I was robbed of a Weed Eater And a high pressure Paint sprayer rig just after I completed painting the house. I was totally POed since I had planned to paint the fence too. Too many straws…that was the last. Sold it!!!

I live out in the country for a purpose now. My house is not visible from the road (we have 16.7 AC of trees and Youpon) and we get few uninvited guests. Our friends always call before coming over. That is common country courtesy. I also have a 12 GA riot gun handy as well as a few other arms. I have met a couple pushy sales? type people at the front door with the scatter gun in the past couple of years. It stays loaded, locked and safed next to my front door.

I am a Vietnam Vet, and I have been shot at and had to shoot to kill. I will not let anyone intimidate me or my family. Ever. I made my peace with myself on that issue 40 years ago. I don’t care what color they are, if they show up on my property and threaten us, I will shoot to kill.

Most of you have never been shot at. It is not a pleasant experience. I refuse to let myself be shot at or attacked ever again. If they have a weapon they are dead. I will shoot first and let the Sheriff sort it out.

BTW, 00 Buckshot is just right.

It depends. I would prefer not to kill anyone if I don’t need to do so. There are times when that option isn’t available. But there are times when you do have that choice–and there’s a lot to be said for that choice. Especially because some day, the tables might be turned, and someone may think you are being unreasonable and unnecessarily aggressive.

Neither New York or Texas has a similar provision, except that in 1880 the Texas Supreme Court overturned a prosecution on the grounds that “When a Texan is faced with danger, his legs turn to wood”. So stated the Texas Rule is a duty not to retreat, while the California Constitution recognizes a choice.

“No duty to retreat” is NOT the same as “a duty not to retreat.” One gives you the option of retreating or not, as you feel is appropriate; the other orders you to stay where you are, and continue the escalation until someone gets killed.

The point of the article above (which apparently few people read) was that in a society where such bullying is fairly rare, it was understandable that the law required you to retreat rather than use deadly force. In a post-Christian society, where such bullying is widespread, “stand your ground” is perhaps a regrettable necessity.

I (and many other commenters, it seems) believe ‘once a bully, always a bully,’ until properly deterred.

Keep in mind that some bullies outgrow it–and sometimes, it’s the alcohol talking.

And all these posts and not a mention of the 1952 movie “High Noon”. I guess your idea of a sequel would be to have Will Kane brought back for indictment and trial. And for that matter, apparently in the 1930s Egypt obviously followed the Texas rule so that Indiana Jones could eschew retreat and deal with a swordsman with a pistol without consequences.

Try not to confuse reality with movies.

Note that in addition to “enjoying and defending life and liberty” and “protecting property”, one may pursue and obtain safety and happiness. Is not pursuit the antithesis of retreat.

Neither New York or Texas has a similar provision, except that in 1880 the Texas Supreme Court overturned a prosecution on the grounds that “When a Texan is faced with danger, his legs turn to wood”. So stated the Texas Rule is a duty not to retreat, while the California Constitution recognizes a choice.

And all these posts and not a mention of the 1952 movie “High Noon”. I guess your idea of a sequel would be to have Will Kane brought back for indictment and trial. And for that matter, apparently in the 1930s Egypt obviously followed the Texas rule so that Indiana Jones could eschew retreat and deal with a swordsman with a pistol without consequences.

In some cases, sociopathic jerks. In some cases, drunken idiots who might still outgrow bad behavioral traits.

…as for that second category, may I emphasize your use of the equivocal word “might”? Are you asking polite and law abiding society to step back in the face of unprovoked, unwarranted, and irrational bullying and violence? Because the perpetrator “might” get hurt or killed? Are we to allow ourselves to become ‘certain’ victims, to be comforted by the *hope* the perpetrator “might” grow out of his criminal ways, on his own, without the encouragement of consequence?

Have you considered the that unchecked criminal “might” progress to increasingly dangerous behavior, should his aggression remains unchecked? I can show you public court records of people who have lived entire lives brushing the law (and those are just the reoported cases). I can show you their Myspace pages that embrace a glamorization of violence, pitbulls, and thug-style. Yet you’re expecting some of these people, who travel in like-minded social circles, to just change… and become kinder, gentler citizens on their own accord? And meanwhile, the traumatization or causality of the victims is an acceptable trade-off for the ensured safety of such thugs?

I respect your opinion and understand the point you’re trying to make. But I think it stems from a core belief in human nature that not all of your readers share with you. I (and many other commenters, it seems) believe ‘once a bully, always a bully,’ until properly deterred. And ‘stand your ground’ legislation goes a long way to provide that deterrence.

Thonotasassa is a pretty rough little neighborhood on the outskirts of Tampa, which is far enough off of the beaten path to be ignored by the local sheriffs deputies.

We have tried to get increased patrols in the area, due to the local county jail being a couple of miles away, but we have been repeatedly told that there weren’t enough deputies to assign to the area.

The amount of people living in the neighborhood who are on house arrest, parolees, pervert kid-touchers, and ex-felons living in the area is insanely high, thus the corresponding crime rates are also.
(Check the stats: http://www.clrsearch.com/RSS/Demographics/FL/Thonotosassa/)

Podany was no angel himself; but he was well within his rights to protect himself, and we in the local community support him.

As for Mojo’s racial angle, Casey Landes (you know, the man who was shot) was white. (Pics are here: http://www.baynews9.com/content/36/2008/3/2/329234.html)