Florida to legalize public dueling
 

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??

http://www.local10.com/news/4349938/detail.html

------------------------------------------------------------

Post content, not just links

Critics Say Law Would Make Florida 'Wild, Wild West'
New Law Would Allow Citizens More 'Deadly Force' Rights

POSTED: 5:21 pm EDT April 5, 2005
UPDATED: 6:00 pm EDT April 5, 2005

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. -- The Florida House approved a proposed law Tuesday that critics say could turn the state into the "wild west."

The House approved the proposed law that expands people's rights to use deadly force when they are attacked any place they have a right to be. The Senate already approved the bill that allows people to meet force with force. The bill would allow people in the street or someplace like a baseball game or bar to legally kill someone in cases of self-defense.

Currently, Florida law requires people to walk away from fights and other dangerous situations, but the new legislation that is being pushed by the National Rifle Association, would change that.

If Gov. Jeb Bush agrees, state law will no longer require people confronted on the street and in fear for their safety too back off. They'll be able to defend themselves, even with guns.

"It legalizes dueling," Rep. Dan Gelber, of Miami, said.

The bill sparked some of the most heated debate of the legislative session, with opponents saying it will open Pandora's box.

"Inside the box will be death for some person," Rep. Artheina Joyner, of Tampa, said.

Rep. Irv. Slosberg, who is against the bill, said, "So all it's going to do is sell more guns."

But supporters are firing back.

Marion Hammer, president of the National Rifle Association, said, "Right now the law favors criminals. It tells law-abiding people you have to run away from criminals. It tells law abiding people that you can be sued by criminals if you hurt them when they attack you."

Rep. Dennis Baxley, of Ocala, said, "Some violent rape will not occur because somebody felt empowered by this bill."

Baxley, who is the bill's sponsor, says the law will also prevent some child from being abducted and some murder from happening.

Two weeks ago, the legislation passed the Senate unanimously with this vote.

Gov. Bush said Tuesday he intends to sign the bill.

way to jump on the liberal bandwagon and shout that the old west has returned to florida.

FYI, nowhere in this bill does it legalize duels in public, or private for that matter. what it allows is for people to protect themselves at all costs instead of having to do some stupid dog and pony show of trying to 'hide' first before being backed into a corner.

That's called a duel.

I can't find the actual text of the proposed legislation, but it hardly seems like the goal of the bill is to legalize dueling. I mean, it sounds like they're just trying to allow people to effectively protect themselves. If some thug attacked me and I somehow won the fight and got away, I wouldn't want to have to go to court for it even if I would get off on self defense. Seems reasonable enough.

Besides, there are other issues where a hidden agenda would make more sense. For instance, I would buy the argument that the "partial birth" abortion ban is an attempt to chip away at women's sovereignty over their own bodies... but public dueling? Who the hell wants that and why? As far as I know, there aren't any public interest groups advocating for the right to a public duel.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=duel

1. A prearranged, formal combat between two persons, usually fought to settle a point of honor.
2. A struggle for domination between two contending persons, groups, or ideas.

THAT'S called a duel.

If I am minding my own business and someone assaults, or attempts to assault, me or my family THAT'S called self defense.

It's all in the wording.

Florida may call it one thing, you may call it another.

But here in these parts, it's called a "Huntin' Accident".

I read that and all it says is that you don't have to run away first before you defend yourself.

It is beyond me why anyone sees this as a problem.

Well it may or may not be a problem, depending on what it is, specifically, that you're not running away from. For example if the law has the (unintended?) side effect of allowing someone to escalate any verbal argument into a deadly-force conflict, then you're asking for trouble. Hard to know without seeing the text of the bill.

As Mr. Rumsfeld said once, freedom is untidy. Especially if it involves guns.

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?

Because anyone can spout hypotheses about how it is going to adversely affect society, but until the real effects are seen, this bill is seen as a very good thing in my eyes.

In Canada if your life is in danger or you are being attacked, you are allowed to respond with "reasonable force" to try to resolve it. This usually accounts for "whatever your attacker is doing +1" which basically says, "Is he stabbing you? Well you can shoot him" etc.

That's kind of a far reach, doncha think? How do you call the state of Florida giving it's citizens the teeth with which to defend themselves...a "duel"? I just can't quite see the other side of the chasm that you're trying to bridge here.

Is this post even halfway serious? Do you honestly think any governing body here in the United States would actually put in a place a law making it legal to escalate a verbal confrontation with DEADLY FORCE?

"You are a stupid son of a bitch"
-"That's it"
(reaches for gun) "Pop."

I mean I realize you are political obligated to argue with anything that puts some power in the hands of free thinking, law abiding Americans, but your post, much like CShine's saying they legalized dueling is just upsetting.

There are many other states that have similar legislation. All this bill does is say that if you have a legal right to be somewhere (in a public place), which means as long as you aren't doing anything illegal, and you're attacked, you don't have to try and run first. If you feel that you or someone else's life or health is in danger you can shoot all you want without fear of criminal charges.

Florida citizens already had this protection, but previously it was only in the house, car, or office. Now it is anywhere.

Yes. Especially in Florida. Perhaps unintentional, but certainly possible.

1. i have no idea how even you, mojo, can possibly confuse the possession of a gun with any particular mental state, "Free thinking" or otherwise. unless you assume that there really is something magical about a gun.

2. i have no idea how even you, mojo, can support this bill (presented above in outline, one which i hope is cartoon-like in relation to the actual bill)....

how does the nra "logic" work here?
how are laws that prevent people from escalating worrisome situations in public areas into shootouts laws that work "in favor of criminals"?
i would have thought that such laws might work in favor of innocent bystanders who might get mowed down by bullets sprayed from the guns of all parties involved: the one on the defensive, ambushed, nervous, pulling out the gun to "defend" himself, the aggressor, also armed, starting to shoot.
i expect that there will be some response along the lines of "a well trained citizen would not in situations of near panic mow down innocent by standers by mistake while defending hims/herself in a public space" but i would think that position to be kinda nuts.

one thing i have figured out in gun discussion is that much depends upon where you happen to live.
i live in a city.
anything that makes it easier than it already is to make tenuous situations into murderous ones seems to me a bad bad idea. but i also understand that the general relation to guns for someone who lives in an urban space is different than the general relation you might find elsewhere.

the most volatile situations that i run into with any frequency happen outside bars full of college-age people after last call on the weekend. everybody is fucked up--some folk appear to have been unsuccessful in finding another willing to participate in mating rituals----they get pissy about---often so do the friends. bad things happen on teh street outside these places--lots of fights, lots of threats, lots of threatening to dangerous situations (dimies as fuel)----it would seem to be that this bill would open the possibility that such situations, which are often quite scary as they are now, would also be the source of potential gunfire from "law-abiding citizens" who understand themselves as being threatened.

i dont know about you, mojo, but this possibility--or anything like it--would make me feel far less safe than any number of situations that now unfold.

unless you think there is something magical about a gun--that it can make the drunken fool a sober wise man, for example.

maybe you could argue that a responsible gun owner would not go to such a bar strapped. but it seems to me that would be worth about the breath you would expend on saying it aloud.

the assumption seems to be rural/suburban life in that you are in cars more often than not, maybe. so maybe from that kind of viewpoint, even the specific situation i outlined above would not occur often.
but again, i live in a city.
i do not see any rationale for this that would not negatively impact those of us who also live in cities.
it seems to me that this bill would nudge urban situations toward actually being what local news often presents them as being to their largely suburban viewers--following the logic of if it bleeds it leads--spaces of deadly chaos.

i do not believe there is anything magic about guns.

Damn, I was hoping this was true. I'd like to see a (legal) duel.

Stompy, what would be so great about a legal duel that would be different from an illegal one?

roachboy, for all of your assumptions on how people will utilize this new law, you are forgetting one thing.....stupidity has no limits. There ARE some people who will stupidly think that they can now swagger down the street like wyatt earp but this is an extremely low percentage no doubt. The benefits will far outweigh the consequences now that people can walk down a public street and worry less about finding themselves at the total mercy of a gun toting criminal.
You'd be surprised how many would be criminals think twice about confronting a possibly armed person.

I agree with this (I'm in bars or clubs at closing at least a couple nights a week) and would like to point out that in Miami there is another very large and volatile source of ambiguity: that is the language barrier between Spanish and English combatants.

Picture a street corner at 3AM. Someone (drunk) is gesticulating angrily and yelling at you in a foreign language. He's surrounded by 5 of his menacingly drunk friends.

What do you do? What should you be allowed to do? What should you be expected to do?

Hmmmm, I personally prefer our system.

It strikes me that there may be cases of someone hearing a verbal threat and then shooting and killing the person because they thought "their life was in danger"

I don't think that is such a good loophole to leave open.

A common sense approach would be to walk on the other side of the street or the other side of the block. If someone goes out looking for trouble then they will certainly get what they ask for. If a person makes common sense decisions to avoid the situation and it STILL happens, thats what this law is for. No law abiding person should have to continue to run AFTER they've made the attempt at conflict avoidance in order to defend themselves or family.

On the flip side of this, picture you and your family leaving some sort of dinner function and the same group of people start eyeing your 14 year old daughter and that pretty wife you have with you.

dk:

it seems to me that the person who operates in this thread with a priori assumptions is you. you appear to use this scenario to limit the implication of this legislation. you seem to want to reduce discussion to a switch-the-scenario game.

i simply presented an example of something that i, for better or worse, see happening on a semi-regular basis (usually as i am coming home from somewhere else) and imagined what would happen if that same type of situation unfolded if more people involved were armed

i would imagine that the "collateral damage" would cancel out the profit/loss calculation you present.

do you live in a city?

could you try again to explain to me how the possibility of bullets being sprayed on an even more regular basis than they presently are is supposed to make anyone safer?
particularly in an urban setting.

i can sort of understand how this legislation might be confused with something rational if you live in an rural area, say, with a small police force that may have to travel a considerable distance to get to a problematic situation--but in a city, things go otherwise--in philadelphia, for example, there are lots of cops. they arrive fairly quickly to where they are called to (well...more quickly than would a cop who has to drive 20 miles to get to it would)

say the cops turn up during one of your Law Abiding Citizen vs. EvilDoer situations--how do you imagine the cop would be able to sort out who was who, which gun was the good one, which the bad? would you not expect the cop to feel equally threatened by all the guns?

would this not escalate the situation unreasonably, adding more folk who feel threatened into an already volatile mix, increasing the possibilities of death, not just for those involved, but for people standing nearby or walking on the same street somewhere before the bullet's weight causes its trajectory to cease, or someone sitting in a nearby apartment watching tv, just anyone, a man, a woman, a child?

you cannot seriously believe that in such a volatile situation that everyone would be able to muster the concentration required to be sure that no bullets missed their target....i dont care what you assumptions are behind the notion of "responsible gun ownership" or "law abiding citizen"--panic is panic and panic with guns means that innocent people will be wounded or die in greater numbers than they already do--which is already too many, because there are already far too many guns in urban situations.

i'm sorry but the more i think about this legislation, the less sense it makes to me. it almost seems motivated by a resentment toward those of us who live in urban spaces, based on arguments that in a city seem moot, evaluated on the basis of an everyday experience that has nothing do do with living in a city. it does not seem to have been thought out as a law at all, one that would apply equally in all types of socal space.

Do you have any particular experience or reason to back up this statement?

Because the vast majority of research on the subject (Aggression and the presence of guns) has shown that guns only increase the tension, aggression, and fear in any given situation. Whether the gun is drawn or not, simply visible is enough to often escalate conflict.

Interestingly enough, this very reason is why police officers in the UK don't carry guns.

Because then you wouldn't have the hassle and messes of being a witness to a crime.

Plus there can be rules, maybe a prize system. Top 5 Duelists get a free stuffed Bush doll or something.

My father was right some 30 years ago, we are turning into the Wild West. It appears even if someone like myself, who doesn't believe in the use of guns may have to start carrying one.

That way when someone cuts me off in traffic and I have to slam on my brakes because the guy was careless and could have killed me, I can shoot the fuck out of him instead of just passing him later and flipping him the bird.

When I'm out walking my chihuahua and kids start approaching me, I can just lay back and start popping them, because ya never know kids these days they may have weapons and want to kill me and are using wanting to see Dinkydawg as an excuse.

Hell yeah, I like this idea. Fuck, my soon to be ex wife can now try to come over and pull that "wants to try to work things out" bit and I can blow her away and claim it was "self defense" because she was psychologically playing games and trying too kill me psychologically.

I can wait outside bars and start popping off drunks as they get behind the wheel now, because they are threatening my life when they drive.

I can shoot pregnant ladies in mobile home parks because their kids will be white trash drug addicts that will break into my house and steal my stuff.

,.,,,,,,,,, GOD BLESS THE NRA FOR LOOKING OUT FOR ME AND THE BUSHES FOR BEING ON THEIR PAYROLL.........

I live in the city RB, being a college age student, I am subject to the same situations you are. I agree that going strapped into a bar is not a good idea, that is more of a common sense thing.

The issue for me, as it is in most cases involving guns or self protection laws, why should a law abiding citizen not be able to defend his/herself by any means necessary if they are physcially being attacked. You will no doubt try to assert the verbal escalation instances and such, that is a moot point, because there is no doubt in my mind clarafication by the law stating that there has to be an immediate risk, if someone starts getting in your face and you shoot them, you are going to go to jail, I guarentee that this law won't change that. Why do you think we have degrees of murder as far as intent, felony murder, and manslaughter? This new law is not a black hole of common sense or morals.

So again I ask, if I am legally authorized to carry a firearm, and I am walking down the street strapped (concealed of course), and some thug starts beating on me, why should I not be able to fire on him? I have no idea what his intentions are, I was just walking down the steet and the guy starts stealing on me, for all I know he intends to murder me. I would beg you to find some numbers to back your assertation that innocents are already dying in droves as a result of gun violence by licensed law abiding people. The fact is that it is criminals who carry guns illegally that kill people and that are the bad shots you often here about. The only innocent deaths or shootings I have heard about in Minnesota which is a conceal and carry state, is when little girls doing their homework get mowed down by parasitic gang bangers who are trying to shoot up the house next door, or when said gang bangers try and shoot someone on a stoop or corner. I only know of one instance of violence with a person who was issued a conceal and carry permit, the fucker was drunk and he wasn't even concealing, he just straight shot some guy, I think for schluping his wife, in that case he was abiding by the law anyways.

I used to live in northern dallas. Crime was increasing, especially gun/gang related, at a rate that was unreal. I moved my family to a smaller city because my 13 year old stepson was abducted by two people, one of them with a gun, and driven away out of our neighborhood.

will it make the whole nation safe? no. It won't even make the whole city safe. As I stated before, there are some STUPID people out there and there are some people that don't give a damn about your life, but there are others that will take pause when considering to rob, assault, or threaten you if they think you might be armed.

I hear about shootings on a near daily basis here in dallas, half the time there are no suspects, or no suspects in custody.

This can and has presented issues, so you have to choose, do you hope the cops come fast enough that you aren't killed by the perp, or do you shoot back, hope you survive, and hope for the best outcome. lesser of two evils I say.

No, I'm not suggesting nor am I under the foolish assumption that all legal gun owners are 100% accurate and possess perfect judgement. What i'm looking at is the plain unadulterated truth that your odds of surviving a violent conflict go up considerably if you are able to fight back. Is there a possibility of escalation and harm to innocent bystanders? yes, there is, but I ask you this....If it came down to you, the bad guy, and me living after a gunfight...who are you rooting for?

do YOU live in a city?


a criminal is going to fight back. they don't want to go to prison or die. This is to be expected. This legislation is not about reducing violence, its about allowing people to defend themselves from those that don't give a damn about the law, or you.

I've also heard that in UK cities, where guns are banned, the number of home invasions has increased tremendously, is this true?

extremist much? :rolleyes:

Have any of you read the bill? All it does is take a previous bill and adds a part that says you don't have to retreat first. Thats it.

If anyone feels like growing-up you can read it here:

http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/bills_...stPageIndex=-1

I'm all for defending oneself if being attacked by someone for no apparent reason. I certainly wouldn't turtle if my life were in danger, that is if my choices of fight or flight are down to fighting.

Like anything else I can see this law as such being abused. What's to say someone would like someone dead, angers the other person to the point of violence and then blows them away because their life apparently seems threatened. In that sense, it wouldn't be hard getting away with murder. Unless a clause is put forth that the attack is of random nature and the people involved don't know each other. But most attacks on people are from people knowing the people in the first place.

dk: thanks for posting the above--it cleared up something of where you are coming from. from there, i can see why we would focus on different things--you on the person who is or understands him/herself as bineg violated/threatened--me on the consequences of this type of situation unfolding on those who are by-standers, involved with it only because they happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong moment.

i actually do live in west philadelphia.
there is occaisional violence nearby---i hear it from time to time, the gunshots.
not long ago, someone was shot outside a chinese resto up the block. the person who did the shooting wanted the guy's backpack., the guy was attacked from behind.
i have been in a number of ugly situations myself in the past.
i know many people who have experience more/worse than i have.
none of this--experience direct or relayed--has indicated to me that increasing the number of guns makes any sense, and even less a redefinition of when and where that gun can be used.

so i think we could talk past each other endlessly on this.

on the other hand, my exwife was kidnapped once--it was terrifying, but as it happened overseas and there were no guns involved, she was able to get out of the situation after about 12 hours with no physical harm done. i mention this so say that i sympathize with the particular situation that you posted above---the sense of violation direct, intense, immediate--but it did not lead me to imagine that a gun or any number of guns would have done anything but make that into a far worse situation for her, for me--and a parallel view obtains for the question of guns in general.

I haven't heard this, no. I don't have time to research it right now because I have lecture in 20 minutes, but I will look into it when I get home.

believe me, I do hear what you're saying, but I have to look at it pragmatically and think whats the lesser of two evils. Being totally helpless and unarmed, or armed with some chance. neither of them are very desirable, mind you, but who said life was fair and easy.

Just about all forms of crimes have risen in Britan after the implementation of the guns bans.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1357805/posts

thanks mojo.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. I will NEVER let any law prevent me from defending my, or anyone elses, life in a self defense situation.

This isn't about dueling, nor will it lead to any showdown at the OK situation. This simply gets rid of a stupid law of trying to run first. If I'm walking down the street with a child, and a guy pulls a knife on me I'm not running. I'm not going to run because the child wont be able to keep up.

Do I carry guns around outside of sport shooting/hunting? No. But there are many different ways to defend oneself. If that happens to lead to my assaultant's death so be it, but I will NEVER allow a law to impede me from defending myself or anyone else.

Mojo, the source you posted has a clear bias.

This law fails to affect me and the rest of the populace who don't feel the need to go armed. Those of you who insist on protection in the form of a firearm may say I am dangerously unprepared for a gunfight, but I've never in my life come close to needing a weapon. Maybe I just live my life in such a way as to not provoke violence. I don't take unnecessary risks, like walking sections of the city I know to be dangerous after dark, but I know with my temper it's a good thing I don't have a gun. I'm not up in arms about this law; it has absolutely no effect on me.

Yeah, it's biased, but that doesn't make what the source stated any less valid. While we're at it, there's no such thing as an unbiased source.

/end threadjack

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.

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.

And what may seem extremist in my post may prove to be "self defense" in court.

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.

The source may be biased, but the numbers do not lie.

It hasn't been that many years since (at least in Tennessee, if memory serves) that you couldn't legally shoot an intruder in your HOUSE unless he had you cornered. If you had access to a door, the law said you were supposed to run away.

I remember being amazed that Tennessee, of all places, would have such a law. I believe it was changed.

I dont' see that this new law is any different. Most people I know, including ones who carry, aren't about to shoot someone if there's a way to avoid it.

You spend a great deal of time with the legal system subsequent to a shooting. There's also the threat of a lawsuit, especially if you don't kill the attacker.

I have no problem with people who don't wish to arm themselves. However, in my life, I've never gotten an advance warning when a deadly threat was about to present itself.