"This is the right-to-commit-murder law."

[cynatnite]

Reports of justifiable homicides tripled after the law went into effect, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Last year, twice a week, on average, someone's killing was considered warranted.

The self-defense law — known as "stand your ground" — has been invoked in at least 93 cases with 65 deaths, a St. Petersburg Times review found.

In the majority of the cases, the person's use of force was excused by prosecutors and the courts.

Proponents say that means the law is working, allowing people to protect themselves without having to ponder legalities in the heat of an attack. You don't have to wait to see how much of a victim you're going to be. You don't have to wait for the first bone to break.

But the law has also been used to excuse violence in deadly neighbor arguments, bar brawls, road rage — even a gang shoot-out — that just as easily might have ended with someone walking away.

Has it cheapened human life?

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/article1128317.ece

This was written October 2010, but deserved another look after what happened to Trayvon Martin.

[Skittles]

1. it's a paranoid gun nut's dream

it is extreme NRA overreach

[ellisonz]

2. Here's the full text of the law courtesy of the Florida Legislature:

The 2011 Florida Statutes

Title XLVI
CRIMES

Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

View Entire Chapter
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.
History.—s. 1, ch. 2005-27.

Link to Text

[TheWraith]

3. You know this is the same as virtually all state laws, right?

It does not in any way lower the definition of self defense.

[tularetom]

4. Sooner or later a prominent republican will be shot by someone who "stood his ground"

Only then will there be any serious discussion of the law.