Just heard on the radio

[Art]

Originally posted by HailSkinz1

Okay, so it is now PROVEN that they stole the ATVs? Please provide us with your evidence. Lacking such evidence, I'm not sure society is better off with Sean Taylor acting as the judge and jury.

Have you considered the possibility that these people are not the thieves? That's why we have a justice system.

I would agree with you if he SAW them steal his ATVs and then ran after them with a gun to get them back. But that's hardly what this case is about.

Hail,

H

No one asked that question. The question was asked whether I think a person should have the right to retrieve his property from those who would seek to take it from him. Somehow I doubt Taylor got this part of the equation wrong in the whole thing. But, we'll find that out as well I suppose.

[bubba9497]

Originally posted by HailSkinz1

Okay, so it is now PROVEN that they stole the ATVs? Please provide us with your evidence. Lacking such evidence, I'm not sure society is better off with Sean Taylor acting as the judge and jury.

Have you considered the possibility that these people are not the thieves? That's why we have a justice system.

H

Have you considered the possibility that Taylor is not the guilty? That's why we have a justice system.

really, that's my whole point, too many assume Taylor is completely guilty, but will do a 180' on the 2 accusers and defend them....... until further evidence you can't have it both ways.

Originally posted by HailSkinz1

I would agree with you if he SAW them steal his ATVs and then ran after them with a gun to get them back. But that's hardly what this case is about.

Hail,

how do know what really happened? Your assumptions are not facts..... and even the news articles have changed their stories several times

Maybe he was out on the town and saw his ATVs .... or someone he trust told him they saw thee guys with them...... we DON'T know his side or what happened, other than he did admit of confronting these two w/o a gun or bat.

[bubba9497]

Originally posted by CHUBAKAH

Who says it's a he says she says case?

Fact is they may have video cameras for all we know.

true, but I believe the news stories would have mentioned it, if there was a tape

[DCBnG21]

Originally posted by Bang

Yeah,, this is confusing to me, too,, since FLA seems ready to embrace a state FULL of people carrying guns and able to use them at the slightest provocation.

Didn't Jeb sign a law that says you can shoot to kill if you even feel threatened in FLA? Didn't they remove the statute that says you must attempt flight? As I read their new law, anyone who feels in imminent danger, whether the other guy has a visible weapon or not, is allowed to shoot to kill.

Link to story if you never heard this

Considering all that, the rest of this stuff seems entirely out of place. How do you have mandatory sentencing laws on one hand for using a firearm, and on the other hand advocate using a firearm as freely as the new law allows? Seriously, by the way they go about things, it would seem to me that simply pulling and pointing a gun is a fine way to get folks to listen to you down there.

Noe of this makes much sense to me. Seriously,, is Florida where we've been storing retarded people for the last few decades?

~Bang

This wouldn't be an application of the new law though. It would be tough to argue that someone rolling up and pulling a gun on two guys felt he was in imminent danger. The law in this case, would actually apply for the two guys standing there. There is no reason, why they shouldn't be able to pull a gun.

Additionally, if you are standing in a deserted parking lot, and two guys roll up on you and start to come at you in a threatening manner, why the heck shouldn't you be able to protect yourself?

The way laws are written in some states, such as MA, you actually have to let those two guys beat the living #@)$&*!)* out of you. After all, if they are simply administering a severe beating, they may not be intending to kill you. Now that...is retarded. If they're coming to beat the crap out of you...you've got a good chance of dying. No reason why you shouldn't be able to protect yourself in that situation.

What if your wife was standing there with you when they roll up on you and they start going after her? C'mon...you gotta be able to protect yourself. They may not be brandishing weapons...but that's certainly imminent danger.

[Angus]

The new law doesn't go into effect until October 1st. Here is an explanation of it I found on the Internet:

http://diodon349.com/Conservative_Corner/florida_castle_doctrine_signed_into_law.htm

Florida Castle Doctrine Signed into Law

It is about time that we the law abiding people are given equal rights!!!

Subject: Florida Castle Doctrine Signed Into Law

FLORIDA CASTLE DOCTRINE BILL

On March 23, 2005 The Florida Senate passed SB-436, "Castle Doctrine" by a vote of YEAS 39 -- NAYS 0

On April 5, 2005 The Florida House passed SB-436, "Castle Doctrine" by a vote of YEAS 94 NAYS 20

On April 26, 2005 Governor Jeb Bush SIGNED SB-436, "Castle Doctrine" into law (Chapter No. 2005-27) It takes effect on October 1, 2005.

For those who want detailed information on why this bill is important, the following information is provided.

A great deal of erroneous information has been written, published and spoken about Florida's new "Castle Doctrine" bill.

Claims that the new law will turn Florida into the Wild West are not only an insult to intelligent people but give a patently false portrait of what the bill actually does.

The Florida "Castle Doctrine" bill does basically three things:

One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, therefore a person may use any manner of force, including deadly force, against that person.

Two: It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others.

Three: It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force.

It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them.

In short, it gives rights back to law-abiding people and forces judges and prosecutors who are prone to coddling criminals to instead focus on protecting victims.

[REEGSKINS]

Originally posted by Art

As I think it is scary that someone would think it's somehow wrong to confront people you believe have taken your property. It's a big deal to me that the men of this era are such wimps they think it's a big deal to go get your stuff back. But, again, we've HAD that discussion.

And, THIS discussion presumes the precise truth to Taylor having and pulling a weapon in this situation, which is not something we know to have been the case at all. Though, sure, hypothetically, I have NO problem with it. I have NO problem with Taylor trying to get his stuff back through intimidation and then backing off before the situation got out of control.

i am in law enforcement and i was trained that you dont point your gun at anything you wouldnt destroy.

[jimster]

Originally posted by HailSkinz1

Okay, so it is now PROVEN that they stole the ATVs? Please provide us with your evidence. Lacking such evidence, I'm not sure society is better off with Sean Taylor acting as the judge and jury.

Have you considered the possibility that these people are not the thieves? That's why we have a justice system.

I would agree with you if he SAW them steal his ATVs and then ran after them with a gun to get them back. But that's hardly what this case is about.

Hail,

H

yet, no one has found this supposed gun he pointed either and it's HIS vehicle that has bullet holes in it.

This is a new, controversal law in that state. They have a high profile person being accused of breaking this new law, so this is the perfect opportunity to get big publicity so everyone see's, win or lose, they will enforce the law.

[REEGSKINS]

i hope he realizes now that the $14,000 worth of atv's wasnt worth his career of millions and his life. his a$@ should have been in maryland. i would be alright with the skins cutting him for the complete disrespect of coach gibbs and the organization.

[Thinking Skins]

Originally posted by REEGSKINS

i hope he realizes now that the $14,000 worth of atv's wasnt worth his career of millions and his life. his ass should have been in maryland. i would be alright with the skins cutting him for the complete disrespect of coach gibbs and the organization.

Why don't you make that your signature, and we'll talk in a few months.

[gimpy007]

Fact is that it is against the law to pull out a fire arm on someone unless you feel that your life is in danger and you can prove it. How do I know you may ask... My family is in law inforcement. So it is iritating that people are feeling sorry for Taylor. The fact taht the other two individuals involved in this shot a gun (I am sure they will face charges as well) has nothing to do with the fact the Taylor pulled a gun on them. And thats the bottom line becuase STONE COLD SAID SO!!!

[RDSKNfaithfull]

Taylors lawyer was on the Bram show on Saturday Sportstalk980.

He doesn't sound like the smartest or most straight forward guy. He said The ATV theifs were trying to sell the ATVs and even had people in the neighborhood calling Sean telling him he can buy them back. He says Sean went to this Neighborhood and sat in his truck waiting to see if he could spot his ATVs (which is believable) He said Sean was going to call the police when he saw them. (that could be questionable) but he said people from that neighborhood then surrounded Taylors SUV and Taylor left, but later came back with another SUV full of his "friends" approched the thiefs and had the confertation.

Close your eyes and just picture a seen from the Wire on HBO.

No warrants were issued for Seans gun or the two "victims" who have already have gun charges against them.

[CHUBAKAH]

Originally posted by RDSKNfaithfull

No warrants were issued for Seans gun or the two "victims" who have already have gun charges against them.

Who already have gun charges against them? His laywer said this, or 980 is claiming he said this?

This sounds a bit fishy to me.

:2cents:

[sacase]

Originally posted by Art

I do not think it's a big deal to point a gun at someone just as I wouldn't think it's a big deal to point a pencil at someone. A gun isn't alive. It is harmless until the human uses it. Once the human uses it, it becomes something else. Showing it is not the same thing.

If one is in the commission of robbing someone, using a gun to facilitate a crime is something of a problem. Using a gun to scare some street thugs into giving you your sh!t back just isn't the same in my book.

And, that all assumes he had a gun and did that.

But, we've had this discussion. If you inherently think a gun is bad then you probably think this is bad. If you are rationale and thoughtful and realize a gun is just a piece of metal and, itself, is neither good nor evil, then you probably will allow yourself to realize the simple act of pointing it at someone isn't all that terrible.

Bang DOES make a good point about Florida laws on guns, as well. In any case, where this situation is now, I'm very comfortable in my view Taylor will skate very easily here.

Wow, just wow. Did you actually read what you wrote? I am not trying to be funny but there are so many things that can go wrong with the point of view you just described. First of all, I learned at a early age if you pull out a gun on someone you had better use it and if you use it you had better shoot to kill.

First of all, you get the result of what just happend to ST. Puled a gun threated someone with it, they came back and tried to get him. He coudl be DEAD all because he wanted to act big and bad.

Second, what if you actually shoot at someone you THINK stole something of yours. No life is worth an object such as an ATV which you can claim on your insurance.

Third, what if you shoot and miss? Innocent bystanders pay the price of your innaccurate aiming. Hell, people trained to use guns IE police, military miss what they are shooting at all the time even close up, why woudl ST be any different. I seriously doubt he has spent alot of time at the range.

Fact is a gun isn't just an object it is a threatening object, it is a very dangerous object. If someone pointed a pencil at me I woudl probally laugh, if someone pointed a gun I would be seriously pissed and very worried. Hell technically they could have shot him right there and they would have been in the right. He threatend them with a weapon they feared for their lives so they shot him. Go figure huh.

This isn't the old west. We have people trained to enforce the law. Let them handle it. Taking matters into your own hands results in trouble for you most of the time.

ART I will agree with you on one thing, guns don't kill people. But stupid people with guns kill people, often times innocent ones at that.

[Newera]

Evidently Art, you've never had a gun pulled on you.