Change to Florida Gun Law

[oggbashan]

This report has caused some consternation in the UK where it is illegal to carry anything for self-defence that could be considered a weapon. That covers knives, scissors, sticks etc. Mace and disabling gases are illegal although available in France and Belgium.

Our handgun owners have had to surrender all their handguns except single shot black powder. Our Olympic shooting team has to go abroad to practise.

BBC News Report - Florida Gun Law

This law and its implications could have an impact on potential UK visitors to the Florida resorts. They are already deterred by the US's immigration procedures.

The general reaction is a lack of comprehension. If attacked, we can legally use 'reasonable force' to defend ourselves. 'Reasonable' does not include use of any weapon. Discharging a shotgun into the air, or an airgun into the ground has been considered 'disproportionate force' and the persons defending themselves have been arrested, charged and convicted of assualt despite considerable provocation.

Og

 

[cndallas]

This report has caused some consternation in the UK where it is illegal to carry anything for self-defence that could be considered a weapon. That covers knives, scissors, sticks etc. Mace and disabling gases are illegal although available in France and Belgium.

Our handgun owners have had to surrender all their handguns except single shot black powder. Our Olympic shooting team has to go abroad to practise.

BBC News Report - Florida Gun Law

This law and its implications could have an impact on potential UK visitors to the Florida resorts. They are already deterred by the US's immigration procedures.

The general reaction is a lack of comprehension. If attacked, we can legally use 'reasonable force' to defend ourselves. 'Reasonable' does not include use of any weapon. Discharging a shotgun into the air, or an airgun into the ground has been considered 'disproportionate force' and the persons defending themselves have been arrested, charged and convicted of assualt despite considerable provocation.

Og

I think I'd move.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

This report has caused some consternation in the UK where it is illegal to carry anything for self-defence that could be considered a weapon. That covers knives, scissors, sticks etc. Mace and disabling gases are illegal although available in France and Belgium.

Our handgun owners have had to surrender all their handguns except single shot black powder. Our Olympic shooting team has to go abroad to practise.

BBC News Report - Florida Gun Law

This law and its implications could have an impact on potential UK visitors to the Florida resorts. They are already deterred by the US's immigration procedures.

The general reaction is a lack of comprehension. If attacked, we can legally use 'reasonable force' to defend ourselves. 'Reasonable' does not include use of any weapon. Discharging a shotgun into the air, or an airgun into the ground has been considered 'disproportionate force' and the persons defending themselves have been arrested, charged and convicted of assualt despite considerable provocation.

Og

So reasonable force would be??? Shouting at them perhaps?

 

[Alex756]

Several states already have laws to the effect.

Turning to flee can be a very dangerous option in some situations and sometimes a person is cornered. with the wording of the previous law, in those situations you could not claim self defence since you did not first try to run.

I don't think in another month or 2 this will even enter the thoughts of 99.999% of people thinking of taking a vacation.

Guy has gun and is about to attack me, if I have a gun I'll shoot him law or no.

Changing the law means the DA does not have to presecute true self defense cases
and a victem who fights back does not have to depend on jury nulification.

~Alex

 

[oggbashan]

So reasonable force would be??? Shouting at them perhaps?

I think that Florida and the UK are both unreasonable extremes.

If I were to confront a burglar at night in my house I am expected to ask him to leave and I should not obstruct his going.

Ridiculous? Yes.

Any other course of action leaves me open to being charged with assault and/or unlawful imprisonment. The burglar is likely to get a public defender free. I would have to pay all my own legal costs to defend myself against his counter-charges.

Even if I act as I suggest, the burglar could still lie and I would be charged with his word against mine and he has the lawyer...

Most UK burglars when confronted by the householder DO leave.

Og

 

[woodnymph_O]

Most UK burglars when confronted by the householder DO leave.

Og

So you have to depend on the invaders manners? Scarey thought

Nymphy

 

[minsue]

You get used to it, Og. Sad and scary as it is. Florida's certainly not the first. Shoot first, ask questions later has always been the law here.

 

[SeaCat]

We actually had quite the interesting thread about this not too many months ago. (Sorry I'm a bit lazy tonight and I don't feel like searching for it.)

Cat

 

[Boxlicker101]

This report has caused some consternation in the UK where it is illegal to carry anything for self-defence that could be considered a weapon. That covers knives, scissors, sticks etc. Mace and disabling gases are illegal although available in France and Belgium.

Og

Og, I find this part extremely hard to believe. Can you imagine a cricket player stepping up to the wicket with his bat and being arrested? How does a barber operate without scissors? How does a butcher work without a knife? Don't dandies carry walking sticks, and how do they get away with that? Surely, there must be exceptions to this general rule. In fact, there must be so many exceptions that it isn't even a law.

 

[Boxlicker101]

We actually had quite the interesting thread about this not too many months ago. (Sorry I'm a bit lazy tonight and I don't feel like searching for it.)

Cat

I think it was the same Florida law, except then it was being proposed. I will see if I can find it and bump it.

 

[SeaCat]

I think it was the same Florida law, except then it was being proposed. I will see if I can find it and bump it.

Yep same law only we were calling it "The Castle Doctrine".

Cat

 

[Wildcard Ky]

"If I'm attacked, I should not have to retreat," he said.

I agree with that 100%. Being mandated to try and run first puts the victim at even further risk. If they're crazy/desperate enough to commit a criminal act on you in the first place, isn't it reasonable to assume that there may be no limits to how far they will go?

I don't know about crime and criminals in the UK. In America, if you catch someone in your house and are able to get them arrested, they will probably be back on the streets within 6 months, and will be pretty pissed at you for having them locked up.

Personally, I like our rules much better. If someone is in my house in the middle of the night, I'm not going to try and politely talk them into leaving. I will subdue them with OVERWHELMING force. If they don't like it, they shouldn't have broken into my place to begin with.

 

[Boxlicker101]

"If I'm attacked, I should not have to retreat," he said.

I agree with that 100%. Being mandated to try and run first puts the victim at even further risk. If they're crazy/desperate enough to commit a criminal act on you in the first place, isn't it reasonable to assume that there may be no limits to how far they will go?

I don't know about crime and criminals in the UK. In America, if you catch someone in your house and are able to get them arrested, they will probably be back on the streets within 6 months, and will be pretty pissed at you for having them locked up.

Personally, I like our rules much better. If someone is in my house in the middle of the night, I'm not going to try and politely talk them into leaving. I will subdue them with OVERWHELMING force. If they don't like it, they shouldn't have broken into my place to begin with.

I agree with that 100% too. For one thing, I think it's safe to say that the person attacking me means to do me harm. If I turn and try to run away, he will easily catch me and then he will have me at a big disadvantage and will be able to stab or shoot me or whatevcer else he wants. If I have a gun, I will shoot to kill. If I only wound him, he will come after me when he recovers or he will sue me and possibly win. In a court in San Francisco or Berkeley, he would win. In others, he might not but I'd rather not take the chance.

 

[rgraham666]

Still thinking of the fun I could have with a string of firecrackers on a crowded street.

 

[minsue]

Still thinking of the fun I could have with a string of firecrackers on a crowded street.

Oddly enough, Rob, firecrackers are illegal in some of these same places.

 

[oggbashan]

Og, I find this part extremely hard to believe. Can you imagine a cricket player stepping up to the wicket with his bat and being arrested? How does a barber operate without scissors? How does a butcher work without a knife? Don't dandies carry walking sticks, and how do they get away with that? Surely, there must be exceptions to this general rule. In fact, there must be so many exceptions that it isn't even a law.

You can carry whatever you want for your trade, hobby or sport as long as it is not carried just for 'self-defence'.

A cricketer on the way to a match would carry his bat in a cricket bag along with pads etc.

A butcher or cook can have knives at work. A cook working away from his kitchen would carry his knives in a case, not concealed in his jacket. An old codger like me can use a walking stick. All those are not primarily intended for self-defence. A teenager, stopped in the street by the Police, who is found to be carrying a lockknife would need a very good explanation and would be expected to say when asked if he had any sharp objects on him - "I have a knife in this pocket".

Anyone carrying a gun in the UK is breaking the law unless it is licensed and carried in a locked container. Using a shotgun on your own field is allowed if you have a licence. But you have to keep that shotgun in a locked steel cupboard whenever it is not in use. Possession any short arms such as pistols or revolvers is illegal. Even carrying a replica gun or bb gun in the street is illegal and in our current high alert status can get you shot by the Police.

Og

 

[BlackShanglan]

Even carrying a replica gun or bb gun in the street is illegal and in our current high alert status can get you shot by the Police.

Interestingly, this to me is the nub of it on both sides. One's actions dictate the response of others, and we are generally responsible for how we present ourselves and how others will feel it necessary to react.

In this part of the United States, for example, it's quite legal for anyone to have a referee's starter pistol. If, however, I use one to commit a robbery by pretending that it's real, I'm aware that the police might blow my head off before they realize that it's not the genuine article. My right to own certain items and to carry them where I wish is bounded not only by what I may legally do, but by my own recognition that the context in which I use them may put me at special risks. It is, after all, quite legal to own a digital timer, some coils of wire, and bulky cardboard box. I would, however, be a fool to assemble them into a threatening shape and carry them onto the Tube. While I'm not technically a danger to anyone, I'm presenting myself in such a way as to make it impossible for them to know that. A reasonable person must accept the results of posing what appears to be a lethal threat.

This, to me, is also the issue involved in breaking into someone's house. It may very well be that the intruder is a burglar. However, he or she could also be a rapist, a murderer, an arsonist, a dangerously deranged individual, or someone so dominated by the grip of drugs or alcohol as to be out of control of his or her actions. I think it unreasonable to ask the resident to assume the risk of finding out which that person is, or of giving the intruder ample time to plan an assault rather than a retreat. It seems to me ethically reasonable to assume the worst; by the time you know for sure, it's going to be too late to change your actions if you guessed wrong. Certainly this is particularly true if there are others in the house; asking a parent to stand quietly by while an unknown intruder moves through the house in which his or her children are sleeping is terribly unfair. The intruder must assume the risk that she or he has taken in entering the situation. To break into someone's home is inherently an aggressive and threatening action, and it's only reasonable to expect them to respond to it as such.

One never knows quite what another person is thinking. What one does know, when confronted with an intruder in one's home, is that he or she doesn't care to obey the law and doesn't mind violating the peace and property of other people. It's not a very encouraging start, and I think one is bound to wonder - if this person will go this far, how much farther? Assuming that it might be much further is, I think, a reasonable reaction.

But then, perhaps my perceptions are a bit skewed. I've heard and read of a number of cases in which this sort of situation went very badly indeed. And it was not so very long ago that our country lost many lives because we all thought we knew the worst that could happen with an armed intruder in a plane.

Shanglan

 

[R. Richard]

A butcher or cook can have knives at work. A cook working away from his kitchen would carry his knives in a case, not concealed in his jacket. An old codger like me can use a walking stick. All those are not primarily intended for self-defence. A teenager, stopped in the street by the Police, who is found to be carrying a lockknife would need a very good explanation and would be expected to say when asked if he had any sharp objects on him - "I have a knife in this pocket".

Og

One of the things I find amusing in the UK attempts to deprive the populace of weapons is the exemption of the cane/walking stick from the definition of weapon. I am a kung-fu guy. The cane/walking stick is, in the hands of an expert a deadly weapon, much more so than the folding knife. If I have to go into a dangerous area late at night, I invariably twist my knee just before I journey and need to use a cane to ease the pain. On a couple of occasions hoodlums have found out just how effective a cane can be in self defense.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

If you break into my house, you are going to get shot. Whether your intent is to kill me, rape me or pinch something of mine to sell to feed your drug habit isn't a concern for me. Nor am I likely to try and ascertain your intent. I'm just going to shoot you. I flatter myself in believing I will hit what I shoot at and given the caliber of my weapon and the choice of ammunition, I can reasonably expect you to be quite dead. That is the risk you run, when you decide to break into someone's home.

Shooting you down on a public stret is a horse of another color. I am not automatically granted the status of defending my property, but am instead making a judgement call as to your intent. I think, however, any law that requires you try and run away is misconcieved. No combat style I know of teaches you to turn your back on an enemy and at no point are you more vulnerable than when your back is turned. Carrying a firearm for protection does you no good if you are forced to trun your back on an opponent and run, especially if he is similarly armed.

I tend to agree on a public street your right to shoot someone should be sevrely curtailed. I also think a law that dictates a course of action to you is ill concieved. It would seem to me every situation is different and the way one deals with it should be governed by what is prudent to the time and place, not some arbitrary set of responses laid down by peopple who aren't there at the time.

 

[Liar]

Interestingly, this to me is the nub of it on both sides. One's actions dictate the response of others, and we are generally responsible for how we present ourselves and how others will feel it necessary to react.

See, this is where I have to disagre, and why I think a law like this (not the burglar part, but the public place part) is really scary. One's actions does only very maginally dictate the response of others. Initial impressions turn out to be dead wrong so often that I don't wanna imagine a society where the first impression of me can get me a bullet in the head.

What I need to ask here is, if you are justified to shoot someone on the street who you feel threatened by, where is the line drawn? Exactly how threathened do you have to be? What if you have a bad judgement? Maybe you're drunk, stressed, tired, whatever...at what point will you be held accountable for your actions, your choices?

What if the seedy looking guy loitering beside the ATM did not reach into his pocket to pull out a gun, but a cell phone?
What if the "rapist" in the back alley who "attacked" the armed young woman was not a rapist, but a drunk who lost his balance?

I can go on like that forever. There are frankly so many what-ifs that I'm beginning to get honestly scared of entering the country. I can trust myself to not be a threat. Can I trust every single person out there not to see me as one? I don't think so.

 

[BlackShanglan]

See, this is where I have to disagre, and why I think a law like this (not the burglar part, but the public place part) is really scary. One's actions does only very maginally dictate the response of others. Initial impressions turn out to be dead wrong so often that I don't wanna imagine a society where the first impression of me can get me a bullet in the head.

What I need to ask here is, if you are justified to shoot someone on the street who you feel threatened by, where is the line drawn? Exactly how threathened do you have to be? What if you have a bad judgement? Maybe you're drunk, stressed, tired, whatever...at what point will you be held accountable for your actions, your choices?

What if the seedy looking guy loitering beside the ATM did not reach into his pocket to pull out a gun, but a cell phone?
What if the "rapist" in the back alley who "attacked" the armed young woman was not a rapist, but a drunk who lost his balance?

I can go on like that forever. There are frankly so many what-ifs that I'm beginning to get honestly scared of entering the country. I can trust myself to not be a threat. Can I trust every single person out there not to see me as one? I don't think so.

I think those are good points, and ones where perception and judgement will inevitably come into play. However, I would point out that none of the examples I was discussing involved a purely perceiver-based threat. That is, I was discussing how people ought to handle actions that the person acting would have to reasonably construe as threatening - like waving what appears to be a weapon or breaking into someone's house. That's why I felt that the actor must take the responsibility for what happens - because he or she would be well cognizant of the threatening nature of those actions.

You've chosen a number of situations that call for fine judgement, and I think that they are well chosen. However, I also believe that the examples I gave are ones that police, juries, and the population at large would agree are substantially different in character, and that can and should be dealt with in a different fashion. I quite agree that it's not a good idea to have people shooting at anyone who looks at them oddly. However, when a threat is clearly presented, and in such a way that the threatening individual must be aware that the actions are threatening, I think we're dealing with a different set of circumstances. I think that pulling a weapon on someone or breaking into a home fall under those categories.

That's the differentiation I would make in the legal sense as well. While there will always be grey areas, and while those should be approached with caution, overt cases of clearly threatening behavior are not impossible to define. The BBC story is not very precise about the Florida law, but seems to say that it gives citizens the right to react with force "if attacked." If it said "if they feel threatened" or "if they feel nervous," then yes, that would be a dangerous expansion of the idea. But "if attacked" implies that the attacker has moved to overtly aggressive behavior - behavior that he or she must be aware is likely to be interpreted as dangerous. In that case, we're not talking about fine perceptive differences of what could be normal actions.

Shanglan

 

[Colleen Thomas]

See, this is where I have to disagre, and why I think a law like this (not the burglar part, but the public place part) is really scary. One's actions does only very maginally dictate the response of others. Initial impressions turn out to be dead wrong so often that I don't wanna imagine a society where the first impression of me can get me a bullet in the head.

What I need to ask here is, if you are justified to shoot someone on the street who you feel threatened by, where is the line drawn? Exactly how threathened do you have to be? What if you have a bad judgement? Maybe you're drunk, stressed, tired, whatever...at what point will you be held accountable for your actions, your choices?

What if the seedy looking guy loitering beside the ATM did not reach into his pocket to pull out a gun, but a cell phone?
What if the "rapist" in the back alley who "attacked" the armed young woman was not a rapist, but a drunk who lost his balance?

I can go on like that forever. There are frankly so many what-ifs that I'm beginning to get honestly scared of entering the country. I can trust myself to not be a threat. Can I trust every single person out there not to see me as one? I don't think so.

The law dosen't appear to give carte blanch shot to kill liscences to gun owners liar. It just removes what might be an unreasonable requirement in the law that you try to run away.

The biggest danger I can see is a psychological one. A lot of people feel empowered when they are armed. I can easily see the danger of someone who is armed, provoking a conflict where they might have acted to avoid one before. An unarmed person will almost always seek to escape, but an armed person may well feel capable of "standing their ground". Still, the law shouldn't require you to try and escape without reguard to the situation.

If for example, I am confronted by a beligerant man wielding a length of lead pipe, kicking him in the balls and THEN running, is more likely to get me away than just running. Similarly, using mace or pepper spry on him and then running is also more like to result in me getting away unharmed.

If that situation results in me going to court, I shouldn't enter the court room already at a legal disadvantage because I chose to disable him before I made my escape. If I should try to run first and he clobbers me, I am unlikely to be able to exercise any of the afore mentioned options.

 

[Liar]

The law dosen't appear to give carte blanch shot to kill liscences to gun owners liar. It just removes what might be an unreasonable requirement in the law that you try to run away.

Consider me corrected.

My post was more general than to adress the specific technicality of the "stand your ground" clause. On one level I agree with the new letter of the law, I think that in a confontation situation, it is unwise to have a specific instruction saying you must flee, because different situations call for different actions.

Still, I have to assume that you in a situation like that still are required to be reasonable. To only shoot if other reasonable options (where turning your back and riunning is not reasonable) are not available. Now, what's reasonable to me might not be reasonable to you, because in any given situation, there is no limit to the different ways that people react and reason. Who decides what is properly reasonable? Is that in the law too?

 

[Liar]

But "if attacked" implies that the attacker has moved to overtly aggressive behavior - behavior that he or she must be aware is likely to be interpreted as dangerous. In that case, we're not talking about fine perceptive differences of what could be normal actions.

This is where I, again, respectfully will have to disagree. My experience with perceptions and how people view a given situation is that one may fear for his life in a situation where another might be slightly annoyed. I've heard A saying "I hit B in self defence" and B replying "But, I didn't attack A!" so many times that any belief I've had in a universal common sense is long since gone.

 

[Alex756]

Consider me corrected.

My post was more general than to adress the specific technicality of the "stand your ground" clause. On one level I agree with the new letter of the law, I think that in a confontation situation, it is unwise to have a specific instruction saying you must flee, because different situations call for different actions.

Still, I have to assume that you in a situation like that still are required to be reasonable. To only shoot if other reasonable options (where turning your back and riunning is not reasonable) are not available. Now, what's reasonable to me might not be reasonable to you, because in any given situation, there is no limit to the different ways that people react and reason. Who decides what is properly reasonable? Is that in the law too?

A jury of your peers as in any self defence case.

If it is not obvious and the DA decides to prosecute, you lawyer puts forth your claim of self defence and 12 of your peers decide.

Having been in a situation of defending myself, I trust 12 strangers more than an attacker.

~Alex