Company Displays Controversial Message-"Stay 100 meters back, or you will be shot."

[The Straight Story]

Company Displays Controversial Message
Owner Says He Supports Military With 'You Will Be Shot' Sign


APOPKA, Fla. -- A company that sells high-powered weapons is displaying a controversial message on its vehicles, creating a buzz in Central Florida.

The message, displayed in large white letters on the windows of vehicles owned by Spikes Tactical, reads: "Stay 100 meters back, or you will be shot." Beneath it is the same message transcribed in Arabic.

"I think it's appalling. Why would you put that on the back of your car?" said Jessica Thomas, an Orlando-area motorist.

Others said the company is expressing its First Amendment right, including the owner, who refused to go on camera with Local 6 News. He said his message is misunderstood.

He said he got the idea from the U.S. military, which posts the same signs on the back of its Humvees while fighting in the Middle East.

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/23272672/detail.html

[Flaneur]

1. What an asshole.

Is that an actionable threat?

[paulsby]

11. no. it's called "parody" and does not meet the "true threat" standard under the law

hth

[mitchum]

19. It seems to be "pathetic wannabe" far more than "parody"...

but I agree it does not meet the true threat standard

[mitchum]

20. self delete: double post

[paulsby]

23. well god knows pathetic wannabe and (lame) parody

are not mutually exclusive.
it's like the cars that have a crosshair and a "liberal hunting license"
i see those all the time

[WinkyDink]

37. What country do YOU live in?

[bobthedrummer]

2. That, for those of US under the rule of law, is a "terroristic threat" and a whole lot more n/t

[yodoobo]

3. Free speech or not. wait till he gets pulled over for speeding

What is going to be a cops reasonable reaction to that window message?

My guess is that the cops will call for backup and he'll be felony stopped out of his car.

He'll get his speeding ticket while laying face down on the ground after they have searched his car.

Even the most pro-gun cop in the world is going to be nervous as hell dealing with these yahoos.

[paulsby]

12. oh please

i've pulled over cars with similar type stickers before.

get real

[yodoobo]

16. You really think cops will just shrug that off?

Even an NRA sticker will get you hassled in some jurisdictions and at the border.

Simply tinted windows will make many cops approach with the hand on the gun and finger on the trigger guard.

They may not do a felony stop, but its going to be rougher than a standard traffic stop and forget about getting a break.

[paulsby]

22. yes, i do think cops will shrug it off

i have pulled over cars with "liberal hunting licenses" and a crosshair or stickers w. comments about how the driver is reloading and etc.

nobody takes them seriously.

[yodoobo]

25. nobody is pretty all inclusive

or umm exclusive i guess :)

in any event I've read on other forums where folks have gotten hassled for those exact same stickers.

They may have been made up stories, god knows the forums are full of those, but I don't think all of them were.

In any event, this particular one strikes me as more aggressive. Its painted across the window as opposed to a small bumper sticker and frankly the language is much more aggressive as well as doesn't play as parody. I suppose that is because its the exact same display and language as that used on hummvees in Iraq, where it means EXACTLY what it says.

[paulsby]

26. you have read on other forums where people ASSUMED they were being

hassled for those stickers.

iow, i get pulled over. i don't assume i am getting hassled for X

i have sticker. i get pulled over. i assume i am getting hassled for it.



i'm saying i've never heard anybody express concern about this stuff and these stickers are out there.

[yodoobo]

27. I take web forum stories with a trunk load of salt

Frankly I think most are made up. So I'm on track with you there.


But I think that some are real.

[paulsby]

29. given sufficient "n", some probably are

heck, i heard a guy once say that he was pulled over because he had a phish sticker on his car, and cops associate phish with marijuana, and therefore that must have been the reason he was pulled over

:l

[Roon]

31. I got pulled over for having a head shop bumper sticker once

The cop had no qualms about it either, he told me straight to my face why he was pulling me over. He let me go, I was just a kid.

[paulsby]

42. lol. he violated your civil rights, but at least he was upfront about it

fair enuf

[Roon]

47. Teens and vans are a bad mix

I gave him that at least..

[paulsby]

48. especially if they are down by the river

fwiw, i once got pulled over in my van (big old green piece o' ...) at GUNPOINT.

turns out somebody had just robbed a store in the area i was driving, and left in a... wait for it... green van. time/place etc.

they were very professional, pointed guns and all.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

4. This says all that needs to be said about the subject:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CompensatingForSomething

[yodermon]

5. I take that sign as a threat. If i see said vehicle i will defend myself. n/t

[Dappleganger]

6. Threatening to shoot people indiscriminately is not constitutional.

In FL or anywhere else.

Public roads are not their own private property so they have NO standing, whatsoever.

[SidDithers]

7. I'd drive right on the asshole's bumper...

I'm generally a considerate and non-confrontational driver, but I'd tailgate the fuck out of this guy.

Sid

[Rex]

8. Wow, a company that displays their inherent hatred for Islam on their

car...I'm sure a few eggs would do the paint job wonders. I'm joking, no one should die over a thrown egg. I would say these people show a collective insanity, but this passes for normal these days.

Sad, pathetic and wrong.

[smoogatz]

9. "I would say these people show a collective insanity"

That's kind of an insult to insanity. I think they're just colossal gaping assholes, as noted above.

[Rex]

14. Right, these guys are just colossal gaping assholes.

I wish I could chalk it up to insanity. My question is, do they actually plan on shooting people? The military does in Iraq/Afghanistan? Is this what our ROE have boiled down to?

[WinkyDink]

38. Arabic is not reserved for Muslims.

[petronius]

10. If the message is "misunderstood" why won't he explain it?

I think we all understand this tool perfectly well.

I wouldn't alter my own driving around this ass, but if I saw this vehicle driving unsafely in any way I'd be pretty sure to drop a dime to the highway patrol...

[gratuitous]

13. Isn't it the law in Florida that you can shoot first and ask questions later?

Seems to me the legislature passed a law a session or two ago that allowed gun carriers to blaze away if they feel threatened or even just have the heebie-jeebies on any particular day. This sign, while a symbol of inherent jerkitude, seems totally in keeping with the current state of Florida law, and has the added advantage of giving unsuspecting folks who might cross his path some semblance of warning that you're dealing with an unstable individual.

I have to wonder, though, why he's using that socialistic metric system, instead of the English system of measurement given to us by God Almighty. Makes me want to shoot the guy.

[slackmaster]

17. No, that is not the case in Florida or any other place

Seems to me the legislature passed a law a session or two ago that allowed gun carriers to blaze away if they feel threatened or even just have the heebie-jeebies on any particular day.

You are parroting hysterical propaganda and haven't the foggiest idea what you are writing about.

Try reading up on the subject before attempting to comment.

[gratuitous]

28. Florida statute 776.013 seems to say otherwise

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:


(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle;

So a person in Florida is "presumed" (that is, independent of any other a priori circumstance) to hold a "reasonable fear" that someone else will "unlawfully" or "forcefully" enter his "occupied vehicle," if he uses "defensive force" "intended . . . to cause death or great bodily harm." Because that's exactly what the statute says. Any investigation will boil down to the word of a shooter against the shooter's victim (who may not be alive to testify), and the shooter is already presumed by law to have a reasonable fear because he used lethal defensive force.

But I'm guessing there's some super duper mind-reading capability conferred on law-abiding gun owners, so there's really nothing for the rest of us to worry about.

[gratuitous]

33. Dammit

I got all hysterical and foggy again, apparently. Oh well.

:shrug:

[slackmaster]

34. I think it's reasonsble to fear injury or death at the hands of someone who forces his way

into your home or your car, while you are in it.

That's not the same has having the heebie-jeebies.

Thanks for proving my point.

[gratuitous]

35. But after the fact, who is to say?

One person is holding a smoking gun, the other one has died of lead poisoning. The law's presumption is that the shooter was justified. It doesn't say that someone has actually forced his or her way into a home, a car, or anywhere else, just that they were "in the process" of doing so, whatever that means.

Your point has been lost, because I did indeed know what I was talking about, and the law says pretty much what I said it said. As long as someone makes a colorable claim that someone was "in the process" of forcibly entering a residence, then the shooter is presumed by law to have been reasonable in using lethal force. That would include a paranoid driver or resident who had the heebie jeebies, whose perception was that some was "in the process" of forcing his way in - there's no distinction in the law as written between someone passing by too closely, or looking in the window to case the place, or simply being in the vicinity.

Nice try, though.

[slackmaster]

36. That's what juries decide, if the police and the DA can't figure it out

The only real difference between Florida's castle doctrine law and California's is that Florida's is extended to places other than one's home or place of business.

It's been working well here for several decades. From the California Penal Code:

197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in
any of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a
felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,
2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person,
against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or
surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends
and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter
the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any
person therein; or,
3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a
wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such
person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to
commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent
danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the
person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant
or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have
endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was
committed; or,
4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and
means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in
lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving
the peace.


198. A bare fear of the commission of any of the offenses mentioned
in subdivisions 2 and 3 of Section 197, to prevent which homicide
may be lawfully committed, is not sufficient to justify it. But the
circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable
person, and the party killing must have acted under the influence of
such fears alone.



198.5. Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or
great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to
have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great
bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that
force is used against another person, not a member of the family or
household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and
forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or
had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.
As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant
or substantial physical injury.



199. The homicide appearing to be justifiable or excusable, the
person indicted must, upon his trial, be fully acquitted and
discharged.

[gratuitous]

40. Oops, did we just shift the metrics?

Just admit that you were wrong, and that you didn't know what the Florida law said. You're only embarrassing yourself at this point.

[slackmaster]

41. "Isn't it the law in Florida that you can shoot first and ask questions later?"

Was the topic of this sub-thread.

That is not the law in Florida.

You proved yourself wrong by citing Florida law.

[BreweryYardRat]

43. Ernt. Take a closer look, assuming you're not simply being disingenuous.

"in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering"

Note the emphasis. Someone has to to be actively trying to smash in the window with a tire iron or pointing a gun at him for it to be a legally justified shoot. He can't shoot someone for tailgating and expect to win a trial. Nor can he shoot an unarmed person who's trying to burgle his car.

Of course, HE may not know that. But more likely he's just a blustering, bigoted fool who's trying to piss people off.

[fishwax]

15. "it's his way of supporting the troops overseas"

:rofl: :eyes:

[defendandprotect]

18. How about "Guns on board" . . . signs in general so we know what kind

of motorist citizens may be dealing with -- ???

[mitchum]

21. Xenophobic micropenis

[Rebubula]

24. Meh...

...I am more worried about the stickers that threaten boogers getting thrown at me for following too closely.

Either way...another day...another thing to get scared about.

[DainBramaged]

30. "the company is expressing its First Amendment right"

I'd like to take this time to express my 1st Amendment rights to the owner of Spikes Tactical

(37mm LAUNCHER)

GO FUCK YOURSELF BUDDY, MAY YOU DIE AS PAINFUL BUT INHERENTLY SLOWER A DEATH THAN THOSE WHO DIE FROM THE WEAPONS YOU SELL

[X_Digger]

44. Yeah, those smoke flares are deadly.

*facepalm* moron

[mikeSchmuckabee]

32. They must think this is Russia because in America, it's 328 feet.

[WinkyDink]

39. Why do they hate American measurements?

[X_Digger]

45. Meh, they sell that on t-shirts, hats, etc..

http://www.spikestactical.com/z/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=79_108_120_109&products_id=34&zenid=lm4i2apkgtdqhtljfag8e2gh05


and patches..


They also sell 'infidel' gear..

[JoeyT]

50. I bet if that were

anti-Christian infidel gear they wouldn't think it was nearly as funny.

[Orsino]

46. "WASH ME" n/t

[wroberts189]

49. Making death threats is a crime. nt