|
Alright, where to begin?
Firstly, the author of that article doesn't seem to be quite all there mentally. I'm not saying that flippantly either: he genuinely comes across as little more than a big bundle of hateful neuroses. I mean look at the language he uses:
| quote: | That's right . . . if you decide to rape, rob, car jack or accost a Floridian, you might want to think twice about that brain fart, as that may be the last thing you do before your soul wings its way to Hades.
[...]
If you're the little weed contemplating these things, you should reflect a bit longer on the wisdom of this course of violent action[.]
[...]
I can either impale said dipstick, on a sword, or dust him with 00 Buck, or unload my Sig in his surprised face, or double tap his center mass with my .450/400-3 ¼ Nitro Express double rifle I bought to hunt Africa's most deadliest game.
[...]
In addition, after the deceased violent aggressor's spirit is tooling its way to Dante's slow roast BBQ and I'm comforting my family and friends as I wipe gun powder residue off my hands, thanks to The Castle Doctrine, I can rest assured that I am protected from a therapeutic culture and the soulless lawyers it has spawned.
[...]
You know, it's not a cheerful thought, but think of the reverb that'll shoot through criminal communities in the Sunshine State when one of their ilk gets killed by a good citizen for trying to be tough guy.
What do you think the still living idiot friends of the deceased punk are going to think when they learn that their 19-year old Darwinian-holdover buddy got Glocked by a young woman who refused to be raped by him? |
Those just simply aren't the words of someone who holds a sensible, rational grasp of the world around him. You can almost sense the self-righteous glee he feels at the possibility of violently remonstrating with someone who he perceives as having done him wrong. I'm reminded of Vincent's words from Pulp Fiction, after someone keys his car - "It'd been worth him doing it just so I could've caught him doing it". I get the impression that this author feels the same way: he'd almost relish the feeling of being mugged or having his house broken into, just to have the pleasure of catching him and then "dust[ing] him with 00 Buck". There is a case that can be made for violent methods of self-defence, of course, but if enacting these sorts of laws means that wannabe-viglilante douchebags like this guy can just start unloading rounds of lead into someone at the first sign of trouble, then I really doubt that such laws can really amount to much good. I, for one, wouldn't feel comfortable with someone like this owning a gun, let alone owning a gun that he could use in any way he wanted without fear of criminal prosecution.
The religious "hellfire and brimstone" overtones don't bode well for his grip on reality either. The fact that he could think, even for a second, that the act of "impaling" an unarmed sixteen year-old who had broken into his home "with a sword" is morally justified by the teachings of Christ, or - indeed - that it would be the underage transgressor whose soul would be placed in eternal danger as a result of the event, demonstrates to me that he's your fairly typical, right-wing, conservative Christian: picking and choosing the Biblical laws he wishes to live by, acting with an unassaiblable (yet completely misguided) sense of self-righteousness and completely intolerent of anyone who doesn't fit into his narrow, absolutist world-view. I mean, look at the Bible verse he quoted, in context:
| quote: | | 38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. 41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. 42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. 43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; |
(Matthew 5:38-44)
For me, at least, there isn't a great deal of ambiguity in what Christ is saying here. It is made clear that the old Jewish law of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" (i.e. proportional retalition) has been transcended by his own doctrine of "turning the other cheek" and "loving thine enemy" and that this new doctrine is universally applicable. I don't see any "Oh, excepting rapists, burglars, attempted murderers, gangbangers, terrorists or similar stooges, obviously" in parentheses anywhere, or a "Disregard all this if your enemy has broken into your home - in that case you are clearly free to waste them with a 450/400-3 ¼ Nitro Express double rifle". If this guy claims to be a Christian (and judging from the religious allusions, I'm guessing that he does) he definitely doesn't seem to have a very solid grasp of Christ's teachings.
Anyway, as for the laws themselves, I think it should go without saying that I'd oppose them. I'm not too sure what the laws in Florida were like prior to the introduction of this "Castle Doctrine" but I'd imagine that were already provisions made for those who commit an otherwise "illegal" act (i.e. assaulting, shooting or killing someone) in the name of self-defence. In Australia, for instance (and I hope this is right because it's been a while since I did Legal Studies at school), the legitimacy of the "self-defence" doctrine as a legal-defence for these more serious crimes, is bound up with the idea of "proportionality" - that is, you may use as much force as is absolutely necessary to prevent a crime being committed against your person. If the use of force is "excessive" and it can be demonstrated that the threat could have been seen off with the use of more "reasonable" force, then you will have to answer to criminal charges. Australian law, thus, protects those who use violence in self-defence, but does not protect those who use an unnecessary degree of force while seeing off a threat.
With regards to this new Floridian law, it seems that it removes any sense of "proportionality" with regards to self-defence and it empowers citizens with the permission to use excessive force, even to prevent more minor crimes.
From the site cited in the article:
| quote: | | This bill REMOVES the "duty to retreat" in the face of attack; it creates the presumption that an attacker or intruder intends to do great bodily harm and therefore force, including deadly force, may be used to protect yourself, your family and others in the face of attack; it prohibits prosecution for defending that which you have a right to defend and prohibits civil lawsuits by criminals or relatives of criminals when criminals are injured or killed while attacking law-abiding people. |
I'm particularly worried about this aspect:
| quote: | | it creates the presumption that an attacker or intruder intends to do great bodily harm and therefore force, including deadly force, may be used to protect yourself, your family and others in the face of attack |
What this bill is saying, essentially, is that if an unarmed sixteen year old transgresses onto your property for a laugh, or an unarmed drug-addict breaks into your home to steal a VCR, then you are to treat them as though they were highly-trained, professional, violent killers, whose sole aim is to cause you harm. I'd imagine that, in the case of most individuals who break into your home or try to steal your wallet, the very last thing they would want is a physical confrontation. You would (or should) have the legal right to use proportional violence to prevent these crimes from occurring, but there is no rational justification for using a gun on someone, as a first instinct, just because they are encroaching on your property or your person. This paranoid belief that all criminals have an identical motivation and pose an identical risk (that is, a very large one) to your life is demonstrably ridiculous. A man who enters onto your property without your permission does not deserve to die, unless it is clear that he is intent on causing you physical harm. Any individual who believes they have the moral, god-given right to take a life away as retribution for any crime, no matter how minor, deserves to be charged with murder and thrown in front of a jury. I really don't think I'm irrational in saying this, either: there is enough crime in our societies as there is without the legalisation of violent, excessive force.
___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/
|
The Castle Doctrine
especially here in Toronto.
Good post renegade, pretty much summed up what I thought too 
