Florida To Allow Use Of Force Even Outside Home
Depot
The ModFather Join Date: 2002-11-09 Member: 7956Members
The ModFather Join Date: 2002-11-09 Member: 7956Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">From the land of pregnant chads</div> From CNN.com,
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->'Good, common sense, anti-crime issue'
Tuesday, April 5, 2005 Posted: 8:04 PM EDT (0004 GMT)
<b>TALLAHASSEE, Florida (AP) -- Gov. Jeb Bush said Tuesday he intends to sign a bill that would allow people who feel threatened -- even on the street or at a baseball game -- to "meet force with force" and defend themselves without fear of prosecution.</b>
The measure, the top priority of the National Rifle Association in Florida this year, passed the House 94-20 on Tuesday. It had already passed the Senate.
Bush, who has championed tougher penalties for people convicted of using guns in crimes, said the bill is about self-defense and called it "a good, common sense, anti-crime issue."
The measure essentially extends a right Floridians already have in their home or car. Under present law, however, people attacked anywhere else are supposed to do what they can to avoid escalating the situation and can use deadly force only after they've tried to retreat.
"I'm sorry, people, but if I'm attacked I shouldn't have a duty to retreat," said the bill's sponsor, state Rep. Dennis Baxley. "That's a good way to get shot in the back."
Baxley said that if people have the clear right to defend themselves without having to worry about legal consequences, criminals will think twice.
Opponents feared the bill would make Florida resemble the wild West, but defenders say it is no different from what most other states allow in laws governing self-defense.
The bill says a person has "the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so, to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I live in Florida, don't mess with me! <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->'Good, common sense, anti-crime issue'
Tuesday, April 5, 2005 Posted: 8:04 PM EDT (0004 GMT)
<b>TALLAHASSEE, Florida (AP) -- Gov. Jeb Bush said Tuesday he intends to sign a bill that would allow people who feel threatened -- even on the street or at a baseball game -- to "meet force with force" and defend themselves without fear of prosecution.</b>
The measure, the top priority of the National Rifle Association in Florida this year, passed the House 94-20 on Tuesday. It had already passed the Senate.
Bush, who has championed tougher penalties for people convicted of using guns in crimes, said the bill is about self-defense and called it "a good, common sense, anti-crime issue."
The measure essentially extends a right Floridians already have in their home or car. Under present law, however, people attacked anywhere else are supposed to do what they can to avoid escalating the situation and can use deadly force only after they've tried to retreat.
"I'm sorry, people, but if I'm attacked I shouldn't have a duty to retreat," said the bill's sponsor, state Rep. Dennis Baxley. "That's a good way to get shot in the back."
Baxley said that if people have the clear right to defend themselves without having to worry about legal consequences, criminals will think twice.
Opponents feared the bill would make Florida resemble the wild West, but defenders say it is no different from what most other states allow in laws governing self-defense.
The bill says a person has "the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so, to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I live in Florida, don't mess with me! <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Comments
Sounds like you understand the law quite well. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Sounds like you understand the law quite well. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
If there's a problem, it's not going to be because of the law. It's going to be a failure on the part of the judicial system for misinterpreting what exactly constitutes enough of a threat for someone to defend themself with lethal force. But the premise of the bill - that someone shouldn't look for other options if someone whips out a knife - is sound imo.
I don't think Sky's concern is valid. Even before this law was passed, juries would still have the same problem. They still had to decide whether violent force was justified.
I don't think Sky's concern is valid. Even before this law was passed, juries would still have the same problem. They still had to decide whether violent force was justified. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
If someone is in a situation where they believe their life is being threatened, then violence is already taking place. It's good to see some politicians looking out for the victims for once.
I don't think Sky's concern is valid. Even before this law was passed, juries would still have the same problem. They still had to decide whether violent force was justified. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm just thinking what my first instinct would be if someone pulled a knife/gun on me in close range. It would be to grab said weapon, break the guy's hand/arm, and proceed to beat him as hard as I could with my fists (I wouldn't take the gun and shoot him) until someone pulled me off him. A law requiring someone to try to escape sounds rather stupid to me; don't you think that if that were possible someone would do it automatically? If someone defends themself with deadly force, they've already ruled out the possibility of escaping. Any law that says that someone should try to escape just opens up the possibility of punishing people who acted to defend themself with force under the assumption that there was no other alternative, which I think is wrong. They are the victim, and no one should tell them after the fact whether or not escape was possible.
Well <i>i'd</i> go SSJ3 and haduken him on the spot. ...Or crap my pants.
Look, the law is basically this. Average Joe Citizen is walking down the street minding his own business (and he happens to be packing.) Then, some schmuck emerges from a dark shadow, pulls out a gun, and then demands money. Joe Citizen does not like having a gun drawn on him. The robber yells "Drop dem Nikes of yo **** before I BLAST you mother-$&*#" Then, like, Joe Citizen does this cool roll thing and flings dirt into the guy's eyes (in an attempt to get away mind you!) After that, the robber is like "ARRGH" and starts shooting randomly. Joe Citizen, under this law, could then not be persecuted for defending himself.
...The law is fine.
Crimes wouldn't happen very often if people had to worry about everyone else in the area pulling a gun on them if they try to pull a gun on anyone else.
Criminals are the only ones that pull guns on other people that do not deserve it... So I'm not sure what' you're getting at.
If you're trying to say that crime wouldn't happen very much if we didn't have criminals... Then "Duh!".
Hey, you know what? It was <i>my</i> hypothetical sitaution, and the guy flicked dirt in the guy's eyes! Thats it, i'm changing the robber guy in my story. Now, he is CForrester. What happened to you C... You used to be an upstanding member to society.
Criminals are the only ones that pull guns on other people that do not deserve it... So I'm not sure what' you're getting at.
If you're trying to say that crime wouldn't happen very much if we didn't have criminals... Then "Duh!". <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Umm I thought what he was saying was very easy to understand.
A robber might think twice about robbing a bank if he knows many of the customers might be armed and if he threatens their lives they can legally kill him/her.
I sure as hell wouldn't mug someone who might be armed and knows that he/she has the legal ability to kill me in such a situation.
If this is enforced properly it can only deter crime, I always thought the principle behind everyone having a gun was the same as MAD and MAD has kept as alive so far. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Hey, you know what? It was <i>my</i> hypothetical sitaution, and the guy flicked dirt in the guy's eyes! Thats it, i'm changing the robber guy in my story. Now, he is CForrester. What happened to you C... You used to be an upstanding member to society. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
He got shot, and had his shoes stolen.
There you are-
Most states do not have the retreat requirement, and haven't had it this whole time. People are gasping at the thought like this is the first time it's ever happened.
Criminals are the only ones that pull guns on other people that do not deserve it... So I'm not sure what' you're getting at.
If you're trying to say that crime wouldn't happen very much if we didn't have criminals... Then "Duh!". <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think he ment it like this...
If Im a criminal and I want to rob someone, Im going to try to pick a target that in my opinion wont fight back or offer any resistance.
If Im a robber, going after a unarmed old lady is a lot easier than going after that big muscled 25 year old guy over there.
Likewise, if you know someone is likely to be armed and now has the right to defend themselves u might think twice.
Before if the robber had a knife and the victim had a gun the victim could not use their gun.
Now they can use it to defend themselves.
Think about it: You're a criminal. It's late at night, you get on the bus. You scan for targets. Immediately, the first thing you notice is that the bus driver has a pistol in a holster on his hip. No problem, you can deal with one armed man, right? Besides, he has to take the time to stop the bus, so you can kill him before then, right? You scan the passengers. There's a suitable target, the wimpy little geek kid staring out the wndow. He's probably not armed. But wait, there are other passengers too. That little old lady over there? Hell, she might have a gun in her shawl. The two guys talking quietly in the back of the bus? They might have guns too. The muscled guy sitting not two feet from you now? If he doesn't have a gun, he can at least pummel the crap out of you once everyone else has shot you for pulling a gun on some kid.
Robbing that kid doesn't seem like such a good idea anymore, does it?
Don't underestimate the stupidity of human nature- the argument that having no guns is the way to reduce crime, or that having lots of guns is the way to reduce crime, are both flawed because you will always have dolts who will prove you wrong either way. Both certainly can and probably will work to an extent. Regardless, we're attacking the symptom and not the cause. The only thing that will significantly reduce crime is a sociological change of our society. Given that daunting task, it's easy to see why people perfer to concentrate on the symptoms.
Wow, symptom is a weird word...
symptom...
sym...ptom...
sy.. eh, is this thing still on? <!--emo&::nerdy::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/nerd-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='nerd-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I expect a lot more dead folks in Florida.
I expect a lot more dead folks in Florida. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dont know about florida but most states have a stipulation that even if you have a concealed carry permit you cant carry it into federal buildings and other places like schools and bars to begin with.
Eh, this law doesn't allow you to carry a concealed weapon. If you were, and you defended yourself with it, then you'd be prosecuted for carrying the weapon, but not for using it.
I think he was referring to a society that allows citizens to own/carry firearms in general.
I don't seem to recall many instances of bad guy A assaulting good guy B and then bystanders C through Z250 all drawing HMGs from ...somewhere, and spraying like (6)NSPlayer being electrocuted. While it is good to look at the issue from both sides folks, please, don't bring in drama. Every time a CCW bill, or something like we see at the top of this thread, passes into law the same kind of the sky-is-falling-for-the-children-itll-be-the-wild-west chicken little screaming is heard. Has it turned out to be right? Not to my knowledge. By all means, correct me if i'm wrong.
Now then....lets take an actual look at the law shall we? It simply removes someones LEGAL OBLIGATION to retreat (unless I missed the part about ventilating everything in sight because someone flicked a pea at you across the table?) before they can defend themselves without having .gov breath down thier neck...too much...It does not mean that many won't still retreat, because thats an option and the BEST option in many cases. If you shoot someone down, even if you WERE in the right, you WILL face approx. 20,000 dollars in legal fees, at least one year of hassle to put it mildly, and you WILL have some measure of permanent hearing damage from the gunshots.
Is the law perfect? I highly doubt it. Hence why we have systems in place for the repeal or amendment of laws in case one DOES, in fact, have some major flaw in it. (And, through different terms, our leaders too.) But given the options, I support this far more than the alternative.
EDIT: Legat, ALMOST, ALMOST! A few more days of evil right wing indoctrination and you'll have it! Arm the TEACHERS! <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Example A: Guy A gets drunk and guy B decides he doesn't like guy A for <insert reason> and commences a beatdown. Guy A is outweighed by guy B by about 75 pounds. Guy A takes <insert object> and manages to kill guy B. Is it irresponsible to get in a drunken fight? If the object used was a gun is he on shaky ground for having it accessible while alcohol was being consumed? Possibly a criminal charge in and of itself? Yes. Murder? No.
Example B: Guy A gets drunk and decides he doesn't like B. Fight ensues. Both are about equal size, but guy A starts losing the fight, whips out <insert weapon> and splatters guy B all over the wall. Self defense? Good luck with claiming that, I'm going to be putting my bet on the family of the deceased suing guy A's pants off and screaming for him to be thrown in prison for the rest of his natural life.
"He had a gun, he was going to shoot me"
Case closed, no consiquences.
The point is to remove someones legal obligation to ATTEMPT a retreat in the face of a threat to life and limb before legally being allowed to fight back. I thought it was fairly clear.
And your alternative for the dead guy is? I have heard ALL about how horrible and flawwed and how it will turn the streets into the OK Corral and the moon will fall out of orbit and crash into hospitals and daycare centers at random due to this passing, but I haven't heard many great alternatives so far. Ban all guns? Sure, there were no murders in that crime free utopia that we now call the middle ages, much lament for its passing. What good was the law when the guy is already dead? What good is the police? Clearly they weren't around to save him. (PS: In the united states the police have no legal obligation to protect YOU as an individual, simply the public as a whole. For better and worse. Chew on this thought next time you walk out the door.) Not saying we should abolish the police force quite yet, simply going on your logic.
Caboose, more like "Huh, both of these fools are involved in gang activity, JUST MAYBE it deserves more than a passing inspection and a scrape off the pavement." as much as even I throw insults at the US police force, they are NOT quite that stupid. Did you bother to read the rest of the thread at all? I already stated that even if you are in the right in a shooting you will be facing massive legal fees and a not-inconsiderable amount of time spent keeping yourself out of jail. And if the jury happens to decide you WERE NOT in the right, then it's off to the greybar hotel with you. No consequences, yea right.