http://www.nbc5.com/travelgetaways/5...17&dppid=65172
Completely ludicrous.
Printable View
http://www.nbc5.com/travelgetaways/5...17&dppid=65172
Completely ludicrous.
That'll be a real boost for tourism. ~:confused:Quote:
A gun control group is handing out leaflets at Miami International Airport, making sure tourists are aware of a new law that gives greater legal protections to people who shoot or use other deadly force.
Somebody please tell me this isn't true?Quote:
Florida has a new law that gives legal protection to someone who shoots somebody else as long as the shooter feels threatened ....
On this basis I'd be able to gun down half the people you see on the street in London on a saturday night.
What a bloody stupid law. It's just asking for trouble.
Extreme hunting holiday, it will rock ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
that's so fu.. I'm so glad I don't live over there
I want to see how this one pans out... How many people enforce the law... How many people start shooting groups of teenagers on a Friday night... How many Spanish folk are shot... and such and such like and so on and so forth, et cetera, etc...
It will be alright. They can shoot back.Quote:
Originally Posted by King Malcolm
That law sounds crazy. There must be more of a qualifier than just "feeling threatened", otherwise surely paranoid people would be legally justified in tearing down the street in a car, blazing out of the windows at one and all.
Well, laws with "feel" in it are generally a bad idea.
This does seem rather unwise... one would think it would result in overreactions... or in assholes (you know we all have met such people) who will say "Oh yeah, oh yeah?! You think you're gonna talk to me like that? You think you're gonna be tough? Well guess what! I can shoot you! I can shoot you and you'll be the criminal, bitch!"
Still, I'd be interested in hearing more detailed rationale from both sides, and in seeing how it plays out ~:handball:
DA
FYI:
The bill passed the lower house of the Florida legislature with 80+% of the vote and was unanimously approved by the Florida Senate.
The new Florida statute reads:
"(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."
-- 2005 Florida Statutes, Title 46, Chapter 776.013, section (3).
While someone could attempt to go "hunting" and claim this for a defense, it is more likely they would get themselves jailed for murder. If a jury of Floridian peers does agree that the shooter's belief was a "reasonable" step to prevent "death or great bodily harm" they will be found NOT guilty.
The anti-gun ownership/use group that is conducting this media campaign is specifically targeting tourists, especially European tourists (where views on gun ownership and use are far less supportive than in the USA), in order to engender a boycott (of sorts) against Florida tourism. This will, they hope, encourage Florida's legislature to repeal the new statute. This tactic is an intelligent leveraging effort in a state where tourism is a huge component of the economy. The anti-gun group in question is working toward the eventual goal of removing all guns from the hands of private citizens in order to reduce the frequency of gun violence and, they hope, violence in general.
Seamus
Sounds kinda like Make My Day laws out in Colorado. I'm moving to florida!
Don't you mean "they will be found innocent"??Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
DA
Well nobody is actually found innocent, just not guilty. But yeah I think it should also be not guilty.
Seems like a standard (if little lenient) self defence provision. The thing about retreat is to abolish an old common law element (which IIRC would have been around when the US gained it's independence and retained British common law). To prevent death or great bodily harm OR a crime seems redundant (as murder and assault are crimes) though I guess they are covering all bases.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I would only be worried if the take out the reasonably, IMHO that’s essential for any legally allowed defence of self defence, of course, you have to hope a sane jury hears a trial for the reasonableness to be reasonable.
This is a great law. I have always been a fan of justified homicide. I am not sure how many people are walking the streets packing heat but after a few criminals are shot it might send the message to leave others alone! If everyone has the power to protect themselves and others criminals might be less likely to attack.
It could lead to abuse but I’d like to see it work out.
It won't though. People are idiots.Quote:
Originally Posted by yesdachi
How many people will use this to there "advantage" for lack of a better word? I think I will wait to see how this pans out
what a nice society that may turn out to be. can tourists get a gun too then, or does it only apply for us citizens?
freaky.....
*adds florida to the "places never to visit" list*...
*woman shoots ex-husband for right to money in will*
"He was threatening to give the money to our son! If that's not threatening, I don't know what is!"
~D Yeah, that's America for you...(unfortunetly)
It's amazing how people try to distort what that says. Just add "and are unable to safely retreat" and you've pretty much got what my state says. You still have to be confident that a reasonable person would think that you were in danger of great bodily harm or death or else you'd be going to prison.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
like in a fist fight? I for sure would know several murderers and dead guys then
But that's the whole point. The "and are unable to safely retreat" phrase is extremely important. That should always be the first option. Especially in a public place. I wouldn't want my kid to be caught by a stray bullet because some citizen decided to shoot it out rather than hand over his wallet to a mugger. Cripes, even the cops get in trouble for that type of thing, and now we have a statute specifically allowing every Joe Lunchbox who can afford a gun to start blazing away if he gets nervous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
I hope I'm never in that position, but I don't really think it'd be tough to convince a jury that I didn't believe I was unable to safely retreat. If someone is waving a knife around, threatening you, turning your back to run isn't really an option. Whether you hand over your wallet and hope for the best or 'shoot it out', as you say, has nothing to do with retreating- not a very good example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
Tell that to the first lemming who's kid is hit by a stray bullet because some tool decided that since the law was on his side, he was going to empty his mag into the guy with the knife.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Tell that to the first lemming who's kid is hit by a stray bullet because some tool decided that since the law was on his side, he was going to empty his mag into the guy with the knife.
Well the kid should have a gun as well , as he is unable to retreat from a stray bullet while going about his lawful business , so he is under threat and has the right to shoot the mugging victim .
This is no more that the old doctrine on self defense and defense of others. The qualification of reasonable is just made to make a judgement of value over certain facts (mean used, conciousness, right object,etc.). This has nothing of new and is totally just, I think the media has overreacted (well when not? :no:).
The real problem here, and always will be the public use of weapons, specially fire weapons, that's totally unreasonable and against the Law State.
Maybe if you had read the law, you would be able to see its potential for people to use it to go on the offensive rather than just playing defence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
I love how some pro-gun lemmings are willing to defend this law to the death just because it melds well with their NRA mentality, without taking the time to form a coherent thought of their own about it first.
Sheep...
The only thing different in this law than all the other laws is that it doesn't obligate people to retreat-and when you're being attacked, showing your back isn't a good defense.Quote:
Maybe if you had read the law, you would be able to see its potential for people to use it to go on the offensive rather than just playing defence.
I love how some pro-gun lemmings are willing to defend this law to the death just because it melds well with their NRA mentality, without taking the time to form a coherent thought of their own about it first.
Sheep...
Can anyone actually show a logical argument against this law, instead of the scaremongering peddled by the Brady bunch?
Also, does anyone else find it ironic that the Brady group is trying to hurt Florida's economy, which if the leftists have taught us anything it's that poverty (not personal responsibility) causes crime, and thus the Brady group is trying to increase crime.
And for all those whining about 'stray bullets' bear in mind that cops hit over 5 times as many innocent bystanders than private citizens do when shooting.
Crazed Rabbit
Rubbish.
Maybe you should actually read the law
Well the kid should have a gun as well
the kid is going about his lawful business .
as he is unable to retreat from a stray bullet
a stray bullet is a threat , for a bullet to stray it implies reckless discharge of a firearm which is a felony
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."
Yep , the kid can shoot the mugging victim , he can shoot the mugger as well , its the law~;)
I think we all read it- it's posted above. I don't see where it allows for people to go on the "offensive".Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
I don't see where it allows for people to go on the "offensive".
Its all there in the last 9 words .
or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony
See someone that you think is commiting a crime , then act as judge , jury and executioner .
Sorry, nothing new there either- my state has that and I suspect it's not new to Florida either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Sorry, nothing new there either
That explains the low crime rate and the tiny prison population then ~;)
Wich means anyone.Quote:
"(3) A person
So if anyone comes to rob a shop and fails, and when he goes out he cannot shoot back if the owner shoots. Hardly reasonable.Quote:
who is not engaged in an unlawful activity
This means no private place.Quote:
and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be
From what I know if there's an actual danger to your health you never have the duty to reatreat, unnecessary.Quote:
has no duty to retreat
Pretty standard too.Quote:
and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force
This is hardly reasonable. The measure should be objective (if he uses reasonable means, and the other person causes a reasonable danger, etc.)Quote:
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
Any felony? Here I fail to see how can this be reasonable. The replacing of the authority done by a particular can only be admited when the life of another is in danger, in all other felonies the person oonly has the right to persue the author and stop him, but not with deadly force. Anyway like I know that all the common law functions around jurisprudence then a few statements will be added to this, but right now it has some pretty unreasonable statements...Quote:
to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uesugi Kenshin
Ooops! You are both correct. I have edited.
Seamus
The Brady group is not concerned with crime per se. They have one purpose -- to disarm America. It is their belief that without guns, the frequency of violent harm, especially death, with decrease.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Seamus
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
I do not understand what you mean by "Law State" -- that's not a phrasing in standard English. Do you mean that private ownership and use of weapons, especially firearms, is counterproductive to social order? Please clarify.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
Seamus
No, it means that the criminal cannot claim self defense, having forfeited that claim by reason of the criminal act preceding the exchange of fire. That same criminal, encountered by the shop owner 3 days later in a public park, would NOT be charged if the shopkeeper attacked.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
A previous clause in the code allows for the defense of one's home and property, so it is not noted here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
The intent of the law is to cover efforts to aid another in distress. The stereotypical example would be the use of force to prevent a rape. Under this statute, violence against the would-be rapist would not be viewed as a criminal act but as an acceptable response in protecting another.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
Seamus
Question-- do you mean that it is not reasonable at all? Or that it is very reasonable? ("hardly" in English = "not at all")Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
DA
What I would really like to see would be some specific examples of cases which support the need for this new law.
That would provide some clarification.
DA
There isn't this is clearly a law based on political tedences.Quote:
Originally Posted by Del Arroyo
Yes I know what that means, i wanted to say exactly "not at all".Quote:
Question-- do you mean that it is not reasonable at all? Or that it is very reasonable? ("hardly" in English = "not at all")
Yes that's the meaning, the enviorament of respect and value of the law. The problem is always the same the translation of the word "derecho", in your language it will be "right", so I suppose that we can call it "Right State" or "State of Rights".Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus
I agree with the law, but I find it unnecessary, and also with some few obscure clauses. In any case it was a too hasty answer, the holes may be covered by doctrine and jurisprudence in the interpretation of the clause, the text only sais little, taking it litterally is not good at all.Quote:
No, it means that the criminal cannot claim self defense, having forfeited that claim by reason of the criminal act preceding the exchange of fire. That same criminal, encountered by the shop owner 3 days later in a public park, would NOT be charged if the shopkeeper attacked.
Yes but that's not the case of what I'm talking about, it could be, but I'll put another example to notice a little more the failure of that clause. Let's suppose that in the case of the robbery (I think that it will be proper to call it thievery) anther person inside the shop catches the author in fraganti, then he pulls out his gun because the author is running with the product and shoots, that can hardly be accepted, first because it's not exactly defense of others, second because every shoot is considered as an abstract danger. This will be a felony, if I understand the term.Quote:
The intent of the law is to cover efforts to aid another in distress. The stereotypical example would be the use of force to prevent a rape. Under this statute, violence against the would-be rapist would not be viewed as a criminal act but as an acceptable response in protecting another.
Well, one thing is clear, that the original article was talking bollocks when it said you could shoot someone if you felt threatened.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
"(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
In an almost unprecedented backroom event I have changed my mind. I don't think the law is especially unreasonable, except possibly for the reference to "forcible felony". I see that prevention of death or GBH to any person is already covered as a reason to use deadly force, if you reasonably consider that to be necessary. Presumably therefore forcible felony is something other than death or GBH. I do not think deadly force would be acceptable in those situations, with the exception of preventing sexual assault. But I suspect it goes wider than that?
I would also point out that anyone who takes this law as a license to gun down a mugger instead of retreating is a low-grade moron. In the space of a second, on the street, you are going to take the risk that your view of what is necessary is going to coincide with what a jury thinks is reasonably necessary after sitting in a nice safe court room for a week? And if you are wrong you go down for murder/attempted murder?
Nope. This is free legal advice here kids. No matter what the law says, and no matter what instrument of death is making you feel like a real man that week, you would be well advised to retreat if you can.
Good advice! Legal reasonableness is a whimsical creature.Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
I'm personally surprised at the beat up about this issue... then again, I should be used to it now, there seems to be another beat-up about a misinterpreted law every other day :dizzy2:
I now get your point. A better, if not more literal, translation would be "the rule of law." In American usage, this phrase suggests that the state is not an arbitrary exercise of power, but that an agreed-upon system of rights and laws governs behavior for all participants. While I do not agree with you that personal ownership/use of firearms breaks down the rule of law, I do understand your point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
Very close to the American interpretation. We would argue that the shop owner would be justified in shooting at the thief caught 'in flagrante" to defend her/his property. The bystander in the store would be justified in shooting only if she/he believed that the thief, in their actions, represented a clear danger of death or gross bodily harm to the store owner, themselves, or another bystander. A bystander shooting the thief in order to protect the store's property is NOT acting within the strict letter of the law, though in practice it is unlikely that they would be charged with any crime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
Seamus
But why did they even bother with this law? What specific legal cases caused people to think-- "Hey, this has gotta change!" ?
DA
Probably the families of criminals suing people who shot in self defense.
Crazed Rabbit
This was probably influenced by Grand Theft Auto Vice City.
Just politics, or what you gringos call it "agenda"...Quote:
Originally Posted by Del Arroyo