NEWS: Florida To Allow The Use Of Deadly Force In Self-Defense

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 07:35 AM
link   
A bill passed on Tuesday, with full backing from Governor Jeb Bush, that will allow citizens to shoot attackers in their homes or in public places. Titled the "Stand Your Ground" bill, it allows people to defend themselves with any force necassary, and does not require them to try and escape first. The bill passed with a vote of 94 to 20.
 



www.washingtonpost.com
TALLAHASSEE, April 5 -- People in Florida will be allowed to kill in self-defense on the street without trying to flee under a new measure passed Tuesday that critics say will bring a Wild West mentality and innocent deaths.

The Florida House, citing the need to allow people to "stand their ground," voted 94 to 20 to codify and expand court rulings that allow people to use deadly force to protect themselves in their homes without first trying to escape.

"This is about meeting force with force," said Rep. Dennis Baxley (R-Ocala), the House sponsor. "If I'm attacked, I should not have to retreat."


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Wild, Wild West Baby.........I'm torn on this. On the one hand, people have to be allowed to defend themselves. Period. Which pretty much sums up my position. However, I'm going to acknowledge the tons of leash that has been let out for abuse to occur. I'm not even going into the examples because there are many. Suffice to say that anyone with a right mind can begin to justify a murder of passion. Or, an elderly man/woman could mistake a caregiver for an intruder......doesn't Florida have a higher concentration of retirees and elderly?

Wonder what the statistics will look like in a year or two.....

Related News Links:
www.sptimes.com




posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 08:38 AM
link   
I live in Texas, and frankly, I'm surprised. I thought all states in the union already had laws in place allowing a person to defend their home with deadly force. I didn't know there was a clause in Florida law about trying to escape first and I find that to be ludicrous. I am 100% in agreement with this law. This is how it is in Texas (both in your home and on the street) and the "vigilante justice" or "wild west" concerns voiced over the Florida law simply aren't an issue.

Imagine your house being intruded upon by an armed theif and your family is home. You have a gun nearby but you cannot shoot the bandit to protect your family until after you've attempted to usher your family out of the house, abandoning all of your property and maybe a family member or two. Ridiculous. What other states have this strange "escape clause" to home protection?

People in general do not have very much to call their own in this world. Your home, however, is YOURS, and within it, no government should have the authority to stay your hand when you are defending it against an attacker or would-be attacker. The government only has this authority over us if we let them, and I say, in this matter, we should not let them.

Zip

[edit on 6-4-2005 by Zipdot]



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 08:40 AM
link   
I was thinking the same thing Zipdot, but apparently this law goes even further than that, allowing people to use deadly force in public to defend themselves. They already have that right in their homes.



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 08:42 AM
link   
I live in Florida and I have always thought we had the right to defend ourselves, shoot to kill type self defense allowed in our homes.

But in the streets
that one is a little hazy and could pose more problems than anything. I mean you shoot a guy in the streets and claim self defense, he's dead, so there's no argument and a murderer walks free?



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 08:45 AM
link   
Right, I had just edited my post to comment on that. In Texas, we can defend ourselves in the streets with deadly force. This coincides with our concealed handgun laws and it's a very good system - an excellent criminal deterrent. Moreover, it's not the "Wild West" down here, it's simply an up-to-date, individually empowering defense system.



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 08:46 AM
link   
This one is worth to watch how is going to evolved into "taking matters into your hands" when you don't like your neighbors next door.

"Wait for him to come outside his home and then confront him in the street" I wonder what our politicians think they are doing when they extend the rights to violent acts in public places.

Wild, wild west indeed, I wonder how many people will be purchasing their personal weapons now.



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 08:47 AM
link   
hhmmmmm well i guess the intent if you have a carjacking type situation......or a robber at an ATM..............or a mugger..........

i'm all about protecting myself. i carry concealed already.

but i would wonder about a street scenario.........innocent bystanders and all...........


hmmmm


interesting!


angie



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 08:51 AM
link   
Specifically regarding concealed handgun law, there is a protocol that one must follow before and while shooting a target, including such things as warning the attacker that you have a handgun and only shooting if absolutely necessary, but even still, the individual is empowered to do what is necessary to protect himself.

I suppose the question of Murder Versus Protection arises in the details - for instance, what if you are unlicensed or in felony posession of a handgun that you use to protect yourself? What if you instigated the attack? These are issues I'm not well educated on.

Zip



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 09:14 AM
link   
This is great!

I used to have to drag people inside the house after shooting them!
Now I can leave 'em in the yard....woo hoo!


Seriously though, I'd have to see the specifics on this to pass judgement one way or the other.... Also, does this mean in unarmed combat, that if defending myself, I now don't have to be carefull not to kill them, and can go for that neck twist? Personally, I'm a bigger fan of using the heel of the hand to the nose (takes them out of the fight real quick), but it could have the nasty side effect of shoving cartiledge into the brain (and killing the perp). Luckily, such things don't happen very often, like once a decade...




doesn't Florida have a higher concentration of retirees and elderly?


It's not called "God's waiting room" for nothing.....


[edit on 6-4-2005 by Gazrok]



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 09:15 AM
link   
That is very good point Zipdot, my brother has been a resident of Florida for 25 years and he keep a very nice collection of guns in his house and he always carry one with him.

But we don't know as to what extend the law allowed the used of deadly force for protection in a public place.

Is many questions to be ask and as usual its always going to be one or two that will take the new law "into their hands"

Look at the minute man in Texas, can you imagine vigilante groups forming in Florida to protect the cities now that the law allowed deadly used of force in self defense?

My husband and I are planning to move to Jacksonville where my brother live, sometime in the future if our local base closing become official.

I really would not want to find myself in a middle of a fight in a public place.


[edit on 6-4-2005 by marg6043]



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 09:56 AM
link   
The law was necesary in Florida because the old law was stupid. The only problem with this law is that some vigilantes may take it to the extreme and find a situation where they can open fire one someone.

A friend of mine enrolled in the police achademy a year or two ago and was telling how the old law was . If someone were to break into your house and you killed them you could be arrested and charged and also there were other clauses that enabled the would be robber to sue the property owner if he lived.

I think in Florida and elsewhere vigilantes need to organize and fight the criminals(I mean the druggies who PUSH hard drugs and those who rob and con people out of money and property). Hopefully this law places repsosiblity on someone who opens fire in public and their stray bullets do harm because Florida is full of morons who will shoot before thinking and getting a clear shot.

[edit on 6-4-2005 by jrod]



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 10:26 AM
link   
LMFAO do you need any more proof that Americans are hell bent on self destruction?

Want to commit a murder? Drag your victim into your house and shoot them. They were threatening you after all. Hell you dont even need to drag them into your house any more, just shoot them in the street and say they came at you with a knife, baseball bat, gun whatever you drop on them.

I agree that you have the right to defend your house and property but the right to kill some one shouldnt be enshrined in law. The law should lean on the side of reasonable force but be flexible enough to not convict people who clearly are innocent. This carte blanche killing law is quite literally a Pandora's Box.

What do I care though, ruin your country. I dont plan on ever going there



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 11:35 AM
link   
subz, like I was saying earlier, this is how it works in Texas and it's not at all as you imagine it ("carte blanche", etc). Obviously any time someone is shot in the face, there is going to be an intensive investigation. If you are suspected of murder, you will be arrested for murder, plain and simple, although, as always, the burden of proof is on the state.

Also, many people who are chiming in on this thread are under the impression that killing someone offhandedly is some kind of easy thing to do. For all the tough talk, even when someone is threatening your life, it is still difficult to take a life, even if you've killed someone before. Additionally, killing someone and then lying about it is extraordinarily difficult for the average person.

Basically, I'm trying to say that this type of scheme does not make killers out of regular Joes, and it doesn't incite some kind of massive deathtoll increase either. The benefits of these laws are easy to recognize when you examine them in the light of individual freedoms and low-context justice. Personally, I prefer having more, rather than less, rights.

Zip



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 11:57 AM
link   
In oklahoma, the law states that you can kill anyone that is in your house/business univited. It is merely a "covering the bases" type law.
It was instigated when a business owner chased a robber down the street and shot him...
they wanted to have something on the books that would make it clear, that if a robber is escaping, and you want to chase him down and kill him, you have to be willing to drag the body however far he gets...

it is all "coomon sense" law that defends the victim. It also allows for prosecution of th victim in suspicious circumstances. It is not a Black/white type law.
about a decade ago, they prosecuted a man, who found someone in his home, chased him out and shot him in the back as he was climbing over the fence. The man was released, due to this law, But he still was publically critisized due to the intruder being a young unarmed fleeing boy.

these kind of cases should always be a decision at the moment, and we should always be prepared to shoot a criminal if doing so could save an innocents life.
but it is not an excuse to play batman...



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Guys.... You are making too much of a deal... anyone cannot just shoot someone in the streets and then claim self defense.... It has to be proven that it was self defense.

BTW democrats and liberals were saying that the "concealed- carry" law which went into effect in Florida in 1987 would also be abused and people would be killing each other on the streets... that the wild wild west would come to a neighboor near you. We are fine and well and noone has abused that law that I know of..... I haven't seen people branding their concealed weapons left and right and killing those they don't like....


Executive Summary

Ten years ago this month, a controversial "concealed- carry" law went into effect in the state of Florida. In a sharp break from the conventional wisdom of the time, that law allowed adult citizens to carry concealed firearms in public. Many people feared the law would quickly lead to disaster: blood would literally be running in the streets. Now, 10 years later, it is safe to say that those dire predictions were completely unfounded. Indeed, the debate today over concealed-carry laws centers on the extent to which such laws can actually reduce the crime rate.

To the shock and dismay of gun control proponents, concealed-carry reform has proven to be wildly popular among state lawmakers. Since Florida launched its experiment with concealed-carry in October 1987, 23 states have enacted similar laws, with positive results.

Prior to 1987, almost every state in America either prohibited the carrying of concealed handguns or permitted concealed-carry under a licensing system that granted government officials broad discretionary power over the decision to grant a permit. The key feature of the new concealed-carry laws is that the government must grant the permit as soon as any citizen can satisfy objective licensing criteria.


Excerpted from.
www.cato.org...


This law will allow someone who is being threatened for real, maybe by a rapist, a robber, or someone going in a killing spree can be stopped by their victims.

But once more, the gun control advocates are trying to supress the rights of citizens to defend themselves.... go figure....

[edit on 6-4-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zipdot
Right, I had just edited my post to comment on that. In Texas, we can defend ourselves in the streets with deadly force. This coincides with our concealed handgun laws and it's a very good system - an excellent criminal deterrent. Moreover, it's not the "Wild West" down here, it's simply an up-to-date, individually empowering defense system.


More power to the people.


I am sure Florida will not become the wild wild west either...like some people are claiming....

The gun control advocates cannot allow this to happen...after all, they are fighting for the rights of civilians right?....


[edit on 6-4-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Do you trust everyone with a gun in Florida Muaddib?

I know I wouldnt but you agree that they should be able to bear arms and shoot to kill if they are threatend.

Lets say some one is delusional. They think their life is in danger because aliens have taken over the World. Lets say he shoots his neighbour to death because he thinks his life is in danger.

What the hell will this law say on the matter? What the hell will a defense lawyer try and contrive this law into? Not guilty purely for mental reasons? No prison sentence due to mental incapacity?

[edit on 6/4/05 by subz]



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 12:13 PM
link   
I would say I find it amazing that some people immedately assume a gun would be used in a deadly force scenario...but then again this is ATS so I find little amazing in this fact. Some people just love that anti-handgun bandwagon and can't resist jumping on. If I get into a fist fight or I am trying to fend off an attacker I am most likely going to beat them senseless or strike them with the closest thing I can lay my hands on. Not pull a gun. Most "gun violence" is not perpetrated by law abiding citizens with registered handguns and permits to carry. Usually thugs and criminals.

If anyone took the time to read the old law(all available on line) and the new law the need fo the change is obvious. The old law strictly forbade the use of deadly force in public if, at first, an attmept to flee was not enacted. Running away is never a first option...most humans will attack and fight when surprised by an attacker. Running away is a great way to get shot/stabbed/clubbed in the back. Gun violence, which is a great little PC catch phrase these days, will not rise..in fact it will probably drop. Most law abiding citizens who carry guns would never pull it unless it was emminently(sp) necessary. The law does not only petain to the individuals well being..it allows deadly force in public to protect his/her life and the lives of others in proximity of the event who may be in life threatening danger. Like some nut waving a gun around or running wild and stabbing people at random or using a bat and just going on a rampage. Floridians can now intervens with deadly force to protect the citizens.

subz
"I agree that you have the right to defend your house and property but the right to kill some one shouldnt be enshrined in law. The law should lean on the side of reasonable force but be flexible enough to not convict people who clearly are innocent. This carte blanche killing law is quite literally a Pandora's Box. "

I agree about the reasonable force and for the legal system to be flexible and intelligent enough not to convict when circumastances obvioudsly called for the act. THs would all be a non issue if that were the case. However this is never the case and the reason it must be clearly defined("enshrined") in the law. The courts hate when a regular citizen does the work of the police or "takes the law into their own hands" and often look to punish them even though their actions, although extreme, were justified or conversley not proesecutable.



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Do you trust everyone with a gun in Florida Muaddib?

I know I wouldnt but you agree that they should be able to bear arms and shoot to kill if they are threatend.

Lets say some one is delusional. They think their life is in danger because aliens have taken over the World. Lets say he shoots his neighbour to death because he thinks his life is in danger.

What the hell will this law say on the matter? What the hell will a defense lawyer try and contrive this law into? Not guilty purely for mental reasons? No prison sentence due to mental incapacity?

[edit on 6/4/05 by subz]


I actually know some people who have concealed weapons permits, and they haven't gone in a killing spree. Some of those people are relatives of mine.

This law is for self defense only.... it doesn't cover your dellusional gunho going in a killing spree because he sees aliens in the faces of people....that's really a ridiculous excuse....

You still have to prove that your life was in danger....



[edit on 6-4-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Do you trust everyone with a gun in Florida Muaddib?

I know I wouldnt but you agree that they should be able to bear arms and shoot to kill if they are threatend.

Lets say some one is delusional. They think their life is in danger because aliens have taken over the World. Lets say he shoots his neighbour to death because he thinks his life is in danger.

What the hell will this law say on the matter? What the hell will a defense lawyer try and contrive this law into? Not guilty purely for mental reasons? No prison sentence due to mental incapacity?

[edit on 6/4/05 by subz]



Contrary to what many think it is necessary in m ost states to actually go through a process to determine if a citizen is capable of owning a firearm. You can't just go on down to the "good old boy" gun store and pick up a few pistols. So the delusional person would most likely not have said gun. And IF they did they would most certainly go to a criminal psychiatric facility. For a long time!





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join