April Economics, Politics, Religion, and Healthcare Thread

[mouser2]

Originally Posted by lpereira

Go back and read it again. It applies to any place where a person has a lawful right to be. Not just your car, home, or place of business.

PROTECTION OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY ACT

The stated intent of the legislation is to codify the common law castle doctrine, which recognizes that a person’s home is his castle, and to extend the doctrine to include an occupied vehicle and the person’s place of business. This bill authorizes the lawful use of deadly force under certain circumstances against an intruder or attacker in a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle. The bill provides that there is no duty to retreat if (1) the person is in a place where he has a right to be, including the person’s place of business, (2) the person is not engaged in an unlawful activity, and (3) the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent death, great bodily injury, or the commission of a violent crime. A person who lawfully uses deadly force is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action, unless the person against whom deadly force was used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his official duties and he identifies himself in accordance with applicable law or the person using deadly force knows or reasonably should have known the person is a law enforcement officer.

H.4301 (R412) was signed by the Governor on June 9, 2006.

see this the problem. the bill outlines in the first sentence the places you have "the right to be". you have the right to use lethal force in your home, car, and place of business. then later it uses this phrase. the originators of the bill never intended that wording to expand the castle doctrine to every place a citizens travels, but because the bill was formed by a some legislators that don't know how to right law. that is the way law is being used in some places, and in some places it only is being applied to your house, car and store (place of business). those are the facts!!!! i know its not what you want to hear, but tough tooties... you know all the liberal press questioning whether the tea party politicians have the ability to govern. maybe, just maybe, there is some truth to this contention.

i just think the police and district attorney's office in sanford and other places have just thrown their arms in the air and decided to not pursue questionable cases like zimmerman's. i truly don't think it was or is a racial bias or anything like that. its just the nitwits that formed the law don't have a clue. which is why alec is toast today...

[Eric]

Originally Posted by mouser2

see this the problem. the bill outlines in the first sentence the places you have "the right to be". you have the right to use lethal force in your home, car, and place of business. then later it uses this phrase.

Which part of "including" are you not understanding?

It wasn't supposed to be an exhaustive list.

[Eric]

Originally Posted by mouser2

you know all the liberal press questioning whether the tea party politicians have the ability to govern. maybe, just maybe, there is some truth to this contention.

The law was passed in 2006. If there were Tea Partiers involved, they used a time machine to do it.

[mouser2]

why even mention house, business, and car then... its the ambiguity that makes the law worthless. why would legislators in florida that crafted the law say that the law doesn't cover the zimmerman case,but the district attorney's in sanford neglected to place charges because of the law.... i am i missing something?

[Eric]

Originally Posted by mouser2

why even mention house, business, and car then.

Again, which part of 'including' is hard here???

[mouser2]

Originally Posted by Eric

The law was passed in 2006. If there were Tea Partiers involved, they used a time machine to do it.

touche'

[mouser2]

Originally Posted by Eric

Again, which part of 'including' is hard here???

do me a favor ask the district attorney in sanford and the legislators in florida that question... because i don't have the answer to it...

[Eric]

Originally Posted by mouser2

do me a favor ask the district attorney in sanford and the legislators in florida that question... because i don't have the answer to it...

What do they have to do with it? The law is clear, as written.

I get that you don't agree with the law, but that's different from "it's poorly written".

[carolina_yankee]

Originally Posted by Eric

What do they have to do with it? The law is clear, as written.

I get that you don't agree with the law, but that's different from "it's poorly written".

If the law creates an ambiguity that a reasonable person can hold, isn't it poorly written? I don't know what the legislative intent was in this case, but if the intent was (as expressed in debates and committee hearing) to keep it in place like home, car, place of business, then the bill may be poorly written.

In principle, though, I agree with you. I just think the law should be as precise as possible and not create ambiguities.

Dirk

[henrycpa91]

Actually Wendy, no, I do not agree. What I am hearing the current admin say is that the average rich family is paying less then 20% rate on their income...so if you ask me, the model I proposed will have them increasing their tax burden.

Are you and Sal saying that rich people (not sure what that definition is) are paying more than 20% now?

Originally Posted by OttawaWendy

Jamie, stop trying to justify it. Sal isn't asking you to justify it, nor saying it is wrong. (Of course he believes it is wrong, but that isn't what he's saying). He wants you to acknowledge that the practical impact of moving from the current system to your proposed system is that the tax burden is shifted down.



You can't simultaneously complain that something is unconstitutional and that it is a part of the constitution that should be changed.