Place your hands in the air and step away from the State

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Well, laws with "feel" in it are generally a bad idea.

[Del Arroyo]

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

DA

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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

[Del Arroyo]

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 guilty.

Don't you mean "they will be found innocent"??

DA

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Well nobody is actually found innocent, just not guilty. But yeah I think it should also be not guilty.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Well nobody is actually found innocent, just not guilty. But yeah I think it should also be not guilty.

Ooops! You are both correct. I have edited.

Seamus

[yesdachi]

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.

[BDC]

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.

[ScionTheWorm]

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?

[Ronin]

freaky.....


*adds florida to the "places never to visit" list*...

[GodsPetMonkey]

"(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."

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.

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.

[Xiahou]

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).

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.

[ScionTheWorm]

like in a fist fight? I for sure would know several murderers and dead guys then

[Goofball]

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.

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.

[Xiahou]

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.

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.

[Goofball]

I like this law. I also like how all the anti-gun lemmings are running around freaked out over nothing.

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.

[Tribesman]

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 .

[Soulforged]

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? ).
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.