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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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."

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

Horrible thread title. Doubly so for this:

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

Yay! a throwback to mideival times!

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.

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.

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). ;)

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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 ;)

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.

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.

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".

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?

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.

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.

Your gun argument has absolutely nothing to do with the topic (beyond the fact that the argument is purely weak - a comparison of Vermont to D.C.? Hardly compelling evidence, even were it to pertain to the topic). Criminals may consider a an armed populace as less appealing marks - but that argument has nothing to do with whether criminals consider the probability that a mark will weigh the risks of being arrested or sued for defending themselves. I don't believe a mark would ever do that and I don't believe a criminal would ever stop and consider whether a mark would ever do that.

Of course people wait before defending themselves - this is born of the desire NOT TO KILL. That is as it should be. But whether they do or do not wait is irrespective of whether they should be questioned on the matter.

No one in their right minds wants to kill. But the desire to live is so much stronger than any aversion to killing. That is as it should be.

manx, you are avoiding the whole reason that this law was made.
Before, a person had to do everything possible to avoid being assaulted....run, hide, yell for help. only then, when all had been done, THEN could the intended victim use deadly force. If it was deemed that the intended victim had NOT run, hidden, yelled for help, they WOULD be prosecuted.

why do you think they changed the law? they were prosecuting people for defending themselves.

Just in case it is worth mentioning the law we are supposedly discussing, I'd like to point out again that it deals with using any force at all, not just deadly force. It also is not a blanket authorization for using deadly force. Most assuredly you would not walk away 20 minutes later if you killed someone, no matter what the circumstance.

Frankly I'm somewhat surprised that Manx has continued this discussion as long as he has.
There is practically nothing right with the scenario outlined here, granted it's a little thin on the details. "looking it over"=shot and possibly killed. I think it is a safe assumption that the poster would have mentioned if there had been any other threatening behavior etc. by the person with the shotgun (i.e. pointing it at him etc.) so I am assuming that there was none. Regardless, for you to laud local law enforcement for "patting him on the back" and sending him on his way is absurd. Maybe he was justified and maybe he wasn't but he should have at least seen the inside of a courtroom for a grand jury to decide. Shoot first, ask questions later is a stone age mentality, and i can't believe that there is a current debate about it.
Also, the more you continue to cite Vermont, the less I'm inclined to think that you've been there. If you look a little deeper into the Vermont culture I think you'll find that the reason for the low crime rate is more due to the homogeneity of the population and other socioeconomic factors, not the fact that all the hippies are packing. Also, most states with few large urban areas and relatively low population density have lower crime rates, for many factors that I'm not going into right now.

I haven't avoided anything. From my first post I have been discussing the reality of the exact claim you are making. I have not seen one shred of evidence that any significant quantity of people were being prosecuted for protecting themselves. So I do not accept that as "the reason" for this legislation.

then what is the reason for this legislation exactly manx?

Manx;
Such stories are routinely "spiked" by the media. Two cases that I know of;

NYC: A Marine 2nd Looey, home on leave, defended his family using an unregistered pistol. He had been turned down for a pistol-permit because, on account of his duty-station at Cherry Point, he was not a New York "resident" despite the fact that his family lived there. He was convicted of manslaughter, posession of an unregistered handgun, and several lesser crimes; convictions which could have landed him in prison for 30 years. Because of massive public outcry, he only served a few days, but was hit with 5 year's Probation and is now barred from ever posessing any firearm, as he is now a Felon.

2: Ohio ( can't remember the city name; may have been Dayton ): A man in his early 80s found himself in similar circumstances after he shot two muggers off a friend of his. His friend had been attacked outside the door of the apartment building they shared, and the man in question fired several shots from a .22 pistol, killing one attacker and wounding the other. He was likewise prosecuted for Manslaughter and convicted. Due to his age, he also recieved probation.

Manx, this stuff happens every day. Check keepandbeararms.com sometime if you don't believe me; not a week goes by that they don't report someone being arrested or tried for defending themselvs from violent attack. The nat'l media "spike" these stories because they are, every one of them, without exception, victim-disarmament advocates. Those media companies that aren't owned/funded by George Soros, a rabid anti-rights nutjob, are owned/funded by Rupert Murdoch, who is just as bad if not worse.

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/...0398/1002/NEWS

hey, theres one! and its not even a week old, and its in NY!


how much you think hes paying in legal fees?

because if we had that law up here, he wouldnt have had to shell out that money for lawyers.

omg, heres another!
http://www.volunteertv.com/Global/story.asp?S=2883548

oh my. whats this? a man whos been in jail for 8 years because he used a firearm to defend himself? tsk tsk.

http://www.kypost.com/2005/02/11/kymcclane021105.html

I could go on, but ya know what, I've satisfied myself. :lol:

I'm not going to accept two examples and a website called Keep And Bear Arms as evidence that there is a significant amount of people being convicted of a crime for defending themselves.

ziadel - Your example consists of a man who was involved in an argument. I don't have all the facts of the case and I expect you do not either - but it is not at all a stretch of the imagination to believe that the DA felt the man was likely an agressor in the entire event. He is fortunate to have been aquitted, but I don't see any reason to presume he never should have been tried. Nor do I see how this Florida legislation would have altered the outcome of that event or the potentiallity of trial.

edit: Your further examples are nothing more than the exceptions which prove the rule. There are also entirely innocent people convicted of crimes - that is certainly not a valid reason to eliminate law. The vast majority of cases involve actual criminals and not innocent people. I would expect the same principle to hold in cases involving defense. The vast majority of cases involving people who were actually defending themselves do not go to trial/get dismissed/return an acquittal - and the vast majority of cases involving people who were actually an aggressor or instigator while claiming to simply be defending themselves, result in a conviction.

Here's my theory:

The reason for this law is that there are a lot of Florida legislators who think as you: that people being attacked are overly limited in their options. That there is no evidence that this is true and that instead of supplying evidence, you have supplied emotionally-appealing, exceptionally rare and certainly questionable "examples" doesn't seem to have any bearing on the quantity of legislators making these types of baseless decisions.

In other words, like you, many Florida legislators have convinced themselves that there is a problem where there is no problem and have enacted laws to fix this non-existent problem. In the process, they, as you, are advocating violence over avoidance.

*sigh* the man really was right, there are only sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs in this world.

Have no fear Manx, I won't let the wolves take you :)


well, heres the deal, they're elected officials, they make choices, if they're bad choices, they are voted out. if they make good choices, they remain in office. time will tell exactly what floridians think about the new legislature, but my guess is that the people who worked to make this proposition and those who voted it into law will have many many grateful constituents who will reward them with lengthy stays in their elected offices.

but this really has been done to death, and at this point, I think I will just have to agree to disagree and retreat to the safety of TF Weaponry



but, every time a man is arrested for defending himself, or his loved ones, I will be informing you of it privately.

mebbe a year from now after a few hundred exmaples, you will see things my way.

I'm not sure what you think you are accomplishing by making such a strange claim that you are protecting me.

You don't know me. You don't know where I live. You know essentially nothing about me.

But if it makes you feel tough to make the absurd claim that you are protecting me from something, I guess you might need to think you are protecting me from something.

Heh. Let YOU be prosecuted for murder in a self-defense situation and see if you THEN don't think it's a problem...

Do you live in a State with "Shall Issue" or "May Issue" CCW? Because if you do, you are indeed receiving some protection that you wouldn't have in a "No Issue" state because people have CCW permits. In economics, it's called being a "free rider".

You don't have much experience with the legal system, do you...

Grand Juries normally do what they're told to do by the prosecutors. Prosecutors generally are looking to make a name for themselves to advance their careers. If the police look at a shooting and say "this was indisputably justified", why should the victim be forced in front of a grand jury? (And by victim, I mean the shooter....since the shooter was victimized to the point that he or she had to defend their lives.)

Why should homicide be any different from any other crime? You DO realize that the police routinely refuse to file charges in all kinds of cases, don't you? That's just ONE of the protections we all have against abuse of process.

What this law is meant to stop is abuse of prosecutorial discretion....when prosecutors bring charges that they shouldn't. I'd like to point out that a great many states have similar laws in place already, and there's been no bloodbath in those places.

I'd bet that you just don't like the idea of you going out and starting shit, and then risking being shot legally...."There is nothing so passionate as a vested interest disguised as an intellectual conviction."--Frank Herbert, "The White Plague"

Manx,
keepandbeararms.com doesn't exactly make this stuff up, you know. They're a "news clearinghouse" site; every day ( except Sundays ) they have a huge collection ( 100+ links, on most days ) worth of gun-rights related news, collected from "mainstream" media around the world. They aren't pulling this stuff out of their arseholes, much as you'd obviously like to think they were. Unlike the drek spewed by the likes of The Brady Bunch or the VPC, all of their information is heavily sourced and easily verifiable; not to mention not being outright lies such as those that Victim Disarmament groups like to use.

As for your "emotionally based" slam, you haven't exactly got any room to complain. Your entire arguement has been based upon "I don't see it, so it doesn't happen." This is the same rationale as that of a child who thinks that covering his eyes makes whatever-it-is that frightens him disappear; "If I can't see it, it's not there." You asked for examples; they were provided. Your response was "Not the right examples." and "Not enough examples." Instead of actually addressing the points that have been made, you hace decided to evade them and attack either their sources or to simply insist, in spite of the evidence, that "there is no problem." This is called "Denial."

As for "Avoidance," as you put it; every instructor I've ever met teaches their students to avoid conflict if possible. They tell you not to goto obviously sketchy places, don't confront belligerant people, etc etc; IOW, not to go looking for trouble. However, if trouble finds you, which it sadly does in our world, I fail to see any reason why anyone should be required to retreat, thereby placing themselves at a tactical disadvantage. I, after all, am not a sociopathic predator; the jackass trying to divest me of my wallet is, or he wouldn't be robbing me. I fail to see why I, or any other honest person, should be required to accomodate any such creature by running away. Such is the attitude of a coward, a person lacking in both dignity and moral fortitude.

It would be very easy for Florida to make a law similar to that of Oregon, which differentiates between aggressors and non-aggressors and specifically requires aggressors to retreat or withdraw, without success, before escalating the force used.

But the Florida bill does not (as far as I can see). So, again, this legislation theoretically seems to allow any argument to gradually escalate to any degree of force, as the combatants respond to each other, and have no obligation to retreat.

Oregon law does not require to retreat, that was the entire point of my post. If you assault somebody, you go to jail, if you defend yourself from such an attack, you may still be detained, but if it was legitimately self defense, then you will be released. Again, you are NOT required to attempt to flee, talk your way out of the situation or do the hokey pokey. I agree that you should avoid the conflict, but sometimes you are forced to either defend yourself or become a victim, the new Florida law allows for that reality.

Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 161: