Florida to legalize public dueling - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

dksuddeth · 04-07-2005, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

What's extremist? If I were a gambling man and this law in Fla. passes I have a feeling you'll be seeing worse excuses as those for why a man blew away another not with just 1 shot but emptying the whole damn clip on the person.

I still have enough confidence in the law enforcement and courts to be able to determine if someone is out joyshooting or actually defending themselves. as far as 1 shot vs. all....I'm a former US marine, If I'm forced to shoot someone in defense, believe me, they are getting more than one bullet. Hell, even police are trained to fire more than once for protection.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

My post was intended to be a joke, but I guarantee there are people (a very very small percentage of the whole but still quite a few people) will use excuses similar.

I didn't see it as a joke, but ok, i'll look at it like that. As I said before, there are stupid people out there and those that try to take advantage of this law as a loophole are going to find themselves in a hell of a legal mess.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Funny, we have all these Patriot Act laws and we are fearful of terrorism but we want to arm the whole population.

What's that?

OOOO you gun advocates don't want EVERYONE to be allowed to carry a gun. I see how very fair and interested in everyone's rights you are.

I have no wish to see the whole populace armed. There are people that do not have the intelligence or responsibility to deal with owning a gun. Our current handgun laws deal could deal with this effectively enough if they would actually be enforced correctly.

hrdwareguy · 04-07-2005, 10:05 AM

This type of law is not new. Oklahoma has had a "Make my Day" law for years. Although this was limited only to your house. Someone breaks into your house at 3am, shoot them all you want, it's self defense.

About 10 years ago, Oklahoma passed the Oklahoma Self Defense Act. This gave citizens the right to carry concealed weapons. There have been no reports of people getting "mowed down" in a fray of bullets when people get into it. There have been no cases of an argument escelating into a shooting. Before using deadly force, you must believe your life is in danger. I don't think anyone could convince me their life was in danger because they got called an asshole.

This is not a "right to shoot someone because they piss you off law". It still has consequences when it is broken. As for the drunk croud, last I checked it was illegal to be in posession of a firearm while under the influence anyway.

To many people see the word "gun" or citizens being able to carry/own guns and freak out. Where are all the AK-47's and Uzi's that were supposed to hit the streets back in September within a week of the Assault ban going away?

The statement under my name says it all!

dksuddeth · 04-07-2005, 10:14 AM

this is an example why people should have zero problem with carry permits.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1350922/posts

Gunman Kills ex-wife, bystander in Texas ( carry permit holder dies saving others)

TYLER, Texas (AP) -- A man angry about being sued for unpaid child support opened fire with an AK-47 assault rifle outside a courthouse, killing his ex-wife and a man trying to help the couple's adult son.

The gunman, 43-year-old David Hernandez Arroyo Sr., was killed Thursday afternoon in a gun battle with officers a few miles away after wounding his son and three law enforcement officers, one critically.

The son had been acting as a mediator between his parents, police said. Police estimated that Arroyo, who had a history of spousal abuse and weapons violations, shot 50 rounds in the historic town square. He was wearing a military flak jacket and a bulletproof vest. "He definitely came well-armed and prepared," police Chief Gary Swindle said. "We do understand there had been some threats made by him the previous week."

But the attorney representing Maribel Estrada, 41, said he doesn't believe she thought her ex-husband was dangerous. Estrada worked at a meat packing plant in Tyler and raised a 17-year-old and a 6-year-old with the help of her eldest son, Joshua Wintters said.

The other victim, Mark Alan Wilson, 52, was credited by authorities with saving the life of David Hernandez Arroyo Jr., who was listed in fair condition at a hospital with leg wounds. A sheriff's deputy, Sherman Dollison, 28, was in critical condition after being shot in the liver, lungs and legs; a sheriff's lieutenant and a Tyler police detective were treated and released.

"One of the deputies at the scene said if it hadn't been for Mr. Wilson," said Sheriff J.B. Smith, "the son would be dead."

filtherton · 04-07-2005, 10:20 AM

I'd like to see legal duels. I'd aaron burr the fuck outa a motherfucker.

Coppertop · 04-07-2005, 10:25 AM

Horrible thread title. Doubly so for this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by CShine

I would've expected Texas to do this first, but hey, when the gubmint sez I can shoot somebody anytime I feel like it, who am I to argue with important rights like that??

Comments like this do nothing to further the argument for gun control. They only make you look foolish.

tecoyah · 04-07-2005, 10:56 AM

Mr Burr was my great great great great Grandfather....seriously

jorgelito · 04-07-2005, 11:10 AM

We'll just have to wait and see. Give it a year then let's look at the 'numbers" from Florida. Plus, if you don't like this idea, then you don't have to live there either.

Also, the "disastrous" scenarios mentioned above assume that everyone has a license to carry concealed firearm and with the new bill, fire indiscriminately at all times. What are the gun laws in Florida? Are grandma & grandpa "packing heat" at the bingo parlor? I think that it will help to add "preventative effect". We cannot rely on policemen to be stationed on every corner (we aren't willing to pay for it) so we must protect ourselves (our right to do so).

In my opinion, there isn't anything inherently wrong with this bill, it gives an added layer of protection to law-abiding citizens. Sort of like leveling the playing field a bit.

Let's see happens. And for those of us who are nervous about it, we can avoid the "hanging chad" state (hahahaha!).

Mojo, the numbers may or may not lie but can still be manipulated. It is better to have multiple sources that are balanced over a breadth of biases to get a more "complete" picture (in my opinion). In other words, your two sources, plus maybe US Buraeu of Crime statistics or something like that. Just for balance and to support your argument more strongly.
Mojo, the number may or may

raveneye · 04-07-2005, 11:10 AM

Returning to the thread topic, I took a look at the Florida bill and related statutes, and find no reason to change my concerns.

In Florida, it is legal to use "deadly force" if you have a "reasonable fear" that someone is about to commit any "forcible felony" against you or someone else, and if "deadly force" is the only way that this can be prevented. So for example, if running away is not an option (outside your home only; you don't have to retreat inside your home). Forcible felonies are a fairly large gray area, in which either force or the threat of force is involved in the commission of any felony.

With this new bill, even if it is reasonable to assume that retreating would eliminate the threat, you can still kill somebody who verbally threatens you.

I looked in LEXIS for some case history, and found lots. My impression is that in Florida very little is required to justify killing somebody. I've appended a couple news stories below for illustration.

One story particularly was interesting in the context of "duel". In this case, a teenager got into a fist fight with a father of his friend. During the fight the kid eventually picked up a metal bar and bashed the man's head in, killing him. Prosecutors charged him with murder, because he did not need to kill the man to get out of danger, he could have simply run away. He was convicted of second degree murder.

I see nothing in the proposed bill that would prohibit what that kid did. He was physically threatened ("forcible felony") and under the new bill he is not obligated to retreat before striking. Now this is not a duel, it is a fist fight. But there isn't much difference between the two.

In another case a man shot and killed a homeless man during a verbal confrontation in which the homeless man said repeatedly "I'm going to fuck you up" and the killer said that he thought he saw a sharp object in the homeless man's hand. The fact that the killer was being threatened ("forcible felony") was not in dispute. He was arrested and charged because it appeared that he failed to retreat before shooting. The homeless man turned out not to have anything in his hand.

Again, the new bill would apparently make this homicide perfectly legal.

These are just the first two cases on the search screen, there are many others very similar.

Quote:

Copyright 2001 The Tribune Co. Publishes The Tampa Tribune
Tampa Tribune (Florida)

October 19, 2001, Friday, FINAL EDITION

SECTION: PASCO, Pg. 5

LENGTH: 427 words

HEADLINE: Teen Found Guilty In Death Of Zephyrhills Dad During Fight

BYLINE: JULIET GREER , jgreer@tampatrib.com; Reporter Juliet Greer can be reached at (813) 779-4614.

BODY:
DADE CITY - A 19-year-old charged with second-degree murder for hitting a man in the head with a metal pole during a fight, killing him, was found guilty as charged Thursday.

Harvey Leroy Jones of Zephyrhills could spend the rest of his life in prison. His sentencing is scheduled for Dec. 7.

Prosecutors tried to show that Jones could have walked away from the fight but instead chose to hit a Zephyrhills father, 44-year-old Loy Lee Hardwick, over the head with a metal weight-lifting pole with two to three blows that ultimately killed him.

The defense tried to show that Jones was only defending himself and his twin brother that day in April 2000.

Jones testified in his own defense Wednesday, a move his court-appointed attorney, Liz Hittos of New Port Richey, thought would have helped him.

"His statements were consistent with the police report and with written statements," she said.

"For six hours, he was interrogated by the police and was never read his rights. [Prosecutor] Manny [Garcia] did a heck of a job trying to shake him off his statements, but he didn't impeach him," Hittos said.

On the stand, Jones said Hardwick had a crazed look in his eyes and was growling during the fight. Garcia asked whether Hardwick resembled a dog.

"No man is like a dog," Jones replied.

Jones was accused of engaging Hardwick in a fight and then using the metal weight-lifting bar - which Hardwick had brandished during the fight - to kill him.

The altercation happened at the Hardwick home four to five months after a verbal confrontation between his teenage son and Jones, who were schoolmates.

"The defense is arguing self-defense in this case," Garcia said in his closing statement Thursday. "[Jones] could have run away. He could have used the pole defensively. But he chose not to do that.

"He chose to stay there . . . He was not acting in self-defense. He had every duty to retreat."

Hittos argued that nobody aspires to be violent.

"But in the ugly face of reality," she said, "when there is no choice left to make in a split-second decision to determine whether you are going to protect yourself or your loved one or succumb to violence, violence under the law is allowed and is lawful."

She also argued that Hardwick, who had a congenital defect that made his skull thin, should not "have engaged in anything more taxing than a game of chess.

"He had no business trying to engage anybody in a fight," Hittos said. "This is the most unusual, the most fragile skull the medical examiner had ever seen."

LOAD-DATE: October 21, 2001

Quote:

Copyright 1995 Times Publishing Company
St. Petersburg Times (Florida)

November 18, 1995, Saturday, Tampa Edition

SECTION: TAMPA TODAY; Pg. 1B

DISTRIBUTION: TAMPA TODAY; TAMPA BAY AND STATE

LENGTH: 557 words

HEADLINE: Charge filed in motel shooting

BYLINE: SUE CARLTON

DATELINE: TAMPA

BODY:
A week ago, Richard Zane Britt told investigators he shot a homeless man named James Robert Curtis in self-defense in a confrontation outside an abandoned motel.

But Friday, police said what happened between the two men on Gandy Boulevard that night was a case of murder.

Britt, a 46-year-old cabinetmaker and woodworker, turned himself in to police Friday morning and was charged with second-degree murder. At a hearing a few hours later, a judge agreed to release him on his own recognizance.

"The victim was unarmed," homicide prosecutor Karen Cox said in court Friday. "He did not touch or strike Mr. Britt in any manner."

But Britt's attorney, Bennie Lazzara Jr., had a different take: "This man came at him in an aggressive fashion," he said. "He believed his own life was at stake."

In the early morning hours of Nov. 11, a woman who lived near the abandoned Expressway Inn, 3693 W Gandy Blvd., called Britt, who has a wood shop nearby. Britt, described by his attorney as the unofficial caretaker of the property, said the woman thought was worried someone was breaking in. He went to the motel armed with two guns.

James and Laura Curtis, a homeless couple who lived in a tent in a nearby vacant lot, had gone to the motel's pay phone to call their parents. Mrs. Curtis, who is 8 1/2 months pregnant, later told police they heard a noise from upstairs, and her husband went to check it out while she used the phone.

Britt later said he saw a man upstairs kicking in doors "Rambo-style." He called 911 once to report a break-in, and called again with a description.

But when police arrived, they mistakenly pulled in to a motel across the street. Britt said he was calling over to the officer and walking toward Gandy when Curtis approached him.

What happened next is in dispute.

Britt said Curtis confronted him in the street, saying, "I'm going to f-- you up." Britt said he started walking backward and saw a shiny metal object in Curtis' right hand. He said he told Curtis to go away, but Curtis said, "Go ahead and shoot me. I'm still going to f-- you up."

"Then I shot him," Britt told a reporter last week.

But according to testimony Friday, Curtis was unarmed and was shot from 8 to 12 feet away. Mrs. Curtis told investigators her husband had been walking toward Britt with his hands down at his sides.

"Before you can resort to using deadly force, you have to use every reasonable means within your power and consistent with your own safety to avoid the danger," Cox said Friday. "The fact that you're wrongfully attacked doesn't justify the use of deadly force if you can avoid the use of deadly force by retreating."

Said defense attorney Eddie Suarez: "Britt in fact did take every reasonable action to retreat and get himself out of danger before he resorted to deadly force."

Britt spent a few hours at the Hillsborough County Jail Friday before he was released. Several people, including the parents of former Tampa Mayor Sandy Freedman, appeared at a bail hearing to support him.

Acting Circuit Judge Walter Heinrich told Britt to turn in his guns to his attorney.

"I believe that there's a very good likelihood that you have a self-defense claim," the judge said. "I guess we'll see where this ends up someday."

LOAD-DATE: November 20, 1995

Ace_O_Spades · 04-07-2005, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Canada

The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic. Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted. The homicide rate is dropping faster in the US than in Canada.

I'd like to know where they have gotten their statistics... But the UCRII, VAWS, and GSS and CANSIM issued in Canada for 2004 state that the rate of violent crime in Canada has dropped since 1994, and continues to drop at or near the rate of the USA.

http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/legal02.htm

There's lies, damn lies, and statistics.

filtherton · 04-07-2005, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

Mr Burr was my great great great great Grandfather....seriously

Nice. I bet you can't wait to bust out your dueling gloves.

Mojo_PeiPei · 04-07-2005, 11:28 AM

Raveneye do you know what constitutes a felony, especially how it relates to crimes against people or violent crimes in general? Do you have any basis or knowledge of the law to assert that people who were clearly in the wrong would somehow now be excused? You are showing little to any knowledge of the law with broad assumptions and accusations that this new law will excuse people from crimes of homicide.

PredeconInferno · 04-07-2005, 11:31 AM

Yay! a throwback to mideival times!

raveneye · 04-07-2005, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Do you have any basis or knowledge of the law to assert that people who were clearly in the wrong would somehow now be excused?

Yes. The reason they were in the wrong was the fact that they did not retreat. That retreat privilege is removed from the current bill. Hence the reason they were in the wrong no longer would exist under the current bill.

Mojo_PeiPei · 04-07-2005, 11:49 AM

They weren't wrong because they didn't retreat, they were wrong because they grossly esclated the situation. Had the kid fought toe to toe and killed the guy he probably would've gotten manslughter, instead he saw it fit to crack the guys skull, right there it left the realm of mutual combat and self defense. The other guy thought it was legit to start shooting with 12 feet of distance between them, that is not really a defensable position either especially since the guy was only barking at him.

Also you are showing me you have no knowledge of what constitutes a felony, especially how it relates to violent crimes. If I were to punch someone in Florida in the face, it would be assault, but it is not anything near a felonious amount. Therefore if they pulled their strap and shot me they would get locked up for aggravated battery or assault, if I died you can bet that they would go to jail for murder. A felony has it relates to assault and battery is contigent on aggrivating circumstances such as a weapon being used, the extent of the damage being inflicted, physical/corporeal factors, and intent.

F-18_Driver · 04-07-2005, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

One story particularly was interesting in the context of "duel". In this case, a teenager got into a fist fight with a father of his friend. During the fight the kid eventually picked up a metal bar and bashed the man's head in, killing him.

I just can't resist asking:

Was it an "assault" metal bar, with a bayonet lug?

"People don't kill people, metal bars do."

(Sorry, just having a little fun with those who keep saying gun bans will solve anything).

raveneye · 04-07-2005, 05:23 PM

Quote:

They weren't wrong because they didn't retreat, they were wrong because they grossly esclated the situation. Had the kid fought toe to toe and killed the guy he probably would've gotten manslughter,

If you think that manslaughter would have been appropriate, then you should be opposing this bill. That's because the only reason he would have been charged is that he could have removed all danger by retreating. The bill eliminates the requirement for retreat, thereby removing the grounds for even a manslaughter charge.

Quote:

The other guy thought it was legit to start shooting with 12 feet of distance between them, that is not really a defensable position either especially since the guy was only barking at him.

I agree. Yet the killer was acquitted.

Remember, according to the killer himself, the only threat he perceived was the verbal "I'm going to fuck you up!" and the possibility of a shiny object in the the homeless man's hand. He killed the guy (whether he tried to retreat or not is debatable since the only witness is dead) and was acquitted.

Quote:

Also you are showing me you have no knowledge of what constitutes a felony,

Regardless of whether you or I know best what a felony is, Florida juries are interpreting "reasonable threat of forcible felony" quite broadly, and as a result are acquitting people for killing for very minimal reasons.

Cases where killers get off scott free like in the motel shooting case happen here often, and it's not really news anymore.

Painted · 04-07-2005, 05:49 PM

They sure are quick to make laws that allow you to kill or hurt somebody. They sure are quick to use a dying woman for their political gain. But when it comes to legalizing marijuana, a nonlethal drug that induces pacifism, they lack effort.

Don't get me wrong, I like guns (having owning a few myself), but I like a fair and just government more.

Manx · 04-08-2005, 08:25 AM

I skimmed through this thread so maybe my question has already been answered:

Have there been many situations where either someone who could have attacked first in a threatening situation but decided to make attempts to avoid the situation was injured? Or have there been many situations where someone was attacked and had to defend themselves with force and was then found guilty of excessive force?

If the answer is no to both of these questions, I cannot wrap my head around WHY this legislation could possibly be considered a good thing. It essentially says that fighting is better than avoidance. Every rational person knows that is nonsense.

analog · 04-08-2005, 08:54 AM

Calling it "legalizing public dueling" is about the biggest chunk of horseshit i can think of, and I agree with lebell.

I can see no harm in a bill that FINALLY (p.s. i live in Florida) says I don't HAVE TO run from a criminal. Under current law- if a criminal tries to rob me using violence, and I punch him out, he can sue me if he has physical damage AND can have charges filed on me for hitting him, even though he was trying to rob me at the time.

This new bill is great.

ubertuber · 04-08-2005, 04:08 PM

a) It isn't a duel unless it is pre-arranged.
b) Analog makes a good point - the bill doesn't even mention guns. It refers only to meeting force with force, and it indicates that this is not a blanket authorization to esclate to deadly force. So, turning this into a thread about gun control is one sign that you didn't read the material we are discussing.
c) Below is the text of the bill, which (it is obvious) no one has bothered to read. It's long, so if you still don't want to read it, here is my summary:

The use of a reasonable amount of force is justified as self-defense when you are attacked or an attack is imminent. You don't have to try to run away first if you think that running away will not make you safe. Reasonable force may include the use if deadly force if that is what is required to make you safe. That said, if you use an unreasonable amount of force or in an unreasonable circumstance, this law does not prevent your ass from going to jail.

This is the link stevo provided that I used to get this information. It has all kinds of stuff about this bill.

This is a link to the pdf of what I copied below.

Quote:

A bill to be entitled An act relating to the protection of persons and property; creating s. 776.013, F.S.; authorizing a person to use force, including deadly force, against an intruder or attacker in a dwelling, residence, or vehicle under specified circumstances; creating a presumption that a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm exists under certain circumstances; creating a presumption that a person acts with the intent to use force or violence under specified circumstances; providing definitions; amending ss. 776.012 and 776.031, F.S.; providing that a person is justified in using deadly force under certain circumstances; declaring that a person has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be and the force is necessary to prevent death, great bodily harm, or the commission of a forcible felony; creating s. 776.032, F.S.; providing immunity from criminal prosecution or civil action for using deadly force; defining the term "criminal prosecution"; authorizing a law enforcement agency to investigate the use of deadly force but prohibiting the agency from arresting the person unless the agency determines that there is probable cause that the force the person used was unlawful; providing for the award of attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and other expenses to a defendant in a civil suit who was immune from prosecution under this section; providing an effective date.

WHEREAS, the Legislature finds that it is proper for law-abiding people to protect themselves, their families, and others from intruders and attackers without fear of prosecution or civil action for acting in defense of themselves and others, and

WHEREAS, the castle doctrine is a common-law doctrine of ancient origins which declares that a person's home is his or her castle, and

WHEREAS, Section 8 of Article I of the State Constitution guarantees the right of the people to bear arms in defense of themselves, and

WHEREAS, the persons residing in or visiting this state have a right to expect to remain unmolested within their homes or vehicles, and

WHEREAS, no person or victim of crime should be required to surrender his or her personal safety to a criminal, nor should a person or victim be required to needlessly retreat in the face of intrusion or attack, NOW,

THEREFORE,

Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:

Section 1. Section 776.013, Florida Statutes, is created to read:

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.-- (1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself, herself, or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle.
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if: (a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, invitee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; (b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child 81 or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship, of the person against whom the defensive force is used; (c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or (d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer. (3) A person, not engaged in an unlawful activity, who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so, to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself, herself, or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. (4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to do so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence. (5) As used in this section, the term: (a) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, that has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night. (b) "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest. (c) "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property. Section 2. Section 776.012, Florida Statutes, is amended to read:

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in using the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a the person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat only if: (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or (2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013. Section 3. Section 776.031, Florida Statutes, is amended to read: 776.031 Use of force in defense of others.--A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the such other's trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the 145 use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be. Section 4. Section 776.032, Florida Statutes, is created to read: 776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.-- (1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of 1such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant. (2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful. (3) The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

Section 5. This act shall take effect October 1, 2005.

moosenose · 04-08-2005, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ace_O_Spades

Is there similar legislation elsewhere in the USA? If there is, then do you have crime statistics comparisons detailing the effects of the law changing in these places?

Generally, in Virginia, under §18.2-32 as annotated, if you are engaged in a lawful act and are attacked, you can use reasonable force, including lethal force, and have no obligation to flee unless you did something to instigate the attack. We generally don't have shootouts in our corrals here.

moosenose · 04-08-2005, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

If the answer is no to both of these questions, I cannot wrap my head around WHY this legislation could possibly be considered a good thing. It essentially says that fighting is better than avoidance. Every rational person knows that is nonsense.

It's being done to remove any question about the legality of such actions. In some jurisdictions, if you shoot and kill an attacker who has shot you in the chest and is currently raping the bullethole, you're going to STILL face trial for some form of homicide, even though the odds of conviction are tiny.

roachboy · 04-09-2005, 08:11 AM

one interesting thing about this thread is the extent to which one's position concerning the legislation itself is a function of the narrative that one uses to frame its consequences. those who support it tend to imagine a story of someone--themselves--assaulted or threatened and the conflict that would ensue, which they stage across the image of themselves, their gun, and their understanding of their command of the gun. those who oppose might conjure the same basic story, but focus instead on the element of panic and the possibility of others who happen to be nearby being injured or killed.

this is how the relation between specific instances and frame of reference operates.
from here, it follows that cultural power resides in the shaping and controlling of frame of reference--the narratives that one invokes to situate and explain a particular instance.

cj2112 · 04-09-2005, 08:43 AM

Oregon issues concealed weapons permits to any resident who is legally allowed to purchase a handgun, has completed the background check, and a 4 hour concealed weapons class. In the area of Oregon that I live in, it is pretty common for people to be packing. The state of Oregon says that in order for a shooting to be considered self defense, a reasonable person would have to believe that their life or the life of somebody else was in danger. The law does not require a person to first attempt to flee, to attempt to talk your way out of the situation, invite the other person to coffee, or any other such nonsense. However if you shoot somebody you damn well better be sure that it was truly self defense or you'll find your happy ass in jail. I have yet to hear of or see any news item that shows that the self defense and gun laws in Oregon have resulted in bullets being "sprayed" all over the place or people shooting somebody because they were called an asshole. I don't believe society in Florida is so different that this new law is going to cause such a reaction.

Manx · 04-09-2005, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moosenose

It's being done to remove any question about the legality of such actions. In some jurisdictions, if you shoot and kill an attacker who has shot you in the chest and is currently raping the bullethole, you're going to STILL face trial for some form of homicide, even though the odds of conviction are tiny.

I understand the premise - but I do not see that example as practical.

Does anyone refrain from defending their life because they believe they will be arrested for defending their life? Is it even approaching common for someone to be arrested for defending their life?

I think not. So the legislation is attempting to address a non-problem, thereby advocating violence instead of avoidance.

ziadel · 04-09-2005, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

I understand the premise - but I do not see that example as practical.

Does anyone refrain from defending their life because they believe they will be arrested for defending their life? Is it even approaching common for someone to be arrested for defending their life?

I think not. So the legislation is attempting to address a non-problem, thereby advocating violence instead of avoidance.

uh, here in NY, a mugger could blow half of my head off, and if I use my dying breath to summon the strength to shoot him, and somehow I survive, I WILL be going before a Grand Jury.

I wonder if this will help to clear up the absolutely laughable civil suits that inevitably occur when a person uses a firearm to defend themselves against an attacker.

Manx · 04-09-2005, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziadel

uh, here in NY, a mugger could blow half of my head off, and if I use my dying breath to summon the strength to shoot him, and somehow I survive, I WILL be going before a Grand Jury.

More and more this just sounds like urban legend.

When is the last time anyone has heard of such a thing happening? I hear lots of talk about such possibilities - but as long as it is either exceptionally rare or totally non-existent, I hardly consider the mere possibility coupled with improbability of these situations to require legislative changes that advocate violence over avoidance.

ziadel · 04-09-2005, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

More and more this just sounds like urban legend.

When is the last time anyone has heard of such a thing happening? I hear lots of talk about such possibilities - but as long as it is either exceptionally rare or totally non-existent, I hardly consider the mere possibility coupled with improbability of these situations to require legislative changes that advocate violence over avoidance.

dude, it's a fact. EVERY defensive shooting case here in New York goes before a grand jury.
I can find you a million cases of this, but you still would'nt believe me, so why don't you find me a defensive shooting case in New York that DID NOT go before a grand jury.

It doesn't matter if you peg a terrorist planting a bomb in the Lincoln Tunnel, you WILL stand tall before a Grand Jury.

Manx · 04-09-2005, 12:23 PM

I was going to talk to the grand jury aspect of your example, but I made athe assumption that you were discussing what I was discussing since you quoted me - clearly I was wrong.

I would expect every defensive shooting to go before a Grand Jury - and I see nothing in this legislation that would change that. If you believe you should be allowed to simply walk away without significant questioning from a shooting you have committed simply because you believe you were acting in self-defense, I have to say that is quite unrealistic. Going before a Grand Jury does not require you to be guilty of anything - in fact, that is precisely the purpose of going before a Grand Jury - to determine if you acted appropriately. That is going to happen regardless of whether the law states that violence is acceptable before questioning whether avoidance is possible.

In all cases, you're going to have to explain your actions. That's called life.

In regards to civil suits, assuredly those are possible. But again, they are possible regardless of the law this legislation alters. Show me how people defending themselves are typically found liable in civil suits brought by their attackers and then we can agree that _something_ should be done about that. Not only do I not believe that is anywhere near common, but this legislation doesn't address that at all.

ziadel · 04-09-2005, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

I was going to talk to the grand jury aspect of your example, but I made athe assumption that you were discussing what I was discussing since you quoted me - clearly I was wrong.

I would expect every defensive shooting to go before a Grand Jury - and I see nothing in this legislation that would change that. If you believe you should be allowed to simply walk away without significant questioning from a shooting you have committed simply because you believe you were acting in self-defense, I have to say that is quite unrealistic. Going before a Grand Jury does not require you to be guilty of anything - in fact, that is precisely the purpose of going before a Grand Jury - to determine if you acted appropriately. That is going to happen regardless of whether the law states that violence is acceptable before questioning whether avoidance is possible.

In all cases, you're going to have to explain your actions. That's called life.

In regards to civil suits, assuredly those are possible. But again, they are possible regardless of the law this legislation alters. Show me how people defending themselves are typically found liable in civil suits brought by their attackers and then we can agree that _something_ should be done about that. Not only do I not believe that is anywhere near common, but this legislation doesn't address that at all.

what if I told you, I have a friend, who while he was camping left his camp for a few minutes, and upon his return he found a guy, just some guy, had gotten into his car, had found his shotgun, and was looking it over. So my friend whips out his .45, puts two rounds in the guys chest, then calls the cops, and was then asleep in his sleeping bag 45 minutes later. No grand jury, no getting arrested, just a pat on the back from the local law enforcement.

thats the way it SHOULD be. This law bring floridians closer to that, if not there totally.

dksuddeth · 04-09-2005, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

I understand the premise - but I do not see that example as practical.

Does anyone refrain from defending their life because they believe they will be arrested for defending their life? Is it even approaching common for someone to be arrested for defending their life?

I think not. So the legislation is attempting to address a non-problem, thereby advocating violence instead of avoidance.

there have been quite a few cases where people have not only been arrested and charged, but are now in prison for defending their life. You don't see much of these stories though, because what self serving government is going to publicly say that the laws they enforce ended up with an innocent man in jail?

Manx · 04-09-2005, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziadel

what if I told you, I have a friend, who while he was camping left his camp for a few minutes, and upon his return he found a guy, just some guy, had gotten into his car, had found his shotgun, and was looking it over. So my friend whips out his .45, puts two rounds in the guys chest, then calls the cops, and was then asleep in his sleeping bag 45 minutes later. No grand jury, no getting arrested, just a pat on the back from the local law enforcement.

thats the way it SHOULD be.

I completely disagree that it should be ANYTHING like that.

Shooting someone is not anything that should be taken lightly. If I were the family of the person your friend shot, I would sue your friend and the police dept.

If you shoot someone, you better expect to be questioned significantly for your actions. Anything less would be absurd. I, and law enforement, should just take your word for it that you absolutely HAD to shoot someone? Nonsense.

Manx · 04-09-2005, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

there have been quite a few cases where people have not only been arrested and charged, but are now in prison for defending their life. You don't see much of these stories though, because what self serving government is going to publicly say that the laws they enforce ended up with an innocent man in jail?

I simply do not believe that there are "quite a few". I expect it is more likely that there are exceptionally few.

Demonstrate that I am wrong.

ziadel · 04-09-2005, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

I completely disagree that it should be ANYTHING like that.

Shooting someone is not anything that should be taken lightly. If I were the family of the person your friend shot, I would sue your friend and the police dept.

If you shoot someone, you better expect to be questioned significantly for your actions. Anything less would be absurd. I, and law enforement, should just take your word for it that you absolutely HAD to shoot someone? Nonsense.

It should be like that. becuase if it WAS like that everywhere criminals would think twice, thrice, and more before commiting a crime.

I find it amazing that people are so eager to make it harder to defend themselves if need be, I am forced to consider the fact that for some reason you don't think you deserve to live. This is your life we're talking about here, this law is designed to make it so that if some bad guy tries to rape your sister, and you send him to the great thereafter, YOU won't be treated like a criminal!

It really doesn't matter, because ya know what, I don't care that it is ILLEGAL for me to use my firearm to defend YOU. I'd do it anyways. You can keep sticking your head in the sand, and I'll make sure no one interferes with your right to do so

ziadel · 04-09-2005, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

I simply do not believe that there are "quite a few". I expect it is more likely that there are exceptionally few.

Demonstrate that I am wrong.

see. now we're just playing games here.

how many people are assaulted each year?
how many of those people are armed?
out of those people who are armed and assaulted, how many use their weapons to fight back?
now, out of those people who are assaulted, have a weapon, and use it against their attacker, how many of them find themselves in DEEP SHIT for doing so?
a LOT of them.

Manx · 04-09-2005, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziadel

It should be like that. becuase if it WAS like that everywhere criminals would think twice, thrice, and more before commiting a crime.

Nonsense. I simply do not believe that anyone would not defend themselves for fear of being arrested or sued. It just doesn't happen and I certainly don't believe potential criminals would weigh the benefits/risks of criminal activity by determining whether they believe a potential mark is going to fear being convicted of anything if the mark defends themself.

Your use of such an argument is purely emotional, having no basis in reality.

And that becomes even more obvious with the remainder of your post. No one is making it "harder to defend yourself", no one is "sticking their head in the sand" - if you are involved in a shooting, even as just a witness to the event, you are going to be required to answer questions regarding the event. You don't get to say "Yeah, I saw that guy shoot the other guy" and then walk away and you ESPECIALLY don't get to say "Yeah, I shot the guy because I thought he was going to hurt someone" and then walk away. To expect the world should operate in that way is unquestionably absurd.

Manx · 04-09-2005, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziadel

see. now we're just playing games here.

Maybe so - but it's certainly not I who is playing the games.

"a LOT of them" - according to who? What is "deep shit"? For you it seems to be getting questioned on the event. I don't see the rationality in claiming that is "deep shit".

filtherton · 04-09-2005, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziadel

what if I told you, I have a friend, who while he was camping left his camp for a few minutes, and upon his return he found a guy, just some guy, had gotten into his car, had found his shotgun, and was looking it over. So my friend whips out his .45, puts two rounds in the guys chest, then calls the cops, and was then asleep in his sleeping bag 45 minutes later. No grand jury, no getting arrested, just a pat on the back from the local law enforcement.

thats the way it SHOULD be. This law bring floridians closer to that, if not there totally.

Was your friend by himself? No witnesses? How would what your advocating not open the door to to getting away with murder? What's to stop someone in cases where there are no witnesses from claiming they were threatened when actually they just wanted to kill someone?

ziadel · 04-09-2005, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

Nonsense. I simply do not believe that anyone would not defend themselves for fear of being arrested or sued. It just doesn't happen and I certainly don't believe potential criminals would weigh the benefits/risks of criminal activity by determining whether they believe a potential mark is going to fear being convicted of anything if the mark defends themself.

people are more inclined to wait until a situation is too far gone for them to really be effective, before taking action.

i.e. don't shoot a guy just because he is waving a gun around, wait until he's pointing it directly at you before taking action.

and if potential criminals don't weigh the risks, well, go live in vermont, ANYONE can carry a pistol either openly or concealed. No permits, nothing, got a gun? well put the fucker on and go about your business. Vermont also has one of the lowest crime rates of any state in the union? why? because criminals figured out, hey, they all got guns, if I try to take their shit, I'm gonna get shot.

D.C.? Guns are pretty much outlawed, violent crime is rampant.

The correlations between more lawful gun owners and less crime is very well documented and apparent.

ziadel · 04-09-2005, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Was your friend by himself? No witnesses? How would what your advocating not open the door to to getting away with murder? What's to stop someone in cases where there are no witnesses from claiming they were threatened when actually they just wanted to kill someone?

no, his wife (well she is his wife now) was with him at the time. Listen guys, this isn't rocket science, it took them all of 2 minutes being on the scene to get the guys license out of his back pocket, type the name in on the computer in the cruiser, and look at all the crimes had had comitted in the past.

oh, and to complete the story, the guy lived. he was actually lucid the entire time.

04-07-2005, 10:05 AM	#42 (permalink)
hrdwareguy "Officer, I was in fear for my life" Location: Oklahoma City	This type of law is not new. Oklahoma has had a "Make my Day" law for years. Although this was limited only to your house. Someone breaks into your house at 3am, shoot them all you want, it's self defense. About 10 years ago, Oklahoma passed the Oklahoma Self Defense Act. This gave citizens the right to carry concealed weapons. There have been no reports of people getting "mowed down" in a fray of bullets when people get into it. There have been no cases of an argument escelating into a shooting. Before using deadly force, you must believe your life is in danger. I don't think anyone could convince me their life was in danger because they got called an asshole. This is not a "right to shoot someone because they piss you off law". It still has consequences when it is broken. As for the drunk croud, last I checked it was illegal to be in posession of a firearm while under the influence anyway. To many people see the word "gun" or citizens being able to carry/own guns and freak out. Where are all the AK-47's and Uzi's that were supposed to hit the streets back in September within a week of the Assault ban going away? The statement under my name says it all! __________________ Gun Control is hitting what you aim at Aim for the TFP, Donate Today

04-07-2005, 10:14 AM	#43 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	this is an example why people should have zero problem with carry permits. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1350922/posts Gunman Kills ex-wife, bystander in Texas ( carry permit holder dies saving others) TYLER, Texas (AP) -- A man angry about being sued for unpaid child support opened fire with an AK-47 assault rifle outside a courthouse, killing his ex-wife and a man trying to help the couple's adult son. The gunman, 43-year-old David Hernandez Arroyo Sr., was killed Thursday afternoon in a gun battle with officers a few miles away after wounding his son and three law enforcement officers, one critically. The son had been acting as a mediator between his parents, police said. Police estimated that Arroyo, who had a history of spousal abuse and weapons violations, shot 50 rounds in the historic town square. He was wearing a military flak jacket and a bulletproof vest. "He definitely came well-armed and prepared," police Chief Gary Swindle said. "We do understand there had been some threats made by him the previous week." But the attorney representing Maribel Estrada, 41, said he doesn't believe she thought her ex-husband was dangerous. Estrada worked at a meat packing plant in Tyler and raised a 17-year-old and a 6-year-old with the help of her eldest son, Joshua Wintters said. The other victim, Mark Alan Wilson, 52, was credited by authorities with saving the life of David Hernandez Arroyo Jr., who was listed in fair condition at a hospital with leg wounds. A sheriff's deputy, Sherman Dollison, 28, was in critical condition after being shot in the liver, lungs and legs; a sheriff's lieutenant and a Tyler police detective were treated and released. "One of the deputies at the scene said if it hadn't been for Mr. Wilson," said Sheriff J.B. Smith, "the son would be dead." __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

04-07-2005, 10:56 AM	#46 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	Mr Burr was my great great great great Grandfather....seriously __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

04-07-2005, 11:28 AM	#51 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Raveneye do you know what constitutes a felony, especially how it relates to crimes against people or violent crimes in general? Do you have any basis or knowledge of the law to assert that people who were clearly in the wrong would somehow now be excused? You are showing little to any knowledge of the law with broad assumptions and accusations that this new law will excuse people from crimes of homicide. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

04-07-2005, 11:31 AM	#52 (permalink)
PredeconInferno Reclusiarch Location: Unfortunately Houston, TX	Yay! a throwback to mideival times! __________________ Samurai in Training Knowledge is power. Guard it well.

04-07-2005, 10:20 AM	#44 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I'd like to see legal duels. I'd aaron burr the fuck outa a motherfucker.

04-07-2005, 11:10 AM	#47 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	We'll just have to wait and see. Give it a year then let's look at the 'numbers" from Florida. Plus, if you don't like this idea, then you don't have to live there either. Also, the "disastrous" scenarios mentioned above assume that everyone has a license to carry concealed firearm and with the new bill, fire indiscriminately at all times. What are the gun laws in Florida? Are grandma & grandpa "packing heat" at the bingo parlor? I think that it will help to add "preventative effect". We cannot rely on policemen to be stationed on every corner (we aren't willing to pay for it) so we must protect ourselves (our right to do so). In my opinion, there isn't anything inherently wrong with this bill, it gives an added layer of protection to law-abiding citizens. Sort of like leveling the playing field a bit. Let's see happens. And for those of us who are nervous about it, we can avoid the "hanging chad" state (hahahaha!). Mojo, the numbers may or may not lie but can still be manipulated. It is better to have multiple sources that are balanced over a breadth of biases to get a more "complete" picture (in my opinion). In other words, your two sources, plus maybe US Buraeu of Crime statistics or something like that. Just for balance and to support your argument more strongly. Mojo, the number may or may

04-07-2005, 11:49 AM	#54 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	They weren't wrong because they didn't retreat, they were wrong because they grossly esclated the situation. Had the kid fought toe to toe and killed the guy he probably would've gotten manslughter, instead he saw it fit to crack the guys skull, right there it left the realm of mutual combat and self defense. The other guy thought it was legit to start shooting with 12 feet of distance between them, that is not really a defensable position either especially since the guy was only barking at him. Also you are showing me you have no knowledge of what constitutes a felony, especially how it relates to violent crimes. If I were to punch someone in Florida in the face, it would be assault, but it is not anything near a felonious amount. Therefore if they pulled their strap and shot me they would get locked up for aggravated battery or assault, if I died you can bet that they would go to jail for murder. A felony has it relates to assault and battery is contigent on aggrivating circumstances such as a weapon being used, the extent of the damage being inflicted, physical/corporeal factors, and intent. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition. Last edited by Mojo_PeiPei; 04-07-2005 at 12:11 PM..

04-07-2005, 05:49 PM	#57 (permalink)
Painted Pleasure Burn	They sure are quick to make laws that allow you to kill or hurt somebody. They sure are quick to use a dying woman for their political gain. But when it comes to legalizing marijuana, a nonlethal drug that induces pacifism, they lack effort. Don't get me wrong, I like guns (having owning a few myself), but I like a fair and just government more. __________________ I came across a nice rack at the department store

04-08-2005, 08:25 AM	#58 (permalink)
Manx Loser	I skimmed through this thread so maybe my question has already been answered: Have there been many situations where either someone who could have attacked first in a threatening situation but decided to make attempts to avoid the situation was injured? Or have there been many situations where someone was attacked and had to defend themselves with force and was then found guilty of excessive force? If the answer is no to both of these questions, I cannot wrap my head around WHY this legislation could possibly be considered a good thing. It essentially says that fighting is better than avoidance. Every rational person knows that is nonsense.

04-08-2005, 08:54 AM	#59 (permalink)
analog Banned	Calling it "legalizing public dueling" is about the biggest chunk of horseshit i can think of, and I agree with lebell. I can see no harm in a bill that FINALLY (p.s. i live in Florida) says I don't HAVE TO run from a criminal. Under current law- if a criminal tries to rob me using violence, and I punch him out, he can sue me if he has physical damage AND can have charges filed on me for hitting him, even though he was trying to rob me at the time. This new bill is great.

04-09-2005, 08:11 AM	#63 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	one interesting thing about this thread is the extent to which one's position concerning the legislation itself is a function of the narrative that one uses to frame its consequences. those who support it tend to imagine a story of someone--themselves--assaulted or threatened and the conflict that would ensue, which they stage across the image of themselves, their gun, and their understanding of their command of the gun. those who oppose might conjure the same basic story, but focus instead on the element of panic and the possibility of others who happen to be nearby being injured or killed. this is how the relation between specific instances and frame of reference operates. from here, it follows that cultural power resides in the shaping and controlling of frame of reference--the narratives that one invokes to situate and explain a particular instance. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

04-09-2005, 08:43 AM	#64 (permalink)
cj2112 Unbelievable Location: Grants Pass OR	Oregon issues concealed weapons permits to any resident who is legally allowed to purchase a handgun, has completed the background check, and a 4 hour concealed weapons class. In the area of Oregon that I live in, it is pretty common for people to be packing. The state of Oregon says that in order for a shooting to be considered self defense, a reasonable person would have to believe that their life or the life of somebody else was in danger. The law does not require a person to first attempt to flee, to attempt to talk your way out of the situation, invite the other person to coffee, or any other such nonsense. However if you shoot somebody you damn well better be sure that it was truly self defense or you'll find your happy ass in jail. I have yet to hear of or see any news item that shows that the self defense and gun laws in Oregon have resulted in bullets being "sprayed" all over the place or people shooting somebody because they were called an asshole. I don't believe society in Florida is so different that this new law is going to cause such a reaction.

04-09-2005, 12:23 PM	#69 (permalink)
Manx Loser	I was going to talk to the grand jury aspect of your example, but I made athe assumption that you were discussing what I was discussing since you quoted me - clearly I was wrong. I would expect every defensive shooting to go before a Grand Jury - and I see nothing in this legislation that would change that. If you believe you should be allowed to simply walk away without significant questioning from a shooting you have committed simply because you believe you were acting in self-defense, I have to say that is quite unrealistic. Going before a Grand Jury does not require you to be guilty of anything - in fact, that is precisely the purpose of going before a Grand Jury - to determine if you acted appropriately. That is going to happen regardless of whether the law states that violence is acceptable before questioning whether avoidance is possible. In all cases, you're going to have to explain your actions. That's called life. In regards to civil suits, assuredly those are possible. But again, they are possible regardless of the law this legislation alters. Show me how people defending themselves are typically found liable in civil suits brought by their attackers and then we can agree that _something_ should be done about that. Not only do I not believe that is anywhere near common, but this legislation doesn't address that at all.