Florida's new law

[SeaCat]

Well, like it or not it looks like Florida will have a new law on the books. This one does not deal with clothing, or the lack of it. Instead it deals with defending ones self. Depending on who you're talking to it is nicknamed either the "Castle Bill" or the "Wild West Bill'. What it says is you may now shoot another person in self defense without fear of legal or civil lawsuits. (Okay you could do that before, to some extant, in your own house, but you had a duty to back down. In other words if you could possibly escape, you had to do so without shooting.) This bill, soon to be law expands on this while doing away with the duty to back down.

Here is a brief desription of the when and wheres as provided by the Palm Beach Post. (I can't get the entire address, and I suck at cut and paste. Otherwise I would just link you to the article.)

Under the Castle Doctrine Bill, people are allowed to shoot another person:

In their homes:
A person can shoot if someone is either breaking into or has broken into his/her home. The bill explains that the possible victim in that case holds a "reasonable fear of imminent peril or death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another."

In their vehicles:
A person can shoot if someone is carjacking or trying to carjack his/her car. The bill explains that the possible victim "has reason to believe that an unlawful forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occuring or had occured."

In a public place:
A person can shoot if someone is either attacking or about to attack the person in any place the possible victim has a right to be. The bill overrides court rulings that people have a duty to retreat from from such confrontations, and instead gives them the right to "stand his or her ground and meet force with force."

While I agree with the intent behin this bill, (I believe in a persons right to defend themselves with any needed force.) I can see a spate of shootings in the future with multiple challenges to this law.

Any thoughts?

Cat

 

[Boxlicker101]

I think its a very good idea. I would think all states or other juristictions should have a similar law. Actually, I can't imagine anybody ever being convicted or even charged if they kill an intruder in their house anyhow.

Besides what it says about a militia, this is also what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they included the Second Amendment.

 

[Op_Cit]

Now if we can only get them to add an exemption for shooting a legislator attempting to raise taxes or restrict personal freedom...

 

[cantdog]

Or at least punch the mofo in the nose.

 

[Dar~]

I you, Cant

I thinkit is right that you shoul dbe able to shoot a person threatening yuourself or your family. esp in the home. How are you supposed to get your toddler/baby/children ou tof the house with and intruder there, Without letting the intruder know you are doing so??? You need to be able to defend yourself and your family without the concern for legal action later. I've seen way to many situations where after a burglary, the burglar files charges against the homeowner. It' s insane.

 

[Op_Cit]

Yeah, we now have what's called quadruple jeapardy in the US. Practically the first thing they teach you in a concealed carry class: If you use your weapon (no matter the circumstances), be prepared for 4 legal battles, 1 state criminal, 1 state civil, 1 fed criminal, 1 fed civil. The criminal cases only depend on where the DAs stand on the issue.

Sooner or later this lust for legal action will expand more. Counties, seeing that the fed/state don't care about overlap will decide to enact their own overlapping legislation, then cities...

 

[HerVeryOwn]

If only California would wise-up in like kind!

 

[rgraham666]

I'm going to book a flight to Florida. And buy a string of firecrackers.

Once off the plane, I'll get in a cab and tell him to drive to a crowded public place.

Lighting the string of firecrackers, I'll toss it out the window and instruct the driver to 'Get the hell out of here!'

The results will be a lot of fun.

Seriously, I'm sure glad I don't live in Florida.

The place I currently live is a house run by a charity that houses former mental patients like myself. There have been problems with the neighbours because of this.

One especially loathes us. She has done everything short of arson to try and get us out of the neighbourhood. She's not fussy where, back on the streets or drugged out in a psych ward, as long as we don't intrude on her little world anymore.

Actually she sicker than any of us here, but it's a sickness not looked down upon by society at large since it rotates around propriety plus acquisition and protection of property.

Under this new Florida law, she could shoot us dead claiming we are 'attacking or about to attack the person in any place the possible victim has a right to be.'

But let's face it, if she did so, few people, even in Canada, would complain. The inappropriately mentally ill aren't very important in the scheme of things.

 

[LadyTemptress]

I live in Florida and I think it's a good law. I spend most of my weekend nights home alone since hubby has a graveyard job and believe me if someone comes into my house they are going get it.

Of course I have no idea how to shoot the gun we have so I will probably shoot the tv or something, but I will be shooting.

 

[rgraham666]

Lady, you have no idea how much your post frightens me.

There's a great deal more to handling a gun than knowing which end of it the bang comes out of.

For your sake, and the sake of others, please get some training. You wouldn't dream of driving a car without training. Why should a gun be any different?

 

[dr_mabeuse]

The way I heard the law described on TV (admittedly, not the best way to learn about it), it gives you the right to shoot someone is you feel you're under immanent physical threat. The rationale is that it will discourage muggings, but it sounds to me like an argument in a bar could now be justification for homicide. If you thought the other guy was getting ready to slug you, that's threat of immanent physical danger.

I'd be shocked at this law had it not been for the Florida's previous weird concealed carry law, which also seemed like it was going to result in tons of shootings on the street. As far as I know, though, that didn't happen. Maybe it won't happen with this one either.

Anyone know if the number of muggings has declined?

--Zoot

 

[yui]

I think its a very good idea. I would think all states or other juristictions should have a similar law. Actually, I can't imagine anybody ever being convicted or even charged if they kill an intruder in their house anyhow.

Besides what it says about a militia, this is also what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they included the Second Amendment.

You have always had the right to defend your home by lethal force if someone enters your home. This law gives a homeowner who feels "threatened" the right to shoot someone before they enter the premises.

 

[dreampilot79]

I live in Florida and I think it's a good law. I spend most of my weekend nights home alone since hubby has a graveyard job and believe me if someone comes into my house they are going get it.

Of course I have no idea how to shoot the gun we have so I will probably shoot the tv or something, but I will be shooting.

What few people understand... and everyone who owns a handgun SHOULD be forced to understand is that handguns are experts weapons. They were intended to replace a KNIFE... and are hardly more lethal.. and don't have a much greater range.

In the hands of people who don't shoot them frequently.. they are most effective as noise makers.

The police combat shooting range has the first and most important firing position exactly 21 feet from the target. Why? because 95% of all shootings occur at ranges LESS than that.. and in fact most occur at very very close range.

That's not to say that people don't try to shoot the gun out of the hand of a bad guy at 200 yards... but they miss.

Actually running from a carjacker armed with a handgun might be mighty effective. I'm not sure of the source of this statistic..but I believe it... the odds of a carjacker, who doesn't handle a handgun much, hitting you from accross the car is about 20%....

You having a firearm GURANTEES a gunfight if you confront a bad guy.

You can not shoot to wound. Even experts under stress can seldom place a handgun bullet where they want. More like a 6 inch circle. That circle had better be centered on someone's heart... or you stand a high probability of missing.

I guess my point is... stay the hell out of that situation.... There is nothing you own worth getting in a gun fight... There is no need for civil lawsuites even if you're right. Lets even forget the legal stuff. Most people who "win" a justifiable gunfight.. wind up with nightmares for years.

One gains a new perspective of the situation when one finds oneself munching asphalt hiding behind a car and discovering that bullets can go through both sides of a car. Been there.. done that.. ain't doin it again!

 

[cantdog]

Just the same, I like the idea of carte blanche to punch idiots in the nose.

 

[dreampilot79]

Just the same, I like the idea of carte blanche to punch idiots in the nose.

shit.. sometimes yer better off shooting em.... they always seem to charge ya with Assult for just punching em...

 

[R. Richard]

I live in the Western part of the US. The local gun laws are rather relaxed. A citizen can carry a load, holstered gun damn near anywhere. Most of the local citizens not only know how to shoot a gun, many of them have hardware from the County Fair to prove it.

There are damn near ZERO night time residential bruglaries. If the burglar survives, he/she gets a trial; very few burglars survive. The burglars learns the facts of the situation very early.

We do have a lot of auto breakins. The burglar can see if there is an armed owner inside.

 

[minsue]

The problem with laws like that is you end up with cases like the one here where a guy caught someone breaking into his truck to steal his stereo and ran out to confront him. The would be burgler ran and the son of a bitch shot him in the back as he ran down the street. No charges were brought. "Self defense" and all. How shooting an unarmed man in the back from a distance can possibly be thought of as self defense is beyond me.

Wanna guess which one of them was white? Or wonder what the charges would have been if their races had been the other way around?

 

[dreampilot79]

Wanna guess which one of them was white? Or wonder what the charges would have been if their races had been the other way around?

Your implication is at the same time offensive... and probably TRUE AND JUSTIFIED.

One of the problems of the legal system is that who is and who isn't charged with a crime is first up to a prosecuter... and after that to a grand jury.

There are racially biased prosecutors.... both ways.. but more frequently your implication of racial bias is correct.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I think its a very good idea. I would think all states or other juristictions should have a similar law. Actually, I can't imagine anybody ever being convicted or even charged if they kill an intruder in their house anyhow.

Besides what it says about a militia, this is also what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they included the Second Amendment.

It's happened in NY. Several times. Here you are expected to be a cooperative victim.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I'm all for being able to shoot anyone who breaks into your home. If it's me, I'll shoot to kill, with no qualms and no warning whatsoever. Anyone who breaks into your home has already considered you might be home, and if he is still there, he has already decided on a course of action if you, the home owner confronts him. In my book, he is prepared to do bodily harm from the moment he jimmy's the door or breaks the window. the fact they you no longer face Civil suits just makes sense. It has always meade sense that you shouldn't face legal proceedings.

i drive 21 hours when I go home. I think having a gun in the car and being able to use it if someone is trying to carjack you is also a good idea. You have only to pull into a rest stop at 3:00 in the morning on I-81 to know exactly what the word alone means. there is no one around and too many people become victims at such places.

On the streets, it becomes a questionable call. there is a lot of lee way in Justifiably certain of imminent harm being intended.

At the same time, street crime does occur and if you are armed, you are less likely to be a victim of it.

 

[cloudy]

Lady, you have no idea how much your post frightens me.

There's a great deal more to handling a gun than knowing which end of it the bang comes out of.

For your sake, and the sake of others, please get some training. You wouldn't dream of driving a car without training. Why should a gun be any different?

Amen.

People that use guns without knowing even the most basic things are what give the rest of us a bad rep.

For pity's sake, Temptress, don't pick up the damn thing unless you've taken courses to learn what you're doing.

 

[R. Richard]

I'm all for being able to shoot anyone who breaks into your home. If it's me, I'll shoot to kill, with no qualms and no warning whatsoever. Anyone who breaks into your home has already considered you might be home, and if he is still there, he has already decided on a course of action if you, the home owner confronts him. In my book, he is prepared to do bodily harm from the moment he jimmy's the door or breaks the window. the fact they you no longer face Civil suits just makes sense. It has always meade sense that you shouldn't face legal proceedings.

i drive 21 hours when I go home. I think having a gun in the car and being able to use it if someone is trying to carjack you is also a good idea. You have only to pull into a rest stop at 3:00 in the morning on I-81 to know exactly what the word alone means. there is no one around and too many people become victims at such places.

On the streets, it becomes a questionable call. there is a lot of lee way in Justifiably certain of imminent harm being intended.

At the same time, street crime does occur and if you are armed, you are less likely to be a victim of it.

Colly, you have summed up all of the major points. If a burglar is afraid that there may be an armed and capable householder inside, the burglar does not break into the house. Night time residential burglary goes way down.

If you are a 200 lb robber and you are going to break into an occupied car at a rest stop, who do you pick? A 250 lb NFL linebacker [Hint: no.]? A guy with Airborne decals on his car and he looks the part [Hint: no.]? A hot looking 100 lb babe who is not allowed to carry a handgun [Hint: jackpot!]? The persons at greatest risk for isolated robberies are women.

I frequently walk the night time streets of a central city. I be knowed as "Willie Green." (It is a title, not a name.) Nobody confronts me. A hot looking lady walking the same streets gets confronted often. If the HLL waits to fully assess the situation she becomes a rape victim. (Interestingly, the 'hos' do not have the problem. Mess with 'ho,' mess with a pimp. You don't want to confront your average pimp in the streets.

If street criminals know that everyone is likely to be carrying a handgun, street crime goes way down.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
I think its a very good idea. I would think all states or other juristictions should have a similar law. Actually, I can't imagine anybody ever being convicted or even charged if they kill an intruder in their house anyhow.

It's happened in NY. Several times. Here you are expected to be a cooperative victim.

It might also happen in Berkeley, CA. In that strange city, things are somewhat turned upside down. The bad guys have the rights and the good guys have few or none in cases like this. Criminals are regarded as victims. From what I have heard, New York is pretty bad in that regard also.

 

[Samandiriel]

You have always had the right to defend your home by lethal force if someone enters your home. This law gives a homeowner who feels "threatened" the right to shoot someone before they enter the premises.

The key phrase to use when the police arrive is...."I was in fear for my life." A police officer told me that one.

I had assumed, perhaps erroneouslly, that one already had those rights as far as someone entering your home with the intent of harm, but does anyone think that this will give way to those who want someone dead the means to use this law as an excuse for their intentions?

 

[LadyTemptress]

For pity's sake, Temptress, don't pick up the damn thing unless you've taken courses to learn what you're doing.

OK, I know I should go get some gun training. Hubby is on my ass about it all the time. He only recently started working the weekend graveyard shift at a second job.

I don't like it and I really don't know if I would shoot it. I keep it out so hubby feels better. I personally just pray no one tries to enter my home and if they do that my very large dog will make them regret it.