Florida "Anti-Mob" law

[Ingomike]

Isn't it interesting how history repeats itself.

 

[bwframe]

Telling thread...

 

[BugI02]

If it says that is has to be your store or property, maybe. If it covers anyone shooting anyone supposedly involved in a riot/looting, I would have issues with it. There is way too much opportunity for abuse of that.

Then how would you cover the gray area of I'm your extended family or friends who are helping you keep your business from being burned/looted or both. If I have to actually own the business then I can render no aid, if I am there at the owner's invitation it should be allowed. We should not have to fight alone in these situations, and indeed not having to fight alone may make having to fight at all less likely. It has seemed that rioters confronted with a number of armed and capable defenders have not been interested in trying them, only the police, who are more restricted in their actions

 

[jamil]

Looks to me that all he's saying is you can't just start shooting people who are rioting, unless they're threatening you or your business. I don't think that would mean you can't have help from family or friends. Just that you can't go walking around, see someone attack a business, and then start shooting people.

 

[KLB]

I can't really speak for KLB, but I took it to mean that say, you're driving down the street and see a business being looted (not one you own or have anything to do with - just a random business). I think in that case it wouldn't be a good shoot if you were to roll up and take out one or more of the looters. That gets into vigilantism territory.

Apparently I was unclear, but you are correct. That is what I was saying.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Apparently I was unclear, but you are correct. That is what I was saying.

 

[IndyDave1776]

If it says that is has to be your store or property, maybe. If it covers anyone shooting anyone supposedly involved in a riot/looting, I would have issues with it. There is way too much opportunity for abuse of that.

I don't think such a limitation could be made in Indiana given that Article I, Section 32 recognizes the right to bear arms for the defense of yourself and the state. It would be difficult to argue that a shopkeeper who you have no particular connection with is not part of the state.

 

[jamil]

I don't think such a limitation could be made in Indiana given that Article I, Section 32 recognizes the right to bear arms for the defense of yourself and the state. It would be difficult to argue that a shopkeeper who you have no particular connection with is not part of the state.

That’s sounding a bit like a penumbra.

 

[IndyDave1776]

That’s sounding a bit like a penumbra.

I tend to go the other way and believe it more of a halo.

 

[jamil]

I tend to go the other way and believe it more of a halo.

I just wanted to use “penumbra” in a sentence.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I just wanted to use “penumbra” in a sentence.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I don't think such a limitation could be made in Indiana given that Article I, Section 32 recognizes the right to bear arms for the defense of yourself and the state. It would be difficult to argue that a shopkeeper who you have no particular connection with is not part of the state.

How would a private shopkeeper be "part of the state"? I think of "state" as being government (more or less).

 

[IndyDave1776]

How would a private shopkeeper be "part of the state"? I think of "state" as being government (more or less).

I would argue that the state is primarily the citizens thereof. Besides which, I would think that anything tangible within the state's borders are part of the state.

 

[jamil]

I would argue that the state is primarily the citizens thereof. Besides which, I would think that anything tangible within the state's borders are part of the state.

Theoretically that’s true, but practically it’s not. There are the rulers, and the ruled, even when the rulers are elected by the ruled.