Florida passes self-defense bill

[Dr Mordrid]

It passed the Florida House on a 94-20 vote after unanimous approval by the State Senate. Gov. Jeb Bush is set to sign it. The Florida Sheriffs Association, Police Chiefs Association and Florida Police Benevolent Association all supported the bill.

Basically this new law will allow citizens to meet an attack with lethal force in public places and their cars and not just in their homes. The bill also takes away a previous requirement that those attacked must first try to evade the attack before counter-attacking. Other provisions indemnify homeowners against intruders who would sue after being injured/killed during a home invasion.

The laws provisions do not apply to those involved in criminal activities.

The last time Florida did something like this was when they approved easy access to concealed carry weapon (CCW) permits as long as the applicant went through a vetting process and passed a training class in their use. Those that do can carry a weapon, usually a concealed handgun, in most public places, though there are specific exceptions.

Since then violent street crimes in Florida have dropped significantly. I guess mugging old ladies isn't as much fun when they shoot back with a Glock

That type of law has now been passed in at least 37 of the 50 US states with similar results.

IMO this new law is likely to have the same kind of acceptance.

Dr. Mordrid

[Brian Ellis]

Temp forum, or I might be tempted to comment on this incitement to murder.

[az]

This is IMHO not temp material until someone makes it this in a reply.

So, doc, please, if you know something is temp bait (and you know this is), post it in the forum it will likely end up in anyway. For the time being, this thread stays here (and I have no moving powers here anyway ).

AZ

[Umfriend]

Don't see this as Temp and don't see it has to be.

Basically my position is that as soon as the government fails significantly to protect their popolation from (violent) crime, the government loses its monopoly to violence. If these laws indeed made crime be reduced significantly, then maybe they were simply needed there (the only caveat I can think of is when the actual number of shootings increase tremendously but are not considered criminal as they now fall under the new ligislation and are legalised, but I don't think that is the case here).

It's why I am a protagonist of gun/weapon controls where I live but might understand in the US it to be different.

Besides, in Temp Brian would not participate, so it's better to have it in the lounge.

[TransformX]

It seems to me like this law isn't about guns at all.
It simply says that if I come home to find some drug addict trying to steal something and he's stupid enough to attack me, I'm not responsible to any damage I might cause him while defending myself

Now, if something has doubt about the amount of punishment I can take before it's considered lethal and having to use lethal measures back against him, stop for a moment and think about having kids at home. Would you waste time calculating what kind of damage might be lethal to your kid?

[RichL]

It seems to me like this law isn't about guns at all.
It simply says that if I come home to find some drug addict trying to steal something and he's stupid enough to attack me, I'm not responsible to any damage I might cause him while defending myself

Doc's post inferred that this was already the case, but the law has now been expanded to area's outside the home.
Therefore if somebody in the street attacks you, you have legal recourse to use lethal force in return. Obviously you'll almost definately be asked to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you were the victim of an attack so I don't think it's going to cause an upsurge in murder cases.

Although I'm not a great beleiver in the death penalty or killing people in general, I'm for this sort of law.
If someone accosts me in the street demanding money with menaces, I beleive it quite reasonable to assume that my attacker will back up those menaces with action should his demands not be met.
If I then produce a .357 magnum revolver from about my person, point it at him and say "Make my day, punk." the chances of him beleiving I'd pull the trigger are likely to be greater if theres a very good chance I wont spend several years of my life sharing a cell with a 350lb gorilla called Bubba.

There's violence, then there's the threat of violence.

[Brian Ellis]

It seems to me like this law isn't about guns at all.
It simply says that if I come home to find some drug addict trying to steal something and he's stupid enough to attack me, I'm not responsible to any damage I might cause him while defending myself

Now, if something has doubt about the amount of punishment I can take before it's considered lethal and having to use lethal measures back against him, stop for a moment and think about having kids at home. Would you waste time calculating what kind of damage might be lethal to your kid?

I'm sorely tempted to participate. If the right to use "lethal force" in the street or any public place isn't about guns, then I'm a monkey's aunt.

Even if it is used correctly, I'll wager that 90% of the populace packing artillery, even if they have been at the firing range for several sessions, would be totally mentally and physically unable to use them safely in the heat of the moment in a public place. I myself have witnessed such a case on this island in 1956 during the fight for independance period, when "terrorists" or "freedom fighters" were rife (depending whether you were British or Greek Cypriot respectively).

I was walking along a street, with a British forces sergeant in uniform about 20 or 30 metres in front of me. A teenager rode by on a bicycle and shouted all sorts of bad invective at the sergeant, who drew his sidearm, a 9 mm service revolver, and took two potshots at the guy - and missed. But he didn't miss a lady walking on the other side of the street, pushing a baby in a pram. Fortunately, the round just grazed her upper calf, not serious, but it could have been.

In this case, we had a trained soldier of several years' service who reacted on the spur of the moment without seeing who else could be in the line of fire. I suggest he was probably aiming low, to wing the kid in the leg, but that is not the point.

My point is that bystanders are being placed in mortal danger from such a stupid piece of legislation.

Secondly, it is easy to see that it would be far easier to give as an excuse for having bumped somebody off that you believed the car key in his hand was a knife or that his pipe was a pistol, when all you wanted to do was cut down your wife's lover (or had been hired to do so). It is incitation to murder with no or little risk, other than to be declared a hero.

No, this is going much too far, especially where one has the right to carry concealed weapons.

[TransformX]

Most people in Israel don't carry weapons and those who do are very careful with them as at least here, getting into any kind of violent trouble while carrying a firearm (just carrying in a holster) means -real- trouble.
Over a year ago, a car changed direction and accelerated towards a line of people waiting to enter a disco. The guard took the initiative and shot the driver, killing him. Facts were (after extensive police investigation of the driver, the car's speed and direction etc.) that the driver was a terrorist and that the guard saved many lives. Like Homer Simpson says - "Pfff.. Facts, you can prove anything with them!", the media and politicians started debating about 'what if'. What if the driver was a normal person having a heart attack etc. etc. etc.

A bat or a brick to the head is as lethal, if not more than some guns. In case of emergency, I don't want to be interrogated on why did I hit the head and not some other body part. When I see someone going to rape(?) a girl or mug(?) an old lady, I don't have time to think of such nonsense. I hit for effect, as simple as that.

The question marks are there because both could end with maim and or murder, you can't really know till it's too late.

edit: By the way, a few years ago, a terrorist came on a bus here, attacking the driver and trying to take control of the bus. A yong soldier took a shot at him with his rifle in a packed bus, from the back of the bus. Terrorist is dead, soldier is a hero.
Beofre you ask, other people already did: if he had any doubt he might miss, he wouldn't have taken the shot.

[Umfriend]

Get real. You would expect the policy to investigate a killing and whether the claim to self-defense is right. Probability of succes using such claim when killing a business associate, your wife's lover or daughters' rapist is small.

The effect of such laws may be quite big in cases where law-enformcement fails to such an extent that people with bad intent expect to be better of commiting crimes than not but on the other hand, the chances of running into a victim with a gun are real.

Bystanders are always at risk when violence is occuring. As your professional example showed, bystanders may be at risk from both criminals and police, and yes, from people defending themselves.

The right to conceal weapons is actually what makes this work. If you had to wear them out in the open, people with bad intent would easily spot when/where and who to attack. Now they can't, they're at risk of getting shot (which with a lower proability is still an outcome far worse then what happens if they're caught after the fact bu the police). Not a lot of people have to wear them.

[Brian Ellis]

Police are trained for street shooting where there is a risk, soldeirs aren't. I remember a case in Lausanne when a cop accidentally killed someone who was just at the wrong place at the wrong time, having missed the right person. He really had the book thrown at him because he ignored his training sessions for street shooting and was charged with "meurtre" (this is, I guess, what Americans might call 2nd degree murder, 1st degree being "assassinat". If he had followed the rules, it would probably have been "homicide involontaire" or manslaughter.).

However, I must admit that my views are probably coloured by my being pro-strict-gun-control, like we have in many European countries.

I don't think that TX carrying a baseball bat or a brick around could possibly be realistic. By the time you took a swing at an aggressor, you would be perforated like a sieve.

[Brian R.]

Giving the population (whom are 50% idiots and 20% agressive ****oles) the right to shoot others is downright stupid.

[Umfriend]

Giving the population (whom are 50% idiots and 20% agressive ****oles) the right to shoot others is downright stupid.

ROFL. Had I said that I'd be slammed for being anti-american. OK, given that that is your population, yes, strict gun control is the way to go. Course, the police will have to provide excellent safety then.

[ALBPM]

Even though I am Pro Guns and have a CCW License I agree with Brian on this.

This law scares the heck out of me!!!

From what I have seen at the Public shooting range here not all CCW holders are being properly trained to handle a weapon safely nor to make good judgement calls on when to use force.

[ALBPM]

ROFL. Had I said that I'd be slammed for being anti-american. OK, given that that is your population, yes, strict gun control is the way to go. Course, the police will have to provide excellent safety then.

Sorry Umfriend it's too late for that in the U.S..

There are too many guns out there and only law abiding citizens would turn them in. How the heck are you ever going to collect all the guns in this country anyway.

[Elie]

Actually I wish there was some kind of law like this here in Canada, where if someone breaks in to your home, to steal... rape whatever, you have the right to defend by whatever means possible which includes breaking every bone or shooting the bastards!!!

However our stupid laws protect the criminal in the sense that if someone breaks in and I injure him, I am liable and I end up in prison!!!!

I believe the law says that you are allowed to defend with equal force, but most of the time it's too late to do so, some one comes in with a knife or a gun and it's over in two seconds because the victom had no chance to properly defend.

We need a law like the one passed in Florida but restricted to the home and not carrying weapons in public.

Regards,
Elie