OMG! "SHOOT FIRST" Policy in Florida?? WTF??

[leftchick]

How in the Hell did this happen? Shoot first ask later? WTF?.....



This image obtained from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence shows a poster which the Washington-based gun control group says it will use to 'educate' Florida tourists and potential Florida tourists that effective 01 October 2005 they will face a greater risk of bodily harm within the state of Florida, the date that the state's new 'Shoot First' law also known as the 'Stand Your Ground' law, goes into effect.(AFP/HO)

<snip>

The campaign coincides with a state law that enters into effect authorizing gun owners to shoot anyone in a public area who they believe threaten their safety.

The law, supported by the National Rifle Association (NRA), was approved by the state legislature in April. Governor Jeb Bush described it as a "good, common sense, anti-crime issue" when he signed it into law. His is a brother of US President George W. Bush.

Supporters call it the "Stand Your Ground" law, while opponents call it the "Shoot First" law.

Under the previous law gun owners had first to attempt to withdraw and avoid a confrontation, and were authorized to shoot the threatening individual inside their home or property.

Critics say the current law allows gun owners to shoot if they engage in a simple argument. Supporters say that criminals will think twice when they try to attack someone in public.

Before the law was "on the side of the criminal," said Marion Hammer, head of Unified Sportsmen of Florida and a former NRA president. "The new law is on the side of the law-abiding victim," Hammer said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050929/ts_alt_afp/afplife...

[Dem Agog]

1. you're surprised?

this has been news for well over a month...

i'll tell you how it happened... four simple letters:

BUSH

[leftchick]

2. This went over my head completely

I don't know how but it did. This is shocking even by the BFEE standards!

[Dem Agog]

38. yeah that happens...

can't keep up with everything. sometimes something slips by...

makes you wanna puke a little, doesn't it?

i feel terrible, my dad lives in that state. it's becoming its own terrorist state...

and this rule, if it hurts tourism, will hurt my father.

[The Backlash Cometh]

3. Let me tell you, it's already had an impact in my home.

Last night at 3:30 am my husband wanted to go out with a flashlight to see if there was a nocturnal squirrel knocking acorns off the roof which rolled down the roof like marbles. The squirrel or creature also thumped on the roof, I imagine from jumping from the branches of the tree to the roof.

Anyway, I convinced my husband to forget about it because even if we were on our own property with a flashlight, we'd have to get close to the crazy right-winger's property line, which would in turn wake up his dog, which would in turn wake up the neighbor and it wasn't worth being the first to try out the new law.

Anybody who tells you that buying property gives you privacy is a liar.

[leftchick]

8. omg..

fucking ameriKa eh?

[marmar]

4. Jeb is a horrid, disgusting pig beast...

This family has done unleashed more unmitigated terror on this country than any entity in history.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

5. Republican Birth/Population Control

The Wild West mentality of the mentally deficient.

[renie408]

6. My son just pointed out that Florida is even shaped like a gun.

Holy Shit. I cannot believe this.

This is the scariest thing I have read in a LONG time. Is it a JOKE? Is this for real?

[Child_Of_Isis]

7. Nervous?

Does that include alcoholics with the shakes?

[Wcross]

9. Can you say "propaganda"?

Please point out where the law authorizes nervous or frightened citizens to use deadly force. This is propaganda in a really simple form. They don't even try to make it believable.

[renie408]

14. At the very least..

this law opens the door for people to say they felt threatened and so shot from that fear, even if they have an opportunity to remove themelves from the situation. It very well COULD be interpreted by nervous or frightened citizens as permission to shoot anybody they find threatening.

I found this article very informative:


>>Last week, Governor Jeb Bush signed a bill that has become known as the "Stand Your Ground" law. The law immunizes citizens who use deadly force in self-defense against criminal prosecution and civil liability.

Critics of the law are afraid it will promote vigilantism. Supporters say that it merely brings Florida into line with the majority of other states. But the truth is the law goes beyond what other states are doing.

<big snip>

The "Stand Your Ground" Law Says Property Is More Important than Life

In this respect, Florida has taken a wrong turn that no other state should emulate.

In effect, its law allows citizens to kill other citizens in defense of property.

The principle holding that life is more valuable than the defense of property is deeply embedded in our legal history. The Florida law contravenes this simple principle. (That is does so by hiding behind a legislative "presumption" that all burglars or car thieves are potential killers should not obscure that fact.)



More....

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/sebok/20050502.html

[jody]

46. Do you know that some states recognize "natural, inherent and inalienable

rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety." See Constitution of Pennsylvania - September 28, 1776

What part of that don't you understand?

[Toots]

170. The "culture of life" don't ya know....property is worth more than life.

Ain't Republicans grand?????

[KatyaR]

174. Well, we already know property is more important than life.

Just look at what happened in New Orleans.

[pinto]

10. I bet this one goes to a court...n/t

[renie408]

11. People, this is bad. VERY bad.

I swear, I do not mean to sound so naive, but how could this happen? How on earth could this be real? How do we get it repealed? This should be front page news.

Or shit, maybe it shouldn't. I don't want to give all the other freaks ideas.

[OrlandoGator]

12. It seems nobody here has read the law. It is a CASTLE LAW.

If you feel threatened in your home or in your vehicle, the law allows you to respond with lethal force.

The people here who are wailing about bloodbaths in the streets are not being honest about what the law covers.

[Retired AF Dem]

15. Dang you beat me to that word

blood bath. It has been used at least 38 other times when 38 other states authorized concealed carry. I'm still waiting for those blood baths and wild west shootouts (a hollywood myth) from legal concealed carry persons.

[renie408]

17. Yeah, if we all carried guns and could shoot the people that scare us

the world would be a much better place. Cause it is so obvious when you look at gun deaths here in America compared to THE REST OF THE WORLD how well our gun policies are working.

[Retired AF Dem]

20. renie before you get all upset and loose sleep why don't you find the

actual law and read it and make your own decision rather than listening to a bunch of propaganda by a republican led group.

[renie408]

"FindLaw" is a Republican group? How do you know that?

I got my information from them. Are they a Republican run group?

Honey, I was anti-moron's carrying guns into public places a long time before this. I figure that if you need a gun to feel safe, you are A) an idiot B) impotent and are using the gun as the ultimate phallic symbol C) have an IQ of 14 or D) are reliving some bizarre wild west "me and my gun" fantasy. For all of the above, probably the last thing you need is a deadly weapon readily available at all times. My husband works construction all over the city, in some of the roughest neighborhoods and with some of the roughest characters you could ever imagine. He has NEVER been in a situation that would have remotely been improved by a gun.

You have your gun and I can't do anything about it and I won't even try. But PLEASE do not try to bullshit me into believing that you have it for any other reason than your own vanity. Unless you are a policeman, you don't NEED a gun.

[Retired AF Dem]

32. Why do cops carry guns?

they have them for self defense. I have thirty years of law enforcement behind me both military and civilian and the only reason a police officer has a gun is to defend himself or others from deadly attack. Why should they have that right and not the rest of us? By the way I'm the guy that fills your ATM's with money, deliver money from the fed reserve to you local bank and the guy that picks up and delivers deposits from your favorite store to the banks so your loved ones don't have to risk their lives doing so. So I'm not entitled to carry a gun?

[renie408]

44. Because policemen are required by their JOB DESCRIPTION

to go into situations where they will be possibly pursuing people who also have guns. See, I am NOT required by my job description to put myself into harm's way on a daily basis, so I probably don't NEED a gun.

Look, you have the gun. You are going to get to keep it. "From your dead hands" and all that. You can spin away, you cannot convince me that anybody NEEDS to carry a concealed weapon. You will see me as the one that is wrong and I will see you as wrong. You will tell me that you are all qualified to carry a gun and I will remember the guy in the parking lot of the mall who pulled a gun out of his glove compartment to shake it at somebody who stole his parking spot while he had a kid in a car seat in the car with him. Sorry, I don't have a LINK for that one, but if you will email me your phone number, my husband and I can both verify for you that we saw it with our own eyes.

For every one responsible person that doesn't bother me owning a gun, there are probably five morons who own and carry guns for all the wrong reasons. The problem with guns is that by time you figure out that somebody probably shouldn't have one, somebody else is dead.

[BiggJawn]

105. I guess you had too much frothy spittle flying up on the screen...

To have read that part where AF Dem said he is a BANK COURIER?

Hey, you hate guns, that's cool, nobody's forcing you to take one.

I don't carry one, BTW, so save me the diatribe about my small dick.

[renie408]

115. yeah, well, that is way more your wife or girlfriend's problem than it is

mine, so sure, we'll leave your small dick out of it.


This is going to get deleted, isn't it?

[BiggJawn]

121. Nope, it's still there.

Gee, I just told you I dont HAVE a gun, and you STILL think I gotta small dick.

Geez. somebody forget to lock the hatch on the "Gungeon"? they're infesting GD tonight.

And maybe it's my BOYFRIENDS problem, anyway.

You ought to see somebody about that projection problem you have.

[Name removed]

203. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[walldude]

18. This is a little different than a concealed carry law

It basically gives anyone the right to use "fear" as a defense against murder. I agree with your assessment of the stupidity of the "bloodbath" arguement, but this law.... not good.

[Obamanaut]

21. This law does not increase the number of legally carried weapons

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/09/29/State/The_shoot_first...

It’s not like the whole state is going to be wandering about totin’ handguns and spoilin’ for a fight

<snip>“…deadly force can be used in public only by someone who's licensed to carry a concealed weapon, and that similar anti gun "nonsense" followed the passage of the concealed-weapon law in 1987”
<more>

Only about 350,000 residents are so licensed, so this law does nothing toward increasing the number of concealed weapons being carried legally.

[walldude]

30. I never said it did...

You ever live in South Florida? I did for ten years, believe me it's the last place you want to pass a law that allows people to shoot each other if they feel they are not safe.

I'm neither anti or pro gun, I do believe that anyone who wants to carry one should pass a backround check and a safety course. I would prefer if people chose not to carry them but this is supposed to be a free country. It seems to me like the people who are so adamant about carrying a weapon are the people most likely to use one when it's not warranted.

[Obamanaut]

72. You are correct, you never said it did - I screwed up and put my

reply in the wrong spot. I was replying to post #14 which referenced a findlaw.com link. I read that link, and it seemed to imply that everyone in Florida will now be armed, and it just isn't so. My apologies.

[MojoXN]

168. "I'm still waiting for those blood baths and wild west shootouts"

So am I. Why is it that the state with the most liberal CCW law (or lack thereof), Vermont, has one of the lowest crime rates in the U.S.? Gee, it couldn't be because an armed populace is a safe populace, now could it?



MojoXN

[renie408]

16. NO, please read the link above...

It broadens the 'Castle Doctrine' significantly and says that if a person feels threatened OUTSIDE of their own property, they can use deadly force even if retreat is available. Previously, if you could 'run away' safely, you were supposed to do that rather than kill someone threatening you. Now, in Florida, you can kill that person instead.

The problem I see is how you figure out whether people were in real danger of their lives.

Here is an article that explains it all pretty well:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/sebok/20050502.html

[OrlandoGator]

29. This is the bill.

S436 Protection of Persons/Use of Force; authorizes person to use force, including deadly force, against intruder or attacker in dwelling, residence, or vehicle under specified circumstances; provides that person is justified in using deadly force under certain circumstances; provides immunity from criminal prosecution or civil action for using deadly force; defines term "criminal prosecution"
________________________________

Now kindly explain how this law applies outside your home or vehicle.

[chascarrillo]

160. Where do you drive your car, if not the streets?

Just wondering...

[marions ghost]

13. NOT thinking about a Florida vacation...

so let me understand this, the law is on your side if you kill somebody who you say is threatening you...?

I guess it's safe to say whoever's the best shot will win that argument...

[-..__...]

19. Can you feel the F33R...

The Goebbelists at the Brady Campaign are employing their scare-mongering tactics as always.

They're grasping more than usual with this one; although I suspect it's much deeper than that: intimidate the FL tourist industry into petitioning the FL legislature to repeal the law.

Under the previous law gun owners had first to attempt to withdraw and avoid a confrontation, and were authorized to shoot the threatening individual inside their home or property.

Here's a novel idea... don't do the crime if you're not prepared to risk the consequences.

I really hope the FL AG or tourist bureau gets an injunction or sues the asshats who perpetuate this kind of fear mongering.

[renie408]

24. "Don't do the crime"???? What crime is that? Which crimes are covered?

Cause all it says is if the person doing the shooting is 'in fear of their lives" EVEN IF THE PERSON THEY SHOOT IS OBVIOUSLY UNARMED.

You know, people like you really make me sick. What about the kid whose crime was trying to talk to his friend in the middle of the night? He was knocking on his friends window when the kids mother shot him in the face and killed him. Yeah, little fucker shouldn't have been doing the crime of sneaking out of the house if he didn't want to be shot dead.

Christ, the whole world is going crazy.

[Retired AF Dem]

25. Link to that story?

[renie408]

28. LOL...I hate to tell you,

but it was in our local paper. It might take me a minute, but I am NOT making it up. Sorry, puddin's, people who own guns really do make mistakes. Hard to believe, eh??

I will get that link and post it for you.

[_Loki_]

40. Kneejerk often?

"You know, people like you really make me sick. What about the kid whose crime was trying to talk to his friend in the middle of the night? He was knocking on his friends window when the kids mother shot him in the face and killed him."


Please read the actual Law, as posted further down in this thread. It's not like, to use your example, the mother could shoot first and think about it later, and get away with it.

While it is concievable that a case would arise as you describe, it would still have to stand up to the legal test: Was there a reasonable suspiscion that the "little boy" was breaking and entering?

It remains a fact that a person's home is defendable, by deadly force if necessary, however, as it should be.

[renie408]

47. If I could find the damn link

She did get away with it. That was what the story was about. I think they decided it was an accident. I have tried every combination of 'mother, night, friend, accident' that I can and it is not coming up. But it was in the Charlotte Observer I would guess within the past year, maybe eighteen months. It happened out in one of the rural counties and the kids were in their mid to late teens.

[TX-RAT]

172. She did get away with it.

And she should have if that was the case. As tragic as this was, it was an accident. How do your determine the difference between a kid banging on your window, and a burglar, or worse trying to break in.

[_Loki_]

205. If we are to get in to posting hypotheticals...

...(and yes, I know this PARTICULAR case is not a hypothetical), we could just as easily point out that there are other cases in which people successfully defend their homes from actual invaders.

[Kailassa]

226. Easy, wait and see.

if someone is banging on your window and you're holding a gun, you are not in great immediate danger. So you wait and see. People who are going to panic and shoot first without checking should never own a gun in the first place.

[jody]

41. "people like you really make me sick"! Well get sick, I'll get even. nt

[renie408]

48. What? Are you going to SHOOT me??

Jeez, the rhetoric is just getting better and better. "Don't do the crime..." and "I will get even".
Isn't that just charming?

[jody]

54. Now you know I didn't say that. I won't try to force you to keep and bear

arms and you don't try to prevent me from keeping and bearing arms.

SCOTUS says government is not obligated to protect an individual if they are not in custody. That means self-defense is a personal problem.

If you choose to submit to criminals, do so but don't try to force me to do the same.

Have a peaceful evening, hopefully a crime free one.

[renie408]

59. How, then , did you plan to get even?

Yes, I choose to submit to criminals. What kind of ridiculous BS comment is THAT? How many run ins with criminals have you had? I must live in a truely blessed place because I do not know one single person who has had a run in with a criminal where they would have benefitted from having a gun. NOT. ONE. I swear I am not making that up to further my argument.

Now, I have been in situations where I needed a shotgun to scare off dogs who were chasing my horses and where my husband needed a rifle to shoot a wounded deer that had gotten hit on the road and chose to come and die in our front yard. My husband also shot at what we presumed was a feral dog that kept menacing one of our foals a couple of years ago. He didn't hit it, but he must have scared the shit out of it because it never came back. Other than that, I can not think of a single time when we needed a gun. I am 41 years old. My friends are of a similar age.

[jody]

75. You say "Yes, I choose to submit to criminals. " Have a nice life. n/t

[sierrajim]

116. When you choose to submit is more than likely when you die

Posted by renie408
Yes, I choose to submit to criminals. What kind of ridiculous BS comment is THAT? How many run ins with criminals have you had? I must live in a truly blessed place because I do not know one single person who has had a run in with a criminal where they would have benefitted from having a gun. NOT. ONE. I swear I am not making that up to further my argument.


A good 15 years ago I lived in the San Francisco bay area and it is riddled with crime. I myself have had a few run-ins with the criminal element twice having to draw a pistol that I carried illegally, so if you don't want to carry or own one thats fine, BUT YOU HAVE NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to tell me that I may not defend myself.

[RagingInMiami]

152. So you obviously never lived in a city

Where you can get killed for your purse or car. It's not even as if you're going to have a choice.

[Silverhair]

43. The particular shooting would STILL be criminal.

Of course, that is absent other information that may change matters. You still can't shoot someone who is outside your home. (I am well aware that there are situations where that changes.) So calm down the hysteria.

The "fear of their lives" has to be realistic to the situation. That you are afraid is only the first part. The fear can be extremely real, but if it is not appropriate to the situation, it is NOT a defense.

[renie408]

49. No, this law says that you can pretty much shoot anybody anywhere

And once the other person is dead, it is a little late to say, "Oops, my bad, my fear was disproportional to the event".

The problem is going to be if this GETS to the defense part, see? By then, somebody is already dead.


And the law says that if you are afraid for your life anywhere where you have the right to be, you can shoot the person who is making you feel that way. And who is going to decide after the fact if the fear was reasonable? The other major witness will be DEAD.

[Silverhair]

55. It ain't that simple.

You are very badly informed.

Please read the actual law. It is posted in this thread. The self defense requirments for FL are the same as they are in all the other states, except for the removal of the requirement to retreat.

You are simply being alarmist.

[renie408]

61. My friend, what does THIS mean?

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and 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 or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.


That is taken directly from the statute. Does it not say that as long as you are not engaged in an unlawful activity and you are in a place where you have the right to be, you can 'stand your ground' and use deadly force as long as you deem it necessary? Cause that is what 'badly informed' I am getting out of it.

[Silverhair]

69. Notice the change in your reading to support your hysteria.

The law says: "...including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary..."

And your quote: "...use deadly force as long as you deem it necessary?"

You seem to have left out a rather important word. That little word, "reasonably" carries a LOT of legal weight.

I have a CHL (That Texas for CCW), have had to take the classes, (Although from once having been a state licensed Private Investigator I already knew the law.) and you can't just shoot somebody because you are afraid.

It doesn't work that way. If you ever have to shoot somebody, even in genuine self defense, be prepared for a world of shit. The legal system will do a through investigation, as they should.

[renie408]

81. Once it becomes a legal issue to determine whether or not the fear

was reasonable, somebody is already dead, right?

In the heat of the moment, who decides what is reasonable? The shooter, right? Then that would mean that YOU DEEM IT NECESSARY TO KILL SOMEBODY. Right? It isn't as if there are referees standing around available for reference. "Excuse me, I really feel endangered here and I do have my gun, am I reasonable in my fear and would it be appropriate to 'stand my ground' in this instance?"

In any state anywhere, you can defend yourself with deadly force if you feel you have no other choice. The difference here is that in Florida, you are now allowed to defend yourself with deadly force even if there is a reasonable escape option. That is why the law is called the 'stand your ground' law. Why is it 'hysterical' to think that is wrong? Because you disagree? Because I perceive that there could be a problem with people feeling as if this law gives them the right to shoot even if they could reasonably get away from a bad situation?

[Silverhair]

88. The self defense laws are pretty much the same in every state.

The ONLY thing the "stand your ground" clause does is stop lawyers from Monday Morning Quarterbacking over whether you could have escaped. In a violent encounter, you have to make you decisions in a second or two. The lawyers have days to figure out some highly improbable means of escape. The law stops that.

[renie408]

113. I dunno

That is really the only thing this is going to stop? Lawyers figuring out 'highly improbably means of escape'? Cause I just don't get that. I get that if you feel you are reasonable to assume you are being threatened, you much more easily shoot somebody in Florida now without the threat of legal problems. You don't have to prove in any way that you couldn't get away. See, that seems...bad to me.

[TX-RAT]

171. Sorry renie,

But banging on windows in the middle of the nights, is a great way to get shot.

[raccoon]

210. It's not very wise, that's for sure,

and I don't know what happened in that particular situation of the teenage kid and the friend's mother.

I wonder if she gave him any sort of warning.

[-..__...]

214. Great way to get shot in broad daylight too.

[Missy Vixen]

92. Well, you could be shopping in a local auto parts store...

>http://www.king5.com/localnews/stories/NW_092905WABdoub... ;

It seems that someone thought it appropriate to open fire to attempt to stop a robber in Puyallup, WA, the other day. Considering the fact that the robber in question was carrying a GALLON OF GAS as well, opening fire may not have been the smartest thing that could have been done. One of the store's clerks was hit by an errant round. I guess this was okay. After all, we stopped the robbery, right?

>Here's a novel idea... don't do the crime if you're not prepared to risk the consequences.<

What "crime" did the innocent bystander store clerk commit? How about the other customers in the store, who barely escaped being caught in an inferno if they weren't SHOT first?

Guns do not solve all problems. They make many more problems than they've ever solved.

Julie

[Silverhair]

124. Not OK to hit the clerk.

Hitting the gas would not have caused a fire, unless the spilling gasoline ran onto something that would set it off. That is Hollywood where a bullet into a gas can causes an explosion.

Now back to the main point. In all CCW classes, you are taught that you are responsible for ALL the rounds that you fire.

[OrlandoGator]

144. Checking background is the most important part of using a gun.

n/t

[Kailassa]

228. It's interesting

to see how angrily aggressive so mny of the people supporting this legislation are.

[jody]

22. Please read the actual law below, it simply codifies a natural, inherent

and inalienable right.

QUOTE
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.--

(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; and

(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or

(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or

(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and 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 or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

(5) As used in this section, the term:

(a) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.

(b) "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.

(c) "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
UNQUOTE

[Mojorabbit]

33. Exactly.

Before you had to retreat in your own house if someone broke in and could then be sued if you defended yourself. As a disabled woman who is often alone I am just peachy keen happy with this law. It is pure propaganda that the causal visitor would be in any danger.

Years ago, my little 16 yr old sis was dating a nutcase. He had her on the ground and was beating the crap out of her on my parents front yard. My dad got his shotgun and scared him away. The cop told him that according to the then law, he could not have shot him if he had come for my pop but that if he had he would have needed to drag him inside and make up a story.
The boyfriend has been in jail now for years for twenty years, thank goodness, for other offenses.

I am a former hippy who now is disabled and armed and hoping to never have to have to use her gun but I will be damned if I have to limp away and retreat from a home intruder to satisfy the previous law before I can defend myself.

[jody]

36. I'll

[renie408]

39. I would think THIS would be the part that could cause some trouble

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and 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 or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

But I guess time will tell. We will just have to see if anybody gets shot by some gun happy idget before anybody can perceive that this could be a problem. What the hell, it probably won't take but a few people dying who might not have to otherwise. We have a large population, we can spare a few here or there for an NRA experiment.

[jody]

42. On the other hand innocent people might be saved. That's the essence of

self-defense.

[renie408]

56. I honestly don't have a problem with self-defense

I am NOT a flower child or a hippie. I was raised in the country and we have both a shotgun and a rifle leftover from my husband's hunting days. I am a big girl and not shy about taking care of myself. But concealed weapons and a gun in every glove compartment simply are not logically smart.

And seriously, how do you guys account for the statistics which say that we have one of the highest (or maybe THE highest) rates of gun deaths and murders in the world? What mental gymnastics do you do to get around Columbine and little kids shooting each other? I try, I swear, but no matter how I flip it around in my brain, it just doesn't make any sense to me.

But again, I will tell you like I told the other guy, I am not going to try to take your gun away. Keep it. I figure statistically you are in more danger from it than anybody else anyway. I just don' want you to have permission to shoot me if I piss you off and you can then say you were afraid for your life.

[jody]

80. If you choose not to defend your self, have fun but that's not what the FL

law says. The law simply recognizes that a person can feel secure in their home from criminals or the threat of criminals in other places.

If you choose not to illegally enter a person's home or threaten a person, then you are safe.

That shouldn't be so difficult for you to understand.

[renie408]

85. Have you read it?

What about section 3 which states that as long as a person is in a place where they are lawfully allowed to be, they can use deadly force if they feel threatened even if there is a reasonable escape available? That is why they call it the 'stand your ground' law. You do understand that, right? It isn't because of anything to do with home invasion, it is called that because of that part of the statute.

[Silverhair]

97. Still distorting the law.

Still leaving out the word "reasonable". You really should find out what it means in law. You would discover how wrong, legally, your posts have been.

[jody]

99. I said "or the threat of criminals in other places". Can you read? n/t

[renie408]

109. Yes, and normally pretty well

But I did speed over the 'other places' part.

Are you saying that this law, which is considered to go further than any other state law by some accounts, has NO chance of being abused? Or that including a law which some people could say 'encourages' people to 'stand their ground' rather than take reasonable measures to escape has no chance of being a problem? That you can see no way this could be a problem? You feel that this is a completely reasonable measure and that the law favoring the defense of property over human life is OK? Cause that is the interpretation that many, not just me, are giving this law. You don't perceive any potential problems with this?

[LisaL]

93. This law doesn't just cover someone in their home.

Someone can be out on the street and still shot someone he/she thinks is a threat. A reasonable threat, of course. WTF "reasonable" means.

[jody]

100. I said "or the threat of criminals in other places". Can you read? n/t

[Silverhair]

101. It carries a LOT of legal weight.

You must be able to show that the attacker had the means and a clear demonstration of intent that any ordinary person would understand to be a genuine threat.

[RagingInMiami]

157. People are going to get shot regardless of the law

The people who use guns in crimes or are hot-tempered will always use guns despite what the law says.

[Fescue4u]

23. Florida is a much safer place now

We should thank the Bradys for putting criminals on notice that they are committing a fatal mistake.

Of course, if you are a criminal, I would recommend that you vacation somewhere where that danger isnt present, like Chicago or Washington DC.

[ladjf]

154. I don't consider anyplace to be safe where it's necessary to

carry a weapon in public. No thanks. I think I'll limit my vacations to places that are a bit like the wild West.

[Fescue4u]

159. Who is saying that its necessary?

Even in crime ridden places like Washington DC, (where guns are banned), its hardly necessary to carry a gun.

If one should find themselves the victim of a criminal, we always have the option to dial 911 and demand someone else with a gun to come to our rescue.

Thats why being an American is so great. Even in troubled times like now, we have freedom and options as we see fit.

[Synnical]

26. Oh, we even have a new propsed bill to make us less safe

I posted it in the Florida forum:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

NRA-backed bills raise freedom, safety concerns

Jason Garcia
Orlando Sentinel
Posted October 2 2005, 5:54 PM EDT

TALLAHASSEE -- Florida businesses could soon face criminal charges if they try to stop employees from bringing guns to work in their cars, thrusting the state into a growing national debate pitting individual freedom against job safety.

Backed by the National Rifle Association, two state lawmakers have filed bills that would allow workers to have guns at work, as long as the weapons remain locked in their vehicles.

The legislation is modeled after an Oklahoma law that drew national attention when a number of major companies, including energy giant ConocoPhillips and oil-services conglomerate Halliburton, sued to have it overturned.

A Florida version could have similarly sweeping effects, particularly in Central Florida, where the region's largest employer -- Walt Disney World, with more than 57,000 workers -- does not allow its employees to bring guns onto park property. Universal Orlando, which employs 13,000 people, has a similar policy.

[ebal]

34. You mean make criminals less safe?

I'm all for criminals being less protected.

Unless you were talking about law abiding citizens suddently going berzerk?

[Silverhair]

37. I see no problem with that law.

The gun is locked in the car, probably in the trunk. So it is NOT on hand at the actual work site.

That means that if an employee wanted to go to a range after work, they would not have to drive home first to get the gun. They can go from work to the range. Or if they have a CCW, after they are off work, they can carry without having to go home first.

No big deal. Of course, the gun-grabbers will be in high hysteria over this.

[renie408]

68. Keep your gun. You are in more danger from it than anyone else, anyway.

Statistically, you are more likely to be shot with your own gun than with another.

I have to think that is god's little joke on gun freaks.

[Silverhair]

73. Those are distorted statistics.

I am extremely unlikely to commit suicide. That takes the numbers way down.

My family is a peaceful one, again taking the numbers way down. In almost all family murders, there is a previous history of domestic violence, usually a long one. Since I have known my wife since I was three years old, neither of us is going to get violent on each other.

Since I am wel informed about guns, and know and practice the safety rules, (In the military I was a range safety officer.)I am extremely unlikely to have an accidental discharge.

My house has alarms and locks so a burglar is not going to be able to get to my gun before me.

Now please tell me why I am so likely to get shot by my own gun. Is it going to jump out of its place and shoot me on it own?

[renie408]

102. Why do you need a gun, then?

Your house is safe, your wife hasn't outwardly shown signs of wanting to kill you, you are peaceful and law abiding. My house is pretty much the same. Why is it that you feel the need to own a gun and I don't? Seriously, not saying one is better than the other. I wonder why it is that two people living basically safe and 'normal' lives can feel so differently about something like this.

I wonder this same thing about some of my 'freeper' friends (not calling you a freeper, keep reading). We all have kids, all go to band competitions or soccer games or horse shows, all are married and in roughly the same tax brackets, all have have roughly similar backgrounds (give or take) and educational levels. We have areas where we are extremely compatible as friends and yet, we will look at the national situation and have completely different reactions.

This is like that. Obviously, we are both here and have roughly similar political views. We are religiously disimilar, but you sound like you have a stable relationship and home life. I have known my husband since high school (you beat me there). I am a woman and you are a man, but my husband feels similarly to me and keeps the guns we have mostly for 'farm' reasons. We did teach my son about guns and my husband took him out to a range and taught him to shoot, but that was last year when he hit that age where boys have a fascination for guns. We felt like it would be better for him to understand them. But we both feel like a handgun is not a necessity to our safety. Maybe its the five dogs. Do you live in an urban area? I live in the country, maybe that's it. I have friends and customers who live in the city and they don't have guns, though.

It is odd to me how people can be similar some ways and so different others.

[Silverhair]

119. I have been a crime victim before.

And I have once used a gun to ward off a criminal. I was not able to get a good description of him, but he was damned sure threatening my life. He was a nutcase looking for a victim, not a routine mugger.

Many years ago, before we were married, my wife used a shotgun to stop a rapist from assualting her. The sight of a 12 guage pointed at him had a very chilling effect on his sexual desire. The guy was never caught.

Both cases, no shots fired.

Usually, I don't carry, although I do have a CHL. But sometimes I do have to go to some areas where I don't feel very comfortable.

My wife carries every day. I can tell you more about that situation, but it would have to be by PM if you are really interested.

Your post here was very civil and actually seeking to understand where I am coming from. I appreciate that.

[marions ghost]

176. just because you are a 'good driver'....

how many others on the road are careless or aggressive, or bad drivers?

Defenders of everyone having guns to use as they choose are always primarily concerned with themselves and their own concept of defense. You may be perfectly qualified to handle a gun wisely and safely. But the majority of people in this country do not have that ability for one reason or another. Guns are not a reasonable means of protection for the average person...they can even lead to a false sense of security. Gun advocates don't really care about the safety of others or the reality that guns are not the best means of self-defense for most people. Guns for All is a selfish perspective.

[RagingInMiami]

158. Do you think AIDS is "god's little joke" on gay men?

[renie408]

166. Jeez...

What is it with the ridiculous rhetorical questions? And how do you make the jump from my distaste for guns to 'AH HA, she must be a homophobe, too!!'??

No, since AIDS is not necessarily a 'gay' disease, I would not say it was god's trick on any particular group.

[RagingInMiami]

180. You missed the point, of course.

You said, "I have to think that is god's little joke on gun freaks."

To me, that doesn't sound any different than people who used to say that AIDS was god's punishment on gay people. This was actually a popular saying back in the 1980s when AIDS was considered a gay disease.

Your quote also reminded me of how Pat Robertson said Katrina was God's punishment on the city because of all the sinning going on.

The point is, you are so anti-gun that you believe God is on your side. And it sounds very ignorant.

[TX-RAT]

173. Heres where you and i will disagree.

On my place there are 2 dozen+ wells, 4 tank battery's and several pipelines. On any given day theres liable to be 5 to 6 people on my ranch, checking or servicing equipment. On the 4 gates leading into my place are signs,In big red letters it states NO FIREARMS on a 3x6 aluminum sign. If you are caught with a weapon on my place you have 2 options.
1. Hand over the weapon immediately.
2. Leave the property immediately, never to return.

As of today, all have chosen number 1.

As the owner of the property, i make the rules.

[Silverhair]

207. I had to think this one over some before responding.

I was thinking of the usually case of the employee showing up, parking, going to work and staying there until quitting time.

The small ranch I grew up on has 4 wells, 3 tank batteries, and some pipelines. The pipelines were buried of course. Our house was about 100 yards from one of the tank batteries. We had guns in the home, and I was allowed to hunt.

Most of the people who come to work there will be driving pickup trucks and will be in and out of the trucks and moving around on your place as part of their job. Often, in fact probalby usually, they will be driving a company vehicle. Storing a gun securely in a pickup under those condition is more problematic.

Do you agressively search them for guns, or just act if you see one? I am willing to bet that you don't agressively search, but just act if you see one. So if someone has it in the trunk, and doesn't need to open the trunk while on your place, then there is no problem. You don't know about it and they don't flash it.

So the real question is: Should the property owner/employeer be able to search an employees vehicle as a condition of coming onto the property.

[TX-RAT]

208. I am willing to bet that you don't agressively search

That is true. But i have searched some vehicles, most of the men here, know me and my rules, but theres always the one who believes i won't enforce it. If i hear a shot on my place, and find a vehicle in that area, it will be searched. Failure to allow me to search, means permanent eviction, which usually means he just lost his job with the company he's working for.

[Silverhair]

209. Most of those are company vehicles, right?

Most companies are going to have a policy of "No Guns" in the company vehicle. So the employee should be able to park his personal vehicle with his gun locked in the vehicle and proceed to your place.

As I said, I was raised in an oil field. We had cattle also, and a stray bullet could kill a cow. BTW - Do you also have cattle?

I can't see any reasonable situation for someone taking a gun out and shooting on your property. If I were you, and heard a shot, I would react in the same way.

I can completely understand your rules. No problem there. Because it is a ranch and open country some idiots with guns would be tempted to use your ranch for a range. By having that rule you are strongly trying to remove that temptation from them.

I can see you wanting to search a vehicle if

a. You hear a shot

b. You have reason to believe that someone is flaunting your rule, even if no shots are fired.

Under what other conditions would you search a vehicle? I would be willing to bet that the "other conditions" of search are extremely rare.

[TX-RAT]

212. "Most of those are company vehicles, right?"

About 50/50 all the pumpers are contract, they own their own trucks.

[Silverhair]

215. I am still curious.

Aside from hearing a shot, what would make you search a vehicle?

I understand why you are touchy about guns on your ranch, and I agree.

[TX-RAT]

217. If i felt they were trespassing or poaching

If one of the other pumpers said they saw a weapon.
If its not a vehicle i'm familiar with.
If their on the wrong part of the ranch.
Any of the above could be a reason.

As i said before, they don't have to consent to search, but if they don't, their off the place forever.

[Silverhair]

218. Yes, definitely I would want to know what was going on.

We are on the same page with regard to the ranch. Even if you don't search as a normal routine, you reserve the right to search and retaining that right is important to you.

Regarding a parking lot with a people who show up, leave their locked car, go to work, and don't go back to the car until the end of the work day; for those people I see no reason for an employer to be concerned about a gun locked in the trunk.

[TX-RAT]

219. Once again, my place my rules.

The sign would say,no drugs, alcohol, or weapons of any type, all vehicles subject to search. If you can't deal with my rules, park some where else. If you break my rules, go work some place else.

[Silverhair]

27. That is an extreme over-reaction for propaganda purposes.

The standards for using deadly force have not changed. The fear must be reasonable and appropriate to the situation. All the law did was remove the requirement for retreat if the shooter is at a place where he/she is legally entitled to be.

The main purpose for that was to prevent lawyers from Monday Morning Quarterbacking of the situation and would start finding improbable way the person could have retreated.

Retreat, if reasonable possible, still remains the smart thing to do, especially if you are armed.

A self defender still has the obligation to have not escalated the situation, the obligation to be reasonable in their evaluation of the threat, and all the other obligations that go with self defense.

It is worth noting that the Wild West shoot-outs have been predicted when each state adopted must-issue CCW laws, and those never happened.

[OrlandoGator]

31. Whatever happened to the "bloodbath" from the AWB sunset?

You know, how "blood would flow through the streets" because rifles had pistol grips? I was rather looking forward to that.

More Chicken Littleing from DU on guns. Unfortunate.

[Retired AF Dem]

35. I have been keeping a close eye on this one to make sure it doesnt happen

http://www.assaultweaponwatch.com/

[Silverhair]

51. LOL. Great site. NT

[KingFlorez]

45. So you can shoot anybody you want

A nutcase can go out a shoot a person that's near him and then say their safety was being threatened. The Republicans believe the 2nd amendment is the right to kill anybody you want.

[Silverhair]

53. Not so. You are being hysterical.

In all states, including FL, ANY shooting will be investigated. A shooter will have to be able to back up what they are saying. All the law did was remove the requirement to retreat if the defender is there legally.

[OrlandoGator]

60. You really need to read the law before offering commentary.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

[renie408]

66. Why do you keep saying that?

The law is posted here. We read it. It still says that as long as you are legally wherever you are, you can 'stand your ground' and shoot somebody if you feel in danger. That's what it says, right? The subjective decision about your level of danger is left to you and even if you have a reasonable opportunity to flee, you are not obligated to do so. You can shoot instead.

[Silverhair]

76. No, you are distorting the law.

You are leaving out the word, "reasonable". Perhaps you should learn what that means in this type of situation.

[seabeyond]

50. i sent an email to jeb

We have had three family reunions, big catholic family, in the state of Florida. One trip to Nevara, and 2 trips to Destin. I won’t let my family into Florida as long as there is a law shoot first. You may want to play the cowboy games with your citizens, but I go to Florida by choice. If I don’t do the family reunions in Florida, you can bet the rest of my extended family will pick another state for our 9 day vacation, spending our money elsewhere. I am appalled at this law. I will not participate and embrace a state that is so fearful of fellow Americans. I am just not as afraid as you seem to be or you desire your constituents to be.

Sincerely,

[jwirr]

52. This should insure that many will not go to Florida for

their vacation. Shoot first might just be what the guy down the street does when you drive around the block twice because you are lost! I am sorry but I do not trust people to be a good judge of who to shoot and who to ignore. Human nature is too fickle.

[ladjf]

155. I'm with you on this. I don't own a gun and I don't won't to

vacation in any locale where personal firearms are necessary.

[DonP]

222. That limits your vacations to Illinois, Wisconsin, Kansas and Iowa (?)

I think the current count is 46 states that allow qualifying citizens to carry concealed weapons.

Unless you live in one of those four states your neighbors may already be CCW permit holders.

It looks like your vacation prospects are shrinking even further since Wisconsin is about to pass a concealed carry law too.

All that and Chicago, with it's gun bans in place for more than 15 years, is still the US murder capital.

[ebal]

57. Since Saturday it was in action

Living in Florida, I know I've been taking the opportunity to pop off as many people as I can now since surely I can just willy nilly shoot anyone I please according to the well read "lawyers" in this thread.

Previously, the only thing keeping me from doing it was a few words saying I had the obligation to run away when confronted with a gun. But now, wooo hoooo! k-pow k-pow I'm yosemite sam.

Good grief people.

[OrlandoGator]

58. Isn't it funny how we Florida DUers aren't so bothered by the law?

Most people posting in this thread clearly have not read the law in question, but are rather parroting Brady propaganda.

[renie408]

62. Yes, I have to agree that there must be something wrong with Floridians...

if they don't have a problem with this.

[OrlandoGator]

64. There's something wrong with the right to defend yourself in your home?

Read the freaking law. You obviously haven't done so.

[renie408]

67. ROFL!! I haven't read the law?? It clearly states that if you are away ...

from home, in a place where you are legally allowed to be and even if you have a reasonable opportunity to escape, you can 'stand your ground' and kill someone that you *think* is endangering you or anybody else.

The thing is that ANY state allows you to defend yourself IF YOU HAVE NO CHOICE. This law makes it OK to shoot someone even if you could get away. That is why, HELLLOOOO, it is called the 'stand your ground' law.

[OrlandoGator]

71. "Meet force with force"

I can't believe I'm surrounded by people who think that self-defense is a bad thing.

[LisaL]

78. Self-defense is a good thing.

But if I go out, see someone I deem suspicious, get out my gun and start shooting-and then use this law to say I was just defending myself-is that a good thing?

[OrlandoGator]

82. That scenario is not covered by the law.

You shoot someone, it will be investigated. The investigation will determine if you were indeed threatened and if the lethal force was justified.

People are acting like this is a license to kill. It's not.

[LisaL]

87. What if I think I was threatened? Doesn't the law say that if you

think you were threatened, it's o'key to defend oneself?

[Silverhair]

103. NO, the law does NOT say that. NT

[Silverhair]

83. That is NOT what the law says.

You must have reasonable fear for your life or great bodily harm.

You have changed it to "deem suspicious", and the built your case on your misquote. That is not honest.

[seabeyond]

137. killing is a bad thing. and if you dont have to kill that is a good thing

it appears this allows someone to win with a kill, when the kill is not necessary. i think that is what bothers people. so i am a gal, and a man is threatening to me. he is bigger and stronger, probably more experienced at kicking ass since i have never fought. i dont have to figure out how to extricate myself from the situation. i can simply kill him, and should get off just fine from the sound of this law. but..... was it really necessary for me to take that life.

but i won. i stood my ground. that man isn't going to intimidate a woman again.

silliness

edit: spelling

[Silverhair]

142. Depends on the level of the threat, and could you really outrun him?

For the sake of discussion, we shall assume the threat is real. A tall muscular guy opens his trench coat to display his nude, aroused, body and says, "I'm gonna f* you." That is a common beginning to a rape.

You have about two seconds, if you are really lucky, before he grabs you. Two seconds to think. Can you really think you way out of a situation in that much time? Can you outrun him? What if you lose the race?

Pepper spray? What if the wind is in your face? It will be sometimes. What if you have asthma? Some people do.

A readily available gun can stop the rape. And usually without a shot being fired. Most rapist don't like looking down the barrel of a .38. It has a great cooling effect on them.

[seabeyond]

147. this is obviously defending self, there are a lot more experiences

women have with many many asshole males on this earth that doesn't come near to this threat that we have all had to extricate ourselves out of many a times. but now i dont have ot be clever and all that stuff, i can just be pissed at the basic asshole intimidation shit men so often throw womens way, (because they think they are being cute?). i can stand my ground and .... shoot him

[Silverhair]

149. No, you can't.

The requirements for a case to be self defense haven't changed at all, except for the "stand your ground" part. You STILL have to have legal "reasonable" fear and have to demonstrate that the attacker had the means to harm you and had demonstrated a clear intent to harm you. And that demonstration has to be pretty obvious.

[seabeyond]

151. silverhair not going to argue with you. we will see how it develops

my husband owns guns. i dont like them, but not opposed to people owning them. actually i would stand up for your right to own them. i do stand up for your right to own them. but no, i dont like this law

[raccoon]

211. Thanks for telling me this.

"...That is a common beginning to a rape."

Thanks, I needed a good laugh.

Even if a woman had a gun, it probably wouldn't help her avoid date rape. Unless she wears holsters.

[Silverhair]

79. Nope. You have misquoted the law.

Still leaving out the word "reasonable". It changes things greatly. It requires MUCH more than mere fear.

[LisaL]

84. Yea, "reasonable". What is reasonable to someone, might

not be so reasonable to another. Just like "reasonable doubt". Nobody can define WTF exactly does it mean.

[Silverhair]

96. Case law takes care of that pretty well.

You can't be a quivering coward who easily and get away with it. The law is pretty strict. You are being hysterical.

For self defense, you have to demostrate that the other person had displayed intent and opportunity, and had the means to do grave bodily harm.

You can't just shoot somebody and holler, "Self defense!" and expect to get off.

[LisaL]

98. No? If Robert Durst got off on self-defense, anybody can,

given they have a good lawyer. And with this law, they might not even need a good lawyer.

[Silverhair]

108. I will be the LAST person to say our legal system is perfect.

After all, with a great legal team, O.J. got away with murder.

[Synnical]

65. I don't mind the Brady propaganda

I'm a single female, living in South Florida. I'm anti-gun. I do NOT want guns available to ANYONE!

I've dated cops, who also tell me that I do not want a gun in my house.

Get a clue.

-Cindy in Fort Lauderdale

[OrlandoGator]

70. You're entitled to your wrong opinion.

n/t

[Synnical]

77. I won't have a gun in my house

How is that wrong?

[OrlandoGator]

123. What's wrong is that you want to subject everyone else to it.

n/t

[Mojorabbit]

86. If you don't want

to defend yourself in your own home if you have a home intruder that is just fine but don't take away my right to do so if it happens to me.

[Synnical]

107. Are you really ready to use that gun?

'Cause I'm not. That's why I don't own one.

It's your right to own that gun, but I just cannot ever imagine KILLING someone. I just cannot.

I can use a baseball bat, pepper spray . . . anything, but not a gun.

Yeah, I'm that much of a liberal. I just cannot deal with KILLING someone.

-Cindy in Fort Lauderdale

[Silverhair]

111. A baseball bat to the head can be very deadly.

Legally, it would be called deadly force. That phrase does not mean just guns.

It is interesting that you value a criminal's life more highly than you own. That means that you would leave your assailant free to murder another after you.

[Synnical]

122. Um, I don't have baseball bat, either n/t

[Mojorabbit]

114. Um

I am a pretty far left wing liberal. Defending myself against an intruder does not make me any less a liberal. Perhaps you have the strength to defend yourself with a baseball bat. I don't but I am a damn good shot.

[_Loki_]

90. Well good for you...

"I've dated cops, who also tell me that I do not want a gun in my house. "


LEO's are notorious for saying that, mostly out of their own self-interest.

[LisaL]

89. Just wait a bit.

Before cases of people being killed because they seem suspicious start popping up.

[OrlandoGator]

133. The law has nothing to do with shooting "suspicious" people.

Read it sometime.

[guruoo]

220. You're right, but...

they'll have to make sure they
have a "reasonable" excuse in place first.
I'm very pro gun rights, however, I believe this law
was written not to improve individual self-defense,
(as it doesn't) but rather, quite simply as a message to
embolden the radical right.

The rightwingnuts have already been cackling with glee as though
this law has signaled the start of open hunting season on liberals.

[U4ikLefty]

63. So under this law would Bernard Goetz be covered under Florida's

new law?

on edit: Given that he lived in Florida & comitted the shooting today, of course.

[Silverhair]

74. Even in NY, Goetz's case was ruled self-defense.

He was convicted of illegally carrying a concealed weapon. But the shooting itself was legal.

The civil suit against him was succesful because Goetz was broke and didn't bother to fight it. He laughed at the verdit, saying that they can't get anything from him as he had nothing.

[U4ikLefty]

91. Goetz was a vigilante who looked for trouble & found it!!!

I could walk the streets of East L.A. at night & probably get my chance to shoot some gangsters.

[LisaL]

94. Wasn't he in subway?

[U4ikLefty]

104. He was also armed, in public, pissed-off, & ready to shoot!!!

Good thing a stray bullet didn't hit any "innocents"...but maybe next time.

[Silverhair]

106. He had been mugged before, and was afraid.

He wasn't looking for trouble. He just didn't want to be a victim anymore. The four muggers were looking for trouble, and they found it.

[U4ikLefty]

112. "The four muggers were looking for trouble, and they found it."

I think your "old west" statement says it all. I'm a gun owner, but refuse to carry it outside my home. I think anyone who carries a gun in public, outside of law enforcment, should be arrested. I live in Los Angeles where road-rage runs rampant...and that's all we need is for more yahoos carrying guns & given the "right" to shoot.

[Silverhair]

184. I used you exact words. I just changed who was looking for trouble.

So if I use them it is "Wild West" and if you use them it isn't?

And you are choosing some vicious criminals if you want to make the four muggers into poster boys for your cause.

Fact: ALL of the four has prior records for serious crimes before the shooting.

Fact: ALL, except Darrell Cabey who is confined to a wheelchair, have gone on to commit serious crimes after the shooting. For example, James Ramseur has been convicted for a vicious rape and beating of a pregnant teenager.

Support for Goetz was multi racial. Roy Innes, black director of C.O.R.E. was a strong supporter of Goetz. Blacks despise street criminals as much as whites do.

[Blue_Tires]

126. we studied the case in class years ago, and i thought goetz

shot before the 'muggers' even did anything to him (like assault him or demand money)

goetz fired on the percieved intent of his alleged attackers, not an actual, real-life threat...

and sadly, race enters into it as well...don't think just because he got off in court that equates to him being in the right (remember the LAPD got off for beating Rodney King on videotape, as well)

[Silverhair]

132. The muggers were armed, and demanded money.

They were all carrying long screwdrivers. There is a common street belief that a big screwdriver does not count as carrying a deadly weapon. It does. They make deadly stabbing instruments.

Four guys, all armed, approached in a manner so as to block off any escape for him, and demanding money. That is the enough to trigger the self-defense laws.

Race enters in only for those who see everything throught the lens of race. Do you mean to say that if an assailant is black that I can't defend myself? That IS racist.

[Blue_Tires]

162. and i'm sure

a jury would have acquitted just as quickly if the alleged attackers were wall street types

[Silverhair]

164. You are being silly.

First. There are blacks on Wall Sreet too, and I don't mean janitors.

Second. A Wall Street won't try to mug you in a subway using screwdrivers as the weapons. They will use their own weapons, and do it from a board room or trading floor - legally.

A mugger is a mugger, no matter what the race.

[hootinholler]

95. This flyer is FUD!

It is being spread in Europe by gun control folks to hurt tourism and garner support.

Unfortunately, there will probably be some people who will believe this and will drop the hammer to find themselves facing at least manslaughter charges.

The intent is to allow an armed civilian to be able to stand up instead requiring them to run away, when actually threatened. The threat must have been there for this law to used in defense of a shooting.

-Hoot

[moondust]

110. Definitely not thinking about a Florida vacation.

(No Texas vacations either, which would be almost as dangerous.)

[BlackVelvet04]

117. I've lived in south florida

and I was told by a police officer that if someone was breaking into my apartment to shoot to kill, drag the body inside and then call the police.

Let me tell you, if you've never lived in Miami you can't possibly understand why this law was necessary.

I own a gun, I target practice with that gun but I don't think that makes me a gun nut. I would hate to have to use it but I would in self-defense. I had a friend raped in her own apartment in Miami and she wished she had owned a gun.

[LisaL]

118. Good news! Now you won't have to drag the body inside.

[Silverhair]

127. That cop informed him wrong.

I am amazed at how many people say that a cop told them to drag a body inside.

NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO.

That is a felony. Tampering with the evidence. Not only that - it is STUPID. He would be an ameuter at changing the evidence, while the cops are professionals at detecting changed evidence. Once they discover that he has changed the evidence, then they won't believe any of his story. They will assume he is hiding something.

It is doubly stupid because a dragged body leaves a trail of blood smeared that is easy for anybody to see, and a big puddle of blood where the corpse bled out.

[BlackVelvet04]

131. Informed her wrong

and I was well aware of that, but I understood the point.

[Mojorabbit]

134. Fact is

that is what they told my dad to do if my sis's bf showed up again looking for trouble. He said, if you have to shoot him, drag him inside and say he attacked you.This was thirty years ago though.

[RagingInMiami]

130. Born and raised in Miami

And I was told the same thing several times by cops. I now own two guns, a Colt. 45 and a Beretta nine-millimeter.

[Silverhair]

135. WRONG. BAD ADVISE. GET YOU JAIL TIME. nt

[Mojorabbit]

139. Makes me wonder

if so many had cops tell them the same thing because of the previous law if they(cops) were cool with this recent change in it?

[RagingInMiami]

145. Or your grave time

[Silverhair]

148. If you have to shoot someone in GENUINE self defense,

don't distrube the evidence, call a lawyer, give the police a short truthful statement of the obvious facts WITHOUT embellishment, and say nothing else without legal counsel.

[TX-RAT]

175. drag the body inside and then call the police.

Tampering with evidence is a felony, and very reckless advice coming from a Peace Officer.

[alarimer]

120. They didn't need all those pesky tourists anyway

They just clutter up the beaches.

Maybe, just maybe, they will rethink this stupid law if it starts to affect the economy. The Republicans, after all, care about nothing else but the bottom line.

[OrlandoGator]

125. Yeah, too bad Brady has to lie to do it.

n/t

[alarimer]

167. I am really tired of Gun Nazis

This is a horrible law and I hope Florida goes bankrupt over lost tourist dollars. Fucking gun nazis passed this bullshit, Wild West law and I hope they pay WITH THEIR OWN LIVES. Fuckers.

[RagingInMiami]

189. Florida will never go bankrupt over lost tourist dollars

We've had riots, tourist killings, hurricanes, high crime, police and government corruption, massive immigration, horrible traffic and guess what?

The tourists keep on coming.

[OrlandoGator]

200. How ironic...the Nazis took everyone's guns away.

Quite an interesting metaphor you selected.

[RagingInMiami]

128. As a gun owner living in Florida

I support the law, even though I dislike Jeb. It does not allow me to shoot random people on the street because they looked at me wrong, it allows me to protect myself.

Before the law insisted you end up with a gun in your face before you draw. And if you end up killing a murderer or a rapist, you would be the one prosecuted.

But whatever, you guys don't have to come down here if you're so scared.

[OrlandoGator]

129. There is nothing at all in the law about shooting "suspicious" persons.

It is dishonest to suggest otherwise. I am also a Florida gun owning Democrat and I agree with you completely.

[BlackVelvet04]

136. I think more liberals should

own guns. Maybe if they owned one, learned how to use it and respect it they would get over the gun hysteria.

I was born and raised in the country and learned to use a gun at a very early age. I respect what it can do and I know how to use it. I do not believe in the death penalty because I don't think the state should engage in revenge, but certainly DO believe in self-defense and the use of lethal force in the commission of an act of self-defense.

I also think the use of OMG! is overdone on this forum.

[OrlandoGator]

141. We're on the same page, I am also against the death penalty.

But self-defense is simply not negotiable to me. If someone threatens me or my family with harm, I will do whatever is within my power to neutralize that threat.

It doesn't make me "macho" or have anything to do with the size of my penis. And other people are certainly entitled to negotiate with their armed attackers if that is what they want to do.

Just don't expect me to do the same.

[torreador]

138. Stand your ground law.

I am all for it! The criminals have had it too easy to date and this law will finally turn the tide in favor of the decent hard working individual people. To worry about decent people carrying and using firearms is the equivalent of worrying about the sky falling. In all the states concealed carry and "free force" allowance exists the crime rate has dropped through the floor! Yet the number of the innocent killed, either through accident or intent also went down.
Do Not throw the children in my face! The numbers do not reflect how many of the less than 18 year olds were teen drug thugs and killed each other in turf wars. Innocent children deaths are at an all time low and going down fast!!
If you were expecting "Dodge City" style gun fights in concealed carry states you were, and always will be, disappointed! And I am quite glad for that!!

Sincerely, torreador(Dennis in Virginia Beach)

[BlackVelvet04]

140. I've lived in Virginia Beach

as well as Miami and VA Beach has a crime problem, too.

[Bridget Burke]

188. How interesting!

Where are the statistics that show how the crime rate went down in concealed carry states. Please include statistics for other states to allow comparison.

Yes, I've seen the spam about the subject.... Just want a link from an impartial site.

[OrlandoGator]

143. The real issues at hand with the Brady flyers:

- Where in the law are people allowed to shoot you for getting into a "loud argument"?
- Where in the law are people allowed to "shoot first" without being threatened with physical violence?
- Where in the flyer is the Brady Campaign "telling people what the law is"?
- What "precautions" in the flyer are pertinent to the law?

There are no answers to these questions. Because as with the Assault Weapons Ban, .50 caliber rifles and EVERYTHING ELSE...Brady is lying.

You don't have to lie to garner support for a noble cause. Food for thought.

Oh, and Brady is run by Republicans. FYI.

[Lethe]

146. guilty until proven innocent

[RagingInMiami]

150. I do think that's good advice to give to tourists

"avoid disputes" and "use special caution in arguing with motorists on Florida roads."

That's would be good advice without the new law. A lot of people pack guns down here. Some are even deranged.

That's why I pack a gun.

Check out what happened this weekend in South Florida. Everybody has guns down here.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl...

[ladjf]

153. Thats it for me. I wouldn't want to visit any state that would make

such a stupid and dangerous law. There are plenty of other vacation locations that are safer.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

156. This screams for South Park reference!

Do all they have to say is "They're coming right for us(me)" (a la "South Park) in order to evade prosecution?"

[dutchdemocrat]

161. This thread gives me chills

It's hard for me to think that anyone who is a democrat - or a progressive thinker - can actually support the NRA and this kind of legislation. Looking from the outside in (being a Dutch-Canadian) I have to say - it's all rather surreal, and almost funny to see American adults still playing cowboys.

Just look at the UK for an example of a country with very few guns, with coppers who don't even carry a pistol... and look at Canada, which has as many guns laying around (per person) as the US does and they aren't killing each other at the rate the US is.

Incredible. I think this fear is facilitated in the US through television, movies and the media. The gun manufacturers a la NRA certainly don't mind.

[leftchick]

163. it gives me chills as well

[Gin]

165. Would it work against Eminent Domain?

g

[G_j]

169. I hear ya

time to watch "Bowling For Columbine" again?

[RagingInMiami]

191. Not all democrats march to the orders of the King Democrat

Whoever he is. Gun culture in this country is ingrained in our history, there is no way we will ever become like Canada and the UK.

The fact is, guns are out there. Criminals have guns. Even if you pass a federal law tomorrow making the possession of guns illegal, the criminals will still have guns.

And I have no problem using my guns to defend myself against a gun-wielding criminal.

And you know why I own a gun? Because I was shot at about 15 years ago by another driver in a road rage incident. The bullet whizzed by my head and into the speedometer.

The guy had shot me as I was making a right onto the expressway after we had argued because I had inaverdently cut him off and he got mad and tried running me off the road. We argued ( I had three friends in my car and he was with a woman) and when the light turned green, I turned to get on the freeway and I heard this loud explosion.

At first, I thought my car had backfired, but I had felt glass against my face. Then I saw the light in my speedometer had gone out. I was lucky.

The next day, I bought a gun. I now have two. And I feel much safer.

For everyone who is so up in arms about this (a bad pun, I know), then don't come down here. It's obvious that the only people freaking out about this law are the people who DON'T live in Florida.

I don't agree with the laws in Utah but I don't sit around complaining about them. I just don't go there.

[MadHound]

177. As a gunowner, a homeowner, and a gun control advocate

I find this law to be completely out there. While I support and defend everybody's right to defend themselves, this law is stepping over the bounds in many ways. First off, what is one man's reasonable conviction that they are in a life and death situation is another man's simple disagreement. This has been proven over and over again with psychological testing and surveys. And I've seen it in my own life. I'm a big guy, 6'5", 260# of teddy bear. Yet throughout my life, I've been told that I completely intimidate people, especially smaller men, just because of my size. Couple that kind of fear with any sort of confrontation in Florida, and I can see a tragic end.

Another bad fall out from this is that it is quite possible that the number of deaths related to crime will go up. With this law in effect, your basic car jacker is going to realize that any car he is going to pull somebody out of has the distinct possibility of having somebody who is carrying in it. Thus, it is entirely forseeable that said carjacker will simply walk up to the car, shoot driver and passenger, if there is one, and then steal the car. Lots of other scenarios where I can forsee criminals do pre-emptive kills also, break in, burglarys, etc. etc. Not a good scene all the way around.

I'm sorry, but this is a bad law, and it will be abused in multiple ways. While I own guns myself, I don't see how this insures any sort of second amendment rights whatsoever. Instead, it opens up Florida for even more gun violence, on both sides of the law. And quite frankly, I won't be going down to Florida any time soon. God knows, I'm big enough that somebody will feel "reasonably threatened at some point, and start taking shots at me. A situation I'll avoid.

[OrlandoGator]

178. "Reasonable" does not vary from individual to individual.

It varies from situation to situation. "Reasonable" is determined in court.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

179. Yes, but.............

Sure the reasonableness will be determined by the court but only AFTER somebody has been killed or seriously injured.

[Silverhair]

185. Not true.

First, you have to have a CCW to have a gun on you. In that case, you have been taught in CCW class what the LAW says is reasonable. It is NOT very subjective.

[MadHound]

181. Sure it does, and that is the whole problem with this law.

While the courts and the legal system do indeed have one universaly agreed upon concencus concerning "reasonable", your average ordinary American doesn't. For your average citizen, reasonable is a completely subjective term, and while one person my reasonably think that a situation is life threatening, another will not. And the only way that this will be determined is after the fact, after somebody is killed, in a court of law. And then of course it will be too late, some innocent is dead, and somebody will be going to jail, all of which will have been preventable if Florida hadn't given NRA the free run of its legislature.

This is bad law, bad precendence, and there are going to be people who die directly because of this law. God forbid this madness never comes to my state.

[OrlandoGator]

182. Maybe in about a year we can do a study to determine correlation.

I'd wager that violent crime decreases in Florida as a direct result.

[MadHound]

183. Better wager yet

On if and how many people were shot and/or killed due to the fact that somebody "reasonably" thought they were being threatened, and thus opened fire.

How many innocent lives is it worth to decrease violent crime?

[Silverhair]

186. How many innocents does violent crime kill?

I would hope that you would want to count those in too. So if violent crime goes down, then that means that lives have been saved. Of course, I doubt that you would want to admit even one life saved by guns.

And you are completely wrong about the subjective nature of "reasonable". To have a CCW, you have to attend classes and learn whar the LAW calls reasonable. You DON'T get to define it for yourself on the spot, and you know that in advance.

[MadHound]

192. But Silverhair, this isn't a CCW situation

And people who are going to be acting under this law may or may not have such training. And even with the training, the reasonableness of the action is still a subjective call, and when the proverbial fecal matter is hitting the whirling blades, logic, coolness and reasonableness are sometimes the first thing that goes out the window.

As far as lives being saved by guns, yes, it does happen, and please don't put words and thoughts coming out of my mouth, OK. It seems like too many people are all too ready to do so these days, no matter what the discussion is, or who they're talking to. It is poor form in a debate, and doesn't make you arguement any stronger. Rather than presuming to speak or think for me, ask me what my opinion is and I will give it to you. You know the old saying about ass-u-me friend, live by it. Not all people who are for gun control are against people owning guns, or did you fail to note my earlier post stating that I too owned guns? Nor are all people who criticize a specific gun bill out to grab your guns. Using such over the top language and arguements is part of the communications problems we have between the two sides, I say gun control, you think I want to confinscate all guns, including my own. I say this is bad legislation, and you think that I don't want to admit that guns save lives. Stop with the hyperbole and exaggeration, and we can discuss this like civilized people.

[Silverhair]

194. Yes, it is a CCW situation.

If you are out in public, and armed, it has to be a CCW situation, or the person is packing illegally. A CCW situation will involve a person who has been educated and tested on what the LAW requires for self-defense.

FL already allowed a person to defend without retreat from their home.

And the self defense laws are pretty much the same in all the states, including FL. All this does is remove the requirement to retreat in public. And it will actually only apply in suddenly developing situations.

If the situation is an developing escalating situation, the CCW person is REQUIRED to attempt to deescalate the situation, if at all possible. This law just stops lawyers from Monday Morning Quarterbacking for the easy of their comfortable chairs, whether or not the self-defender could have retreated.

[MadHound]

196. Not neccessarily friend,

One can legally carry a gun openly in Florida, also you can legally have a gun in your place of business, or in your house, or on your property without needing a CCW.

Not that Florida(or for that matter most states)CCW testing and training is all that great a shake. Twenty questions on the written test, out of which you've got to get fourteen right. Hell, a person could take a nap during the whole "Judgemental Shooting" segment and still get their CCW permit.

And I notice that you're not even touching my arguement on how matters, and judgement, can deteriorate during a high stress moment. Not suprising, because you know as well as I do that there is a fair percentage of people who simply don't react well under stress. And we have yet to touch on the effects that alcohol and other drugs will have on a person(remember that group of drunks in PA, the ones who all had CCWs, got into an arguement and decided to engage in a circular firing squad)

I'm sorry, but this is just bad law, and it is going to be abused. I've been around guns all of my life, but I will not expose myself to an area that is a potential free fire zone. I'm a big guy, and I have the problem that all big guys have, I intimidate people without even trying. Add a gun, some alcohol(yes, yes, I know, Florida law bans drinking and carrying, but honestly, how often do you think that is followed?), and a misunderstanding, and boom, one dead MadHound. Sure, sure, they will probably find the person guilty of my death, but will that really matter to me once I'm dead? That's the whole point. You have this law that people have the right to shoot first, and they will, in cases where it is deserving, and in cases where it isn't. And while the court will sort this out afterwards, it is already too late, an innocent person is dead.

And I've got a question for you, since you're obviously such a big fan of CCW. I've always heard it said that the reason to carry concealed is to put the fear into would be criminals. Now if you truly want to put the fear into criminals, why not just strap on a holster and carry that puppy right out on your hip? C'mon now, I know for sure that I would be going after another target if I saw a person openly carrying. Why hide it?

[OrlandoGator]

197. Open carry is NOT legal in Florida.

Please check your facts. The only way someone can legally be armed in public is if they possess a CCW license.

I have lived all over Florida my entire life and I have never seen anyone but uniformed police officers and security guards carrying firearms openly in public.

[Silverhair]

201. Personally, I think open carry is a great idea.

But it makes most other people nervous, so concealed is the best we can get.

[LisaL]

187. Exactly. What is reasonable for one person, might not be

so reasonable for another. All it's going to do is to make it hard to convict anyone, because any killer can claim self-defense.

[Silverhair]

190. You are wrong.

"Reasonable" carries legal baggage. It is NOT up to individual interpretation. To get a CCW, which you would need if you are carrying in public, you MUST take classes. In those classes you are taught what the LAW means by "reasonable." It is fairly strictly defined for you.

[Retired AF Dem]

204. I truly doubt that any criminal would of known about this law

to do preemptive attacks. Oh wait the Brady assholes has done put posters everywhere. Well thanks to the Brady bunch some of your ideas could come true.

[VaYallaDawg]

193. I have always believed the heat down there

has to fry the brains in at least half the people. This is living proof of it. Not only that, it's one of the big "Christian" strongholds too!

[davepc]

195. a 200 comment discussion and no one has bothered to post the law?

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=...

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.--

(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; and

(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or

(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or

(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and 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 or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

(5) As used in this section, the term:

(a) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.

(b) "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.

(c) "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

776.031 Use of force in defense of others.--A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.--

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.--The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Can someone please point out the part of the law that lets you commit murder "just because" or because someone feels "nervous" or "frightened". I fail to see it, but maybe some more informed DU legal scholars can point out that part of the statute to me.

Funny, http://www.shootfirstlaw.org / doesn't bother to provide the text of the actual statute for anyone to read and make their own decision about what it says or does not say. Why is that? The law is easily available on the internet. Took me 10 seconds to find myself via google. You think shootfirstlaw.org could use the cut & paste functionality of modern computers.

[slackmaster]

199. jody posted it in reply #22

[davepc]

206. thats what I get for not reading them all

[OrlandoGator]

202. OF COURSE Brady doesn't post the text of the law.

Because they are lying to perpetuate their anti-Constitutional agenda. Same with the semi-automatic "bullet hoses" and rifles that can shoot down airliners in flight.

[slackmaster]

198. Typical Brady scare tactic propaganda

"Use special caution in arguing with motorists on Florida roads."

Classic. As if people should have an expectation that it's safe to intimidate fellow motorists.



Critics say the current law allows gun owners to shoot if they engage in a simple argument.

Those "critics" are liars.

[MildyRules]

213. Yes, but the anti-constitution crowd

will eat up their lies like honey.

[Moderator]

216. leftchick

Per DU copyright rules
please post only four
paragraphs from the
copyrighted news source.


Thank you.


DU Moderator

[leftchick]

230. I am sorry

sheesh I don't know how I did that. I will be more careful in the future.

[stepnw1f]

221. The Gun Industry is Loving This

Fuck the NRA. They are nothing but a front group for the gun Industry. Wake up SHEEPLE!

[jody]

223. Do you hate the NRA and all it stands for or do you hate the NRA but

support the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms for self-defense?

That's important because polls show that perhaps two thirds of independent voters support RKBA.

Polls also show similar support among Democrats in general.

Here on DU, recent polls show that among respondents, around 65% support RKBA in some form.

[stepnw1f]

224. Oh Stuff It

Rights... blah, blah, blah. Sureeee.

How noble of the NRA to lobby for big gun industry, behind the purity of our Constitution.... What koolaid are you drinking? Snap out of it.

And who said "H-A-T-E"? That was a great tactic in getting somebody really pissed of on the playground. Go lobby more. More guns... how noble of you.

[jody]

225. I take your reply as "I hate RKBA". Gore and Kerry lost votes in critical

states because Repugs were successful in their campaign claiming that Gore and Kerry would ban guns.

That's exactly why our Democratic Party Platform was changed in 2004 to say "We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do."

[noiretextatique]

227. well...if you happen to be a japanese student visiting this country

and also happen not to speak english, and happen to be out on halloween and happen to knock on some frightened person's door (not knowing you should stay away from certain areas), who happens to shoot you dead for no reason...this law will get you acquitted of murder. i'm not sure this law was in place when that incident happened, but (surprise) the frightened murderer got acquitted anyway. i guess jury nullification isn't just for black millionaires in los angeles after all. this kind happened quite a bit, not so long ago, esepcially in the region of the country where florida happens to be located.

[noiretextatique]

231. someone pointed out an error in my post

and it's too late to edit it. i meant to say this law would have gotten the japanese student's murderer acquitted. but on second thought, with this law, there probably wouldn't have been a trial.

[ck4829]

229. For some reason that reminds me of a "Do not feed the animals" sign