youre convinced they are evil so you take a few steps back to get closer to your gun and the "evil" individual takes a step closer to you,

Do YOU enter someone's house without being invited? I don't.

What about the wandering child hiding in your in your basement,

You mean the burglar?

the simple of mind or the repairman who got the instructions wrong.

I don't know about where you live, but here repairmen knock on the door and tell you who they are before they try to come into your house.

This whole thing reminds me too much of upper class insecurities and their personal problems in dealing with authority.

The "upper class" have fantastic police response times. These types of things aren't much of an issue in rich neighborhoods. It's the middle class and the poor who have to fend for themselves and worry about this sort of thing.

LK

[ Parent ]

I agree with some (none / 1) (#140)
by levesque on Tue Oct 11, 2005 at 07:04:40 PM EST

I'm not sure it is a good idea to be able to assume, that any person in your home that you have not accounted for, has illegally entered your home for the purpose of doing you bodily harm therefore, you can use deadly force. In that context I think the law should include a condition of "reasonably ascertain" that the intruder does have criminal intent.

The police break down your door and enter screaming police or your wife returns from a walk you where not aware of. I think the law still says you must reasonably ascertain intent before you can shoot so it does not become an easy way of killing your wife or avoiding arrest.

The wandering child hiding in your basement was not a burglar, the story is made up, but the homeowner shot the child and then found out the "reasonable events" that led to the childs presence in the basement. The simple of mind, make anything up. The repairman who got your instructions wrong. The person asking for directions was an actual case and they had not actually crossed the door seal but it seems the homeowner had assumed they where out to do no good and this caused the homeowner's perception of the actual movements and intentions of the "intruder" to be warped.

The "upper class" have fantastic police response times. These types of things aren't much of an issue in rich neighborhoods. It's the middle class and the poor who have to fend for themselves and worry about this sort of thing.

First I stereotyped the upper class, second I oversimplified the issue and third I agree the middle and lower classes are the main victims of "criminal property redistribution with or without the intent to do bodily harm".

There is the case of "property harm" being used as a continuum with "bodily harm", without nuance, that annoys me and there is the issue of "disaster context" where the police are not there to respond and you are trying to protect your property from looters or a "security firm" is acting as your proxy. In that context, I was proposing that the main drive for the law could be coming from some parts of the upper classes.

[ Parent ]

Do you really believe that? (none / 0) (#150)
by The Real Lord Kano on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 01:37:26 AM EST

Are you really telling me that there are legitimate reasons for someone to break into your house?

In what way can a repairman misunderstand directions so that he would end up breaking into a house?

The mentally retarded tend to be less criminally inclined than those of us with normal minds. They are less likely to burglarize one's home. But in those rare circumstances when one of them DOES commit a crime, why should I be less entitled to defend myself?

Juveniles also tend to be less inclined to commit criminal acts than adults, but those who do are every bit as dangerous as their adult counterparts. A criminal child is every bit as capable of killing you as an adult. It's your choice to take a lax approach to your personal safety, but that doesn't mean that the rest of us should.

For a lost traveler, the old law would have provided for a way for someone with murder on his mind to commit such an action and have a legal defense. What's to keep someone from claiming that the traveler forced his way into the home and was making threatening gestures?

The fact of the matter is that this law is about protecting the law abiding.

LK

[ Parent ]

What? No, (none / 0) (#152)
by levesque on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 09:23:20 PM EST

Are you really telling me that there are legitimate reasons for someone to break into your house?

Yes and I'm sure you can name a few that do not imply criminal intent, I would also say there are many situations where someone, who did not break in and did not get your permission, can be found in your house.

I would rewrite my first comment if I could. I'm not sure where the original link is or if the text as written had any legal validity, but it did contain, as far as I can remember, this unexplained bit: "under specified circumstances". When can you assume and what can you assume, -what are the exact rules and conditions. Blanket immunity does not exist, the law sets the stage. So I don't know the specifics. But I do know that some people in florida would like to increase the situations in which one can assume criminal intent without verification. I'm suggesting that it is a bad idea to overexpand or underexpand the right to assume. Overexpanding and underexpanding creates more dead victims.

For a lost traveler, the old law would have provided for a way for someone with murder on his mind to commit such an action and have a legal defense. What's to keep someone from claiming that the traveler forced his way into the home and was making threatening gestures?

I'm saying that the more people can assume the more they will act as if the assumption is true and the more the general climate of violence will escalate. The law is there to maintain a social balancing act. There are no inherent legal rights.

And I'm pretty sure you will attempt to investigate the reason for the noise in your kitchen at 2:00 am and not go in shooting blindly. The law has to account for all the other people who are not so cool headed. And raising the rights of these people to assume negative intentions can be a very volatile endevour.

[ Parent ]

ROTFLMAO (none / 0) (#120)
by Witchey on Sun Oct 09, 2005 at 02:07:13 AM EST

That is the funniest thing that I have read in quite a while. Well-written, funny & topical. I love it.

YAY (none / 0) (#121)
by sxmangel on Sun Oct 09, 2005 at 09:24:55 AM EST

YAY!!!
Let's all move to Florida!!

_________________________
Latermentationz,
Angel
Most people are good. (LONG) (none / 1) (#143)
by joebob2k5 on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:16:25 AM EST

Most people are good at heart.

Self interest is always a part of our behavior, but people are social creatures who seek out and engage in various cooperative relationships with others.

I truly believe that most people want to get along with others when push comes to shove. It is natural not to want to hurt other people.

In fact, it took the modern armies of the world a long time to figure out how to train that natural tendency out of the average soldier for the purposes of waging war.

Unfortunately, there are some people who are not so nice. They do not care about other people and will hurt them as soon as it becomes convenient without batting an eye. Psychologists have labels for these types of people like sociopath, psychopath, etc. Law enforcement also has a name for them: criminals.

While most people easily understand and follow the basic rules of society, these criminals do not really care about the rules because rules interfere with the unregulated exercise of pure self-interest, unhindered by any contemplation of others rights or needs.

Give most people a gun and what will happen? NOT MUCH

Why? because most people are good, care about others, and don't really want to hurt anyone, even a crook. Many will be afraid of making a mistake even when a crime is happening. THEY REAALLY DON'T WANT TO SHOOT! This is because they are normal people who have an innate tendency not to harm others. They also think of consequences and would rather avoid the whole thing by not shooting.

Give a bad person a gun and what will happen? NOT MUCH

Why? they already have guns, or whatever minimum level of weapon they need to have an edge over their prey. Sadly, this means no weapon in many cases, since violence is a tool of criminals and they can dominate over most victims armed with nothing more than their lack of empathy and capacity for violence. It is their business to always have the edge over their prey.

Florida has had concealed carry for years, and you don't see people blasting away at each other after fenderbenders, despite all the frivolous claims that this would happen. Other states have had a "stand your ground law", plus concealed carry, and it has not led to bosnia-style open warfare in the streets.

Why? because most people do not want to kill others, or even hurt them. Only a small percentage of deviants do that, and they do it whether or not you tell them not to.

This is exactly why victim disarmament laws are so wrong. Not only do they render helpless those who are already least equipped to defend themselves, they also disarm exactly the people who would be most likely to prevent crimes from happening by being armed - the random, anonymous citizens who comprise the criminal's prey. Criminals do not like to take life or death chances during their crimes, they pick situations where they have the edge. Them not knowing who has a gun is a good way to cut down on crime.



Laws like this (none / 0) (#151)
by pyro9 on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 12:37:44 PM EST

At one time, laws specifically permitting self defense were purely unnecessary since that right was seen as a given by police and presecutors. If disinterested 3rd party witnesses told police that the 'victim' was the agressor or if he was obviously engaged in 'forcable felonies' (pockets containing several watches or other people's wallets, etc) the incident would never see a courtroom. Since this was well known, the 'perp' would generally be cooperative since he would have nothing to fear. That gave police one more way to guage the situation.

The only reason we need such laws now is to curb over-zealous prosecutors and police who are more interested in racking up convictions than in seeing justice done. As a natural consequence, we now know that obvious innocence is a poor defense at best, so few are cooperative with police.


The future isn't what it used to be
I don't get it (none / 0) (#153)
by der on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 05:05:20 AM EST

Doesn't Americans killing each other off solve this nasty America problem we've been having lately? What's the downside?

The downside... (none / 0) (#158)
by jd on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 10:36:44 PM EST

...is that the intelligent Americans (the few who can count without taking their socks off) will be the first to be killed off. If not by Floridians, then by some marauding bunch of Republicans or (failing that) they'll simply never be treated by the hospitals when Avian Flu becomes directly transmissible from humans to humans.

(Hospitals bill you whether you recover or not, and there's going to be a cap on lawsuits against them, so they've every reason to let you die - it's far more profitable. Only reason the hospitals in New Orleans are being prosecuted is that they blabbed that they had conducted a wholesale slaughter of patients they didn't want to spend the time and effort moving.)

The other concern is that Florida has stockpiles of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. If (or, rather, when) the psychos seize control, those aren't the devices the rest of the world needs Floridians to be standing their ground with.

Having said that, they've been using chemical weapons on the human population for years. That orange juice is likely contaminated with numerous toxins from over-used pesticides. And who knows if they're using Genetic Engineering? In America, nobody admits to anything unless they're caught red-handed - and even then, not always. (I don't picture Libby admitting any fault or failure any time soon.)

Personally, I think the UN should declare that Florida is a Rogue State (in every sense of the word) and authorize an invasion by UN troops. The US would probably veto such a move - well, assuming that their representative wasn't delayed and one of the other nations got an actor to stand in, for the crucial vote. Hmmm. Anyone know the phone numbers of anyone on the Security Council?

[ Parent ]

Floridians, eeeeh.. not so tough (none / 0) (#154)
by killfile on Mon Oct 17, 2005 at 05:27:46 AM EST

I've fucked with plenty of floridians, they're a weak bunch. When they talk about US not having the best soldiers in the world, they're talking about people like those found in florida.

huh (none / 0) (#155)
by kbudha on Tue Oct 18, 2005 at 02:45:51 PM EST

that why some of the most talented athletes in the world come from Florida. You must be trolling.

[ Parent ]
Yep (none / 0) (#156)
by phraud on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 04:29:06 PM EST

Yep, because being good at sports makes you an all around super-duper person!
You create your own reality. Leave mine to me.
[ Parent ]
I 95 (none / 0) (#159)
by Heyref on Wed Nov 02, 2005 at 05:57:29 PM EST

Anybody driving on I 95 in Miami who is driving within the speed limit and staying between the lines is asaulted verbally and physically about every tenth of a mile. Gunfire is slightly less common. Now we can just open up on those bastards. Cool!

A bit too subtle perhaps (none / 0) (#160)
by bsoft on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 12:02:31 AM EST

Nice work, but I'm afraid that many Americans probably wouldn't recognize this as a work of satire. Rather sad, when you think abou it.

I'm Floridian; Don't Fuck With Me | 161 comments (123 topical, 38 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!