Afraid? ... Shoot First

[Wudge]

Georgia passes a new law.

http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/breaking_news/14940915.htm

[Amraann]

A Similair law passed in Florida a few months ago.

[cathieq]

I don't have a concealed gun permit nor do I carry one around in my belt. So the chances are I won't be affected by the law UNLESS my looks scare the living daylights out of somebody else who does have a gun. Everytime I go out in public...no, every waking minute I'm at risk for being shot...by someone who breaks in our house or someone who wants my car or by someone who is trying to protect himself and misses his aim. You get the picture...

I think we should be allowed to protect ourselves...Unfortunately, having legal avenues to do so is still at an extreme disadvantage against those who do it illegally. I hate that life has come to this...that we have to establish laws to protect ourselves.

I am not trying to make light of the situation or be sarcastic. I just find it extremely sad...

[Wudge]

I don't have a concealed gun permit nor do I carry one around in my belt. So the chances are I won't be affected by the law UNLESS my looks scare the living daylights out of somebody else who does have a gun. Everytime I go out in public...no, every waking minute I'm at risk for being shot...by someone who breaks in our house or someone who wants my car or by someone who is trying to protect himself and misses his aim. You get the picture...

I think we should be allowed to protect ourselves...Unfortunately, having legal avenues to do so is still at an extreme disadvantage against those who do it illegally. I hate that life has come to this...that we have to establish laws to protect ourselves.

I am not trying to make light of the situation or be sarcastic. I just find it extremely sad...

True, and violent crime is not slackening.

[proadvocate]

I really don't believe these laws are intended to promote a 'shoot first ask later'mentality amongst the general public.Rather I am of the opinion that they are intended to make it legal to do what we should have the right to do anyway...DEFEND OUR LIVES,LOVED ONES AND PROPERTY.Should a person in bed asleep not have the right to shoot the crackhead who breaks in looking to steal the stuff he worked his arse off to buy?Should a mother not have the right to shoot the sick bastard who breaks in her childs room looking to satisfy some deviant sexual desire?Should we not have the right to shoot some thug who tries to jack our car while we're on our way home from work?Or maybe we should condemn these folks to a jail sentence for comitting such horrific crimes.Afterall we really don't need that expensive stereo system,the kid will grow up to have sex anyway hell let them start young,and we all know the mass transit systems in America are a great place to meet new friends who needs a car.Sadly many in this nation take such nonsensical approaches when they strive to argue that you ythe citzen who obeys the law and tries to make a decent life for your family don't have the right to defend against these animals.there is afterall no need to shoot the poor crackhead,hell it aint his fault he needed your stuff to buy his fix,nor is it the molestors fault your kid was wearing sexy pajamas......GET REAL.
I firmly believe that the right to protect and defend our live liberty and property is a Constitutional guarantee to all Americans.Just as the crackhead has the right to decide to break into your home(according to some of the more soft hearted morons in this nation)You should have the right to splatter his drug laced brain on your wall as he creeps thru the window.It is unfortunate that in todays "free spirited"society we need laws to give us that which we should have always had.......But it is even more unfortunate that these laws are not Nationwide.

[BhamMama]

Just get ready for those self same crackheads to claim self defense when a deal goes bad or they don't like the colors being shown in their neighborhood because they've extended the law to parking lots and sidewalks. More waste of tax payer money being wasted in the courts for these sickos who fight it out then claim they were the injured party. More court back ups, I can see that coming. More police efforts being wasted in a whole new direction on people who don't deserve it.

Sadly they don't play by the same rules the rest of the law abiding world does.

[proadvocate]

Just get ready for those self same crackheads to claim self defense when a deal goes bad or they don't like the colors being shown in their neighborhood because they've extended the law to parking lots and sidewalks. More waste of tax payer money being wasted in the courts for these sickos who fight it out then claim they were the injured party. More court back ups, I can see that coming. More police efforts being wasted in a whole new direction on people who don't deserve it.

Sadly they don't play by the same rules the rest of the law abiding world does.
Get ready for it??????????.....Whens the last time you read the appeals of one of these crackheads on deathrow fighting to save their pathetic arse?......By reading a tad of nonchalance into your advice to me and others who support such laws I could ALMOST safely assume that answer to be NEVER.It is to the point in this nation that anytime you retaliate in any way shape or form against a thug,YOU ARE THE CRIMINAL.BS.You should have the right to defend your self,and the courts need the tools to safely determine if that was in fact what you were doing.The guy on the street upset cause his dealer sold him a 20 piece for 40 is not eligible for such claims......strap him to the gurney and lt the cries of cruel and unusual supersede.It really is not that difficult to have standards under law......Unless of coarse you live in the brainless madness we call fairness today.

[Amraann]

Just get ready for those self same crackheads to claim self defense when a deal goes bad or they don't like the colors being shown in their neighborhood because they've extended the law to parking lots and sidewalks. More waste of tax payer money being wasted in the courts for these sickos who fight it out then claim they were the injured party. More court back ups, I can see that coming. More police efforts being wasted in a whole new direction on people who don't deserve it.

Sadly they don't play by the same rules the rest of the law abiding world does.
They never have ... and they never will .. and Ignorance of the intent of the law does not permit exclusion of compliance.

I hardly think the crackhead even has a clue or follows the laws or legislation..
If they are lucky their Public Defender does. In the end it will be some cute ploy by a lawyer NOT the intent of getting away with it by a crackhead.

[proadvocate]

They never have ... and they never will .. and Ignorance of the intent of the law does not permit exclusion of compliance.

I hardly think the crackhead even has a clue or follows the laws or legislation..
If they are lucky their Public Defender does. In the end it will be some cute ploy by a lawyer NOT the intent of getting away with it by a crackhead.
Very well put.Those who would advocate against such laws would in essence strip your Constitutional right to life,liberty,and the pursuit of happiness.Not to mntion that silly little right to "keep and bear arms".Of coarse these same advocates will argue how wrong it is to defend yourself with a firearm out one side of their mouth,whilst failing to realize that banning firearms would require a law.Now maybe I am short sighted,maybe as said in another thread I am contemptuous,Perhaps I am just a heartless bastard....but in my reading of the definition of "Criminal" I am assuming it to mean "One who does not follow the law".So under my contemptuous interpretation I beg these advocates to explain why if we the innocent lay down our arms by law,the criminal will follow suit.Simple questions for the brainless who would deny us our right to protect that which is ours...........

[concernedperson]

Proadvocate,nothing wrong with what you say and I agree 100%.I have seen and heard about too many cases lately (particulary w/ jackings) where the people didn't have a chance.They were murdered for their cars and what piddling amount of ATM withdrawals that could be coerced from them.

I may get a gun or not. I know I would never be afraid to use it but I worry with myself that I may be too quick to act.Dangerous times for all.

[proadvocate]

Proadvocate,nothing wrong with what you say and I agree 100%.I have seen and heard about too many cases lately (particulary w/ jackings) where the people didn't have a chance.They were murdered for their cars and what piddling amount of ATM withdrawals that could be coerced from them.

I may get a gun or not. I know I would never be afraid to use it but I worry with myself that I may be too quick to act.Dangerous times for all.
Thanx,for the words of agreement

I see your point and it is for that reason I personally have never allowed guns in my home.I do see a conflict within myself when I use this argument however.Am I really acting too quick when the thug has broken into my home?Did the mom act too quick when she caught the pervert in her 5 yr old daughters room?Did the broker act to quick when the crackhead jacked his car to sell for a quick fix?So many questions,and so many answers that make me want to agree with you.Yet I scroll thru other areas of this forum and I read of people who did agree with us,and questioned their right to defend their life and tht of their loved ones.Sadly the majority of those we read about are dead at the hand of some thug who now cries about how unfaiir our law is.It really makes me wonder if despite the heart of those like you and I the only good thug is a dead thug.....Questions beseech me.....answers fleet me

[concernedperson]

I never used to be so quick to dismiss or offer up what I believe to be patterns.But, there are patterns.The violence is reaching hard core boundaries. Everything that you thought safe before isn't.Realizations and evidence of it is everywhere. Not holding a conspiracy theory but rather a wondering why everything pertaining to victims is lost on a greater postulate.

[BhamMama]

Get ready for it??????????.....Whens the last time you read the appeals of one of these crackheads on deathrow fighting to save their pathetic arse?......By reading a tad of nonchalance into your advice to me and others who support such laws I could ALMOST safely assume that answer to be NEVER.It is to the point in this nation that anytime you retaliate in any way shape or form against a thug,YOU ARE THE CRIMINAL.BS.You should have the right to defend your self,and the courts need the tools to safely determine if that was in fact what you were doing.The guy on the street upset cause his dealer sold him a 20 piece for 40 is not eligible for such claims......strap him to the gurney and lt the cries of cruel and unusual supersede.It really is not that difficult to have standards under law......Unless of coarse you live in the brainless madness we call fairness today. I'm not talking about some idiot who is already in jail. I'm talking about giving them another defense for their use of violence. Another reason to tie up our courts. Please don't step on my toes. Who the heck said I didn't support it? And who said I was giving advice?

Personally, I hate guns, won't own one, dont want one, think that some people who have them shouldn't, talking law abiding ones, because of stupidity basically and well, we all know criminals shouldn't have them. But I will support to the death the right that anyone can own one because that is part of our basic freedom.

I have not ridiculed your beliefs nor been forceful in my statements and I expect the same in return. Just because I may not believe the same as you doesn't mean my points aren't valid.

When we give law abiding citizens rights it means we also have to give crimnals rights and THEY are the ones who will take advantage. Doesn't mean I have to like it. Just seems like giving them two hand grenades when we have a pop gun.

Personally, I'd like to see the money that will be wasted on these court cases go to giving proper water systems to the poor in the Appalachians or setting up a clean, safe place for inner city youth or something worth the effort. Again, my opinion. Violence begets violence and I dont want to have to be armed to go about my daily life. When that is an accepted way of life, we have all lost.

I do see the other side, really. The right to protect your life should be a given. But I don't think more guns are the answer. I wish I had an answer I could morally live with.

[GlitchWizard]

My neighborhood is in the woods. We all have guns. All our kids have guns. We all know how and when to use them and our dogs bark when someone comes in the yard. We protect our own and are not going to let anyone come in our house and hurt our families without a fight.

But the ONLY crime in our neighborhood since I've been living here (1999 - present) has been some dogs getting shot for getting into some chickens. To me, that speaks VOLUMES.

Bad guys won't come around people who are at ease with guns and can shoot them. They'll go for the easier, safer targets. I'd much prefer that the guys who are used to coming barrelling into an occupied house to threaten and then steal all of a sudden think they'd need to change their method for fear of getting killed. Sure, they'll still break into homes - but will look for unoccupied ones instead. I'd say that's at least a step in the right direction.

[tennessee]

I don't find this law surprising in the least. Almost 40 years ago my parents lived in downtown Atlanta. Someone tried to break into their apartment one night. An officer came to make a report and told them that if that ever happened again when they were home to fire away. It was happening more than they could keep up with and that the most that would happen is that my dad might be taken in for a statement/questioning and released. They decided that although my dad had a decent job and the money was good, they didn't want to raise their family there. They moved back home a short time later.

I will defend my family against anyone who tries to enter our home. All I could tell someone who tried to break in is that they best be prepared to meet their maker. Of course, we do have an alarm system too. I just don't trust that the local law enforcement could show up in time to stop them.

[Wudge]

I don't find this law surprising in the least. Almost 40 years ago my parents lived in downtown Atlanta. Someone tried to break into their apartment one night. An officer came to make a report and told them that if that ever happened again when they were home to fire away. It was happening more than they could keep up with and that the most that would happen is that my dad might be taken in for a statement/questioning and released. They decided that although my dad had a decent job and the money was good, they didn't want to raise their family there. They moved back home a short time later.

I will defend my family against anyone who tries to enter our home. All I could tell someone who tried to break in is that they best be prepared to meet their maker. Of course, we do have an alarm system too. I just don't trust that the local law enforcement could show up in time to stop them.

This is not a castle law. This law applies to a situation outside of a home too.

[GlitchWizard]

You still have to prove you were in fear for your life. You still can't get away with murder with this law.

As many movies as I've seen where the bad guy gets back up after being shot once - I'd definitely want the option to make sure he didn't get back up. I do think, though, that if it takes a second shot to kill a person, you better not take the shot. The reason is, once the person is no longer a threat, you no longer have the right to shoot them. Better aim right on the first go around.

[Wudge]

You still have to prove you were in fear for your life. You still can't get away with murder with this law.

As many movies as I've seen where the bad guy gets back up after being shot once - I'd definitely want the option to make sure he didn't get back up. I do think, though, that if it takes a second shot to kill a person, you better not take the shot. The reason is, once the person is no longer a threat, you no longer have the right to shoot them. Better aim right on the first go around.


People most certainly can get away with murder under this law. In situations where it was one-on-one, only the living testify.

[GlitchWizard]

People most certainly can get away with murder under this law. In situations where it was one-on-one, only the living testify.

I'm afraid it's still not worth the risk. Those people in this world that I want dead will just have to keep walking around.

....let me know when it's open season on predators though - I'll be out in force.

[Wudge]

I'm afraid it's still not worth the risk. Those people in this world that I want dead will just have to keep walking around.

....let me know when it's open season on predators though - I'll be out in force.

(good one, chuckle)

[Bobbisangel]

I have a gun in my house and I would use it if someone was trying to break into my house. There is just myself and my grandaughter here and no one who doesn't belong here is coming in. I don't know what the law is here and really don't care. If someone trys to break into my house I'll shoot at him before he can get in and hurt one of us.

[proadvocate]

People most certainly can get away with murder under this law. In situations where it was one-on-one, only the living testify.
So whats new?"people were getting away with murder under the law for ages now.Lets see the daddy catches mommie in the sack with the cable guy,shoots the cable guy 10 times then claims Crime of Passion"...that is getting away with murder under the law.Or how bout the guy who takes his prescribed medication drives to town,dozes off and strikes the kid on the sidewalk.He goes to court cops a plea does maybe 3 yrs and walks....that is getting away with murder under the law.Loads of ways people do it.

And yet after years of allowing our court system to be so concerned with the criminals RIGHTS,people complain when our legislators try to return some of those same rights to the innocent citizen.This nation has tried limited forms of gun control,it is in fact illegal for the avg working citizen to purchase an automatic weapon,yet its perfectly fine when the criminal uses such a weapon to kill 5 people.....hell according to our current standard of view there simply had to be something wrong with the criminal to make him do it....Surely you jest when you want to punsh the guy for such crimes when we all know his mommy beat him as a kid.We argue here that it is wrong to allow the innocent the right to protect themselves from criminals.....and yet our courts see no harm in letting the criminal protect himself.If we cannot execute the 16 yr old boy who goes to school and kills 20 kids.......why should we punish the guy who shoots a burglar in his own home at 3am?If we cannot execute the guy who dropped out of school at 14 and surprise surprise has the intelect of a 8th grader when he rapes and kills numerous women.....why should we punish the mom who shoots the molestor she catches fondling her 5 yr old daughter.....Surely since it is so wrong to punish the criminal to the fullest means of disposal,it must be mutually wrong to punish one for defending that which the State will not defend for him.If we can pass laws to insure that a criminal has the right to read a newspaper while serving out his days on death row for the murder of a small child or even an adult,then why is it so wrong to pass a law which says that which is yours is yours to defend?Is there no happy medium in the world we call home?Do all our laws need be about protecting those unworthy of our protections now?Must we continually degrade ourselves to the level of those who rape rob and kill for pleasure?

Some here argue these laws are merely more excuses for criminals to murder folks.......Yet it appears more and more to me that some have been in a coma for the past 30 years and have no clue that we have ALREADY given the criminal every excuse he needs to kill us.All those who support such laws are asking is that for once....just once mind you.....you give US a few excuses to defend our loved ones! is that really to much to ask of a basically criminal loving judicial system?I think not.

[Wudge]

So whats new?"people were getting away with murder under the law for ages now.Lets see the daddy catches mommie in the sack with the cable guy,shoots the cable guy 10 times then claims Crime of Passion"...that is getting away with murder under the law.Or how bout the guy who takes his prescribed medication drives to town,dozes off and strikes the kid on the sidewalk.He goes to court cops a plea does maybe 3 yrs and walks....that is getting away with murder under the law.Loads of ways people do it.

And yet after years of allowing our court system to be so concerned with the criminals RIGHTS,people complain when our legislators try to return some of those same rights to the innocent citizen.This nation has tried limited forms of gun control,it is in fact illegal for the avg working citizen to purchase an automatic weapon,yet its perfectly fine when the criminal uses such a weapon to kill 5 people.....hell according to our current standard of view there simply had to be something wrong with the criminal to make him do it....Surely you jest when you want to punsh the guy for such crimes when we all know his mommy beat him as a kid.We argue here that it is wrong to allow the innocent the right to protect themselves from criminals.....and yet our courts see no harm in letting the criminal protect himself.If we cannot execute the 16 yr old boy who goes to school and kills 20 kids.......why should we punish the guy who shoots a burglar in his own home at 3am?If we cannot execute the guy who dropped out of school at 14 and surprise surprise has the intelect of a 8th grader when he rapes and kills numerous women.....why should we punish the mom who shoots the molestor she catches fondling her 5 yr old daughter.....Surely since it is so wrong to punish the criminal to the fullest means of disposal,it must be mutually wrong to punish one for defending that which the State will not defend for him.If we can pass laws to insure that a criminal has the right to read a newspaper while serving out his days on death row for the murder of a small child or even an adult,then why is it so wrong to pass a law which says that which is yours is yours to defend?Is there no happy medium in the world we call home?Do all our laws need be about protecting those unworthy of our protections now?Must we continually degrade ourselves to the level of those who rape rob and kill for pleasure?

Some here argue these laws are merely more excuses for criminals to murder folks.......Yet it appears more and more to me that some have been in a coma for the past 30 years and have no clue that we have ALREADY given the criminal every excuse he needs to kill us.All those who support such laws are asking is that for once....just once mind you.....you give US a few excuses to defend our loved ones! is that really to much to ask of a basically criminal loving judicial system?I think not.

From the late 60's on, our culture has degraded in many, many ways. Many of the the values I was raised to respect are not worth much today.

Taking care of one's family and loved ones was always paramount in my day, and, in that regard, I am certainly in favor of the good aspects of this law. I like the law.

Nevertheless, this law will also be taken advantage of, which was my only point.

[proadvocate]

Of coarse it will be,that is afterall why we call them criminals.we cannot however do away with existing laws only because criminals find the loopholes within them,nor can we stop passing new laws for fear criminals will find new loopholes.If we do we lose the fight.

[bakerprune64]

From the late 60's on, our culture has degraded in many, many ways. Many of the the values I was raised to respect are not worth much today.

Taking care of one's family and loved ones was always paramount in my day, and, in that regard, I am certainly in favor of the good aspects of this law. I like the law.

Nevertheless, this law will also be taken advantage of, which was my only point.
Every law get's taken advantage of, this one will be no different.