Quote:
|
Originally Posted by raveneye
This Florida legislation was motivated by a case of self-defense in the home in which the defender got a prison sentence (but was pardoned) even thouth the state Supreme Court eventually reversed the decision and found that no retreat requirement exists within your home. The bill's original purpose was to clarify in statute that there is no requirement to retreat when you are in your own home.
But in response to the gun lobby (NRA mainly), Republicans decided to try to slip in the same language for self defense in public places. They introduced the same wording to eliminate the retreat requirement also in public places.
This is a major change in Florida law. Most Floridians don't support it. It was already tried back when Askew was governor, and he voted it down.
Again, there are two major problems with this legislation: (1) its conditions for the use of deadly force are far too vague and permissive; (2) it makes no distinction whatsoever between initiators of force and non-initiators, in public places.
There are several other more minor probems, such as the fact that as written it is contradictory and poorly phrased and organized, doesn't expressly prohibit pre-arranged conflicts (though these might be covered elsewhere, who knows).
But the major problems should be enough for oppose this legislation. Even cowboy red states such as Montana have explicit retreat requirements at least for initiators of force, whose purpose is to break the cycle of escalation, and disallow self defense claims for people who knowingly and purposely provoke the use of force.
|
Thanks for the clarification, raveneye.
I should have been more clear, if my post came across as claiming that legislation such as this is spawned by a vocal minority.
That wasn't my intent.
What I meant was that more than likely one isolated, highly publicized incident likely spawned this legislation (as you have now pointed out). Other cases might occur, but the catalyst is often one anomalous incident.
Such as the case in Terry Shiavo. Many people are in her condition, but only her name becomes law.
Such as the case with the the 6 year old shot with a tazer in a florida school. More kids probably were affected, but only his case became symbolic of a social "problem."
Why the hell does this happen in florida. I'm just kidding. That's how legislation works. Such as the case with Megan's law, such as the case with three strikes law, such is the case...I hope you all get the point.
Then people begin to rally around it and that's when the catering begins--the vocal minority, as I called them, start chattering and the press picks their chatter up and it suddenly looks like it's a widespread problem. Meanwhile, the rest of the population is busy going to work.
That isn't to say that vocal minorities cause legislation, but that they amp it up and often turn local debates and issues into national agendas. Such is politics, but I digress.
The point to remember is that bad law is enacted all the time that is supposed to address some social problem. However, social scientists are rarely, if ever, consulted on whether something actually is a problem and whether the legislation would appropriately address it. If there wasn't so much agitation against academics, the damn policies enacted might make sense and actually work. They might not, but who knows--the general public doesn't trust the people who credentialed them to even pay attention to what they're saying.