Actually, no, the law is quite reasonable -- if you read the article, it admits (in passing, true, and doesn't call attention to it, but admits it nevertheless) that it authorizes use of deadly force for self-defense, anywhere, if you are in fear for your life. The onus is still upon you, the law-abiding citizen, should you have to shoot somebody, to convince the police, the DA, and possibly a judge and jury that you were, in fact, legitimately in fear for your life. If you shoot some ninety-year-old lady at the supermarket for taking eleven items through the "10 or less" express lane, (a) they're going to throw you in jail just as fast after this law as before, and (b) if you're that fucking bugnuts, you were probably going to shoot the old lady whether the law passed or not.
If you're at all familiar with the history of gun control legislation and the hyperbolic hysteria used by the left against EVERY law that makes it even slightly easier for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against criminals, the arguments this article is making against this law are instantly recognizeable as PRECISELY those that were used to predict hot and cold running gun battles in the streets and gutters filled with blood before Florida passed its shall-issue concealed-carry law .... predictions which, in Florida as in every other state in which such laws have passed, conspicuously failed to come to pass.
They even go so far as to invoke the specter of Dodge City -- in blissful ignorance of the historically documentable fact that in Dodge City at the height of the roaring days of the Wild West, despite the bloodsoaked portrayals merrily portrayed by Hollywood in the quest for action and excitement, the rate of violent crime was actually far lower than in many modern-day cities. (Of course, if you did something stupid like going walking through the worst parts of town alone after midnight, or going carousing in the seedier saloons on Saturday night with a .45 and an attitude, you were probably in for trouble. But, honestly, well, DUH!)
The honest truth of the matter is that "turning [much of, say, modern-day Dade or Broward Counties] into Dodge City" would probably be a big improvement.
The law is unreasonable in that in that is in unecessary and also relies on a very subjective state of mind. "Fear for my life" is a very subjective thing.
If you don't like the fact that there is a law that requires you to flee intead of defending yourself with lethal force then attack the bad law instead of creating another bad one.
Do you know how HARD it is to get a law, even a bad one, repealed? There's no political capital to be made from repealing laws. Go ask your congressman to repeal a law, any law, and he'll give you a blank look and ask "What's in it for me?"
that's it, I'm moving to florida, getting an M-4 (3rd burst variety) and walk with it openly in public, with my body armor on... I wanna see what kind of a body count I can rack up!!!
While I certainly do see a law like this presents the very real opportunity to have people duking it out in the streets or shooting each other on sight, I can also see the other side.
How many people have shot or injured others while that other person was in the midst of an act of malice against them, and then faced a lawsuit for it? Sadly, the answer is way too many. Maybe not so much in Georgia, but in other parts of the country you can have civil suits levied against you because you were defending yourself.
Frankly, I don't want to have to retreat and let a thief take my car, rob my house, rape me or anything else in order to maintain the peace. If someone comes at me or someone I love with the intent to harm in *any* way, I want, and thoroughly intend, to fucking end their life. Period. And I don't want to be sued by their estate after the fact.
If you look at our current system you've got some major obstacles to violent offenders even serving time for their crimes. It only happens *if* the policy catch them. And then the court system has to actually impose real sentences, which doesn't happen *nearly* often enough in my mind. And then we've got a prison system that is over-run and those same violent offenders are turned back out into the streets well before they were supposed to be, much less when they *ought* to be.
Such was the case with the trial I was on the jury for last spring. A known violent offender (he had served time for armed robbery and attempted murder) was released early due to prison overcrowding and (less than 3 months after his release) then shot and killed a laundrymat owner in cold blood, in the middle of the day, in front of 14 witnesses.
Now I'm not saying that if a law like the one in Florida existed here, that crime wouldn't have happened. Not at all. But for me, as a citizen, I want the right to fight back and protect myself against crimes like that because frankly, I don't trust the police or our justice system to function properly. I want the right to kill someone if they legitimately threaten me. And I want the right to do so without the fear that person can come back and prosecute me because I turned their crotch into something resembling lasagna.
That's just my perspective though, maybe I'm not understanding something...?
I want the right to kill someone if they legitimately threaten me.
When you can find a way to resoanble define "legitimately threaten" then I'll be more than happy to support this law. but the way it is currently written, you are able to use lethal force for assault. By the way assault is "I felt in fear for my life."
Here is a scenario: 5 young black kids with a boom box are being rambunctius and rowdy on the subway home. They are the only ones on the car except for a white girl about their same age. They start cat calling and wolf whistling at her. Several of them say things like "Girl you are fine.!" and "I'd love to get a piece of that ass." and other lews and suggestive comments of what they would like to do. One of the guy walks up to her. She pulls out a gun and says "stay back or I'll shoot". The guy backs off and says "Woman are you crazy!". The rest of the boys yell unpleasant comments such as "That bitch is crazy" or "I'll fuck you up Bitch" and things like that. She unloads her gun on the boy that orginally approached her, killing him. The other boys scamble to get away from her and she unloads on them as well, killing a few and wounding others.
Under the law, she is completely innocent of no wrong doing. And I don't see it that way.
Its a very veyr slippery slope. And erring on the side of caution is not the solution. You've made it perfectly clear that you don't trust the police to keep me safe. Neither do I. But I don't trust the average judgement of the collective populace to keep me safe either. And this law puts that judgement into their hands which is no better and allows for more opportunity for abuse.
I definitely think that laws should more clearly define what is, and is not a legitimate threat. And I can certainly clearly see your point about that. You are exactly right about the example you gave.
However, let me just say that if I were in the place of that girl on the subway, I would've most certainly pulled a gun if approached in such a manner. Now, I wouldn't have started firing just because they started calling me names, but I do stand by my one-warning rule:
When I feel threatened by someone I communicate that to them: i.e. "If you touch me one more time, things are going to get ugly up in here." If they then come at me a second time in a threatening manner, then absolutely, I will use force. And I will use lethal force.
I am not one of those people who thinks the best approach when someone is breaking into my home is to shoot the intruder in the kneecap or arm or whatever. In my house, the targets are shot in the head, groin, heart and stomach. With a shotgun.
A shotgun that I keep loaded, with the safety off, and propped up beside my bed. And let me tell you, I will not be trying to go out the window to escape. Fuck that shit.
I do see the potential for abuse at the hands of the mass public. But I'll tell you what, I'm fed up past belief with violent offenders and I think it's time they learned to change their ways or die.
I admit that part of my issue results from having been a victim of violent crime in my past. It probably makes me less-than-level-headedly passionate about the subject. I also feel that I am able to discern a credable threat vs. being pissed off that someone stole my parking spot. I also realize that, unfortunately, not everyone is able to do that.
Perhaps they should amend the law by saying that the person has to be within a certain distance from you (say 10-15 feet), has to be facing you, has to have made some indication of an intent to harm you and has to have been persistent despite initial warnings. I'd have no problem with wording like that. (Except for the distance when involved in the home. In my mind, if they are in my home without my express permission, hunting season is open game.)
My main point is that I don't think it's fair just to totally say the laws are insane. Not well-worded, absolutely, but not insane.
However, let me just say that if I were in the place of that girl on the subway, I would've most certainly pulled a gun if approached in such a manner. Now, I wouldn't have started firing just because they started calling me names, but I do stand by my one-warning rule:
Man - if you can't face a gang-banger without drawing down in a public place, I'm REALLY glad you're living 400 miles away. To my mind, drawing a firearm in that circumstance qualifies you as dangerously psychotic. Firing only puts the exclamation point on it.
Think about it, would you REALLY want to shoot someone in the subway? With 4-5 of his friends within 30 feet? How many do you think you could take down? How many by-standers would get ventilated? Keep in mind that you should never draw unless you are prepared to fire.
NOW I'm really frightened ...sigh...
What would Gandhi do? What would ML King do? What would Jesus do? What would Bryan Boitano do?
No, I don't REALLY want to shoot someone in a subway.
What I do want to do is protect myself. I'm sorry but I don't tolerate anyone putting their hands on me without my consent. I have wiped the floor with people for less offensive acts. I will always look for the most expeditious way possible to end any conflict and if that opportunity is through the court system or some less-'dramatic' solution, then so be it. But if it comes down to me or them, I will, by whatever means necessary, do what I have to do to ensure my own survival. That includes the use of lethal force.
As for bystanders, they don't really apply to vernard's presented scenerio since he specifically said the woman and the group of boys was *alone* on the subway. A similar situation would most likely not happen exactly the same on a jam-packed subway, or at the very least alternate solutions would be more accessible. I'm not saying a gun shouldn't be the last resort, I'm simply saying I'm not afraid to go there if it is and I'd like not to face criminal charges as a result of that, provided I can *substantiate* the reasons for my fear.
And yes, I do know the difference between my ass and a hole in the ground and I learned rules like 'never touch another man's gun' and 'don't draw unless you are prepared to fire' and take them quite seriously. Let's not be so patronizing. Just because we disagree on this issue does not mean you're dealing with someone who hasn't thought through the potential consequences of such actions. It just means I've thought them through and reached a different conclusion than you did.
If shooting someone who threatens me with physical harm as well as taking out as many of his cronies as possible along with him (even if they do get me in the end) makes me a dangerous psychotic, then so be it. I've been told for a while now that I'm crazy, I've grown comfortable with it.
But for the sake of hearing out the other side, tell me: In the same scenerio that vernard gave, let's say the woman was unarmed when the youth approached her initially? What happens then? Should she give him a dirty look and pray he'll go away? Should she ignore him and see what happens? Should she try to fight him and all his friends? Should she just bend over and take what's coming? Or better yet, maybe she should just quit her second job that she uses to support 2 kids since her husband left. That way she wouldn't be *on* the subway alone at 3AM. Then there wouldn't be any trouble.
Or maybe people should fucking learn the hard way to keep their fucking hands to themselves.
Oh, and about Ghandi, MLK and Jesus? They all wound up dying as martyrs. While I respect their viewpoints and passion, that's a sacrifice I'm not willing to make.
Based on V's scenario, introducing a firearm is a radical escalation of the level of violence in the situation. The scenario as presented was one of harassment, not bodily harm. The "stock answer" in this situation is that the young lady should attempt to deescalate the situation first by ignoring the harassers (yes, and hoping they go away). If there's a stop available, she should quietly get off, and wait for the next train - failing that she should politely tell them she's tired, not interested, doesn't want to be part of their situation, and that she doesn't want to have to get involved with the police or transit authorities. If the harassment continues or escalates, then she SHOULD involve the authorities - a cell phone with "911" dialed in big digits can be terribly intimidating.
God forbid none of that defuses the situation, she's unarmed, and she gets raped. This is a terrible outcome - but even at that, NO ONE HAS BEEN KILLED. If the young lady pulls a piece, she's just escalated the stakes. It may be true that her odds of escaping the situation with honor and dignity intact just went up, but so did the odds of SOMEONE winding up in the hospital or the morgue. I don't have numbers available (I seldom consider this unless actively drawn into a debate), but my common sense tells me the young lady isn't likely to end up dead unless she does someone grievous harm.
My fundamental disagreement with the "armed society" position is that guns offer no defense. A firearm is a psychological and offensive weapon, but offers NO protection against harm. I'm much more in favor of allowing everyone to carry 3 feet of steel - at least swords 1) aren't ranged, and 2) allow you to defend yourself from someone similarly armed without necesarily killing them.
I'm in favor of carrying tazers, or mace, or something similarly non-lethal, even though they don't actually offer any defense either.
Finally, at the end of the day, I'm most strongly in favor of acting as though we live in a civilized society, rather than acting as though we're living in a spaghetti western.
God forbid none of that defuses the situation, she's unarmed, and she gets raped. This is a terrible outcome - but even at that, NO ONE HAS BEEN KILLED.
You evidently have no idea what it is to face a threat like that. And I do. That is, ultimately, the big difference between us: You wish people would stop 'acting as though we're living in a spaghetti western' and I know from personal experience that anyone who thinks we live in a civilized society is deluding themselves. The reality is something much closer to a sociological horror story.
I'd rather take my chances against an intruder with my shotgun than with 3 feet of steel because I can end that confrontation once and for all from 15 feet, never giving the intruder the chance to get close enough to take my weapon and use it against me. If he dies, that's his problem. He should've considered that consequence before breaking and entering.
my common sense tells me the young lady isn't likely to end up dead unless she does someone grievous harm.
If your common sense is telling you things like this, you ought to read the newspapers more. Women *routinely* get assaulted AND killed when doing absolutely nothing wrong at all.
I guess I'm just lacking in compassion because I really don't fucking care if I kill a rapist or a murderer. Good riddance to bad rubbish. Better that my tax dollars go towards his funeral than his jail time. I do value life, but only of those individuals who contribute to society instead of trying to take advantage of it.
I think with this comment, it's been sufficiently proven to me that we're living on two alternate planes of reality, not just two different states and that any further discussion would be an exercise in futility.
I'm not changing your mind and you're definitely not changing mine. I think we're just going to have to pick our kind of crazy and leave it be.
Couple quick points, then I'll concur that we should pick our kind of crazy, and agree to disagree.
First, I have been in the type of situation discussed above - though I've never quite been perceived as a "pushover" (bearing something of a resemblence to Hagrid from harry potter, or ZZTop..). That aside, I have been in "bad neighborhoods" at odd hours of the middle of the night, and had occasion to say, "Oh. oops. This could get ugly." Eddie Maise and I were at Georgia State in the middle of the Rodney King "disturbances", for instance.
Intruders in the home are, indeed, a very different story. I would not advocate confronting an intruder in the home with a bat or a sword. I would ALSO caution against indiscriminantly shooting an intruder - mistakes are made far too often.
On the topic of "routine" slayings of random young ladies minding their own busines... We definitely have different definitions of "routine". We're back to perceptions of small risks - Our young lady is 4-5 times more likely to die of an accident than homicide, and about 50% more likely to do herself in. And that's any homicide - getting killed by a stranger is pretty unusual among homicides (36% for females, 50% for males). (CDC and DoJ numbers - ain't the web wonderful?) And you know what - the odds of a female being murdered by someone she doesn't know is approximately 1/100,000 per year.
So yeah, maybe we do live in different planes of reality. Or maybe it's outlook and expectation - I think I live in a more hopeful place than your socialogical horror. And maybe i'm a bit more likely to end up a martyr - but if it's martyrdom to the value of life, even a rapist or murderer's life, then I'll accept (though not invite) that margin of error.
Finally, at the end of the day, I'm most strongly in favor of acting as though we live in a civilized society, rather than acting as though we're living in a spaghetti western.
But what happens when other people are acting like they are in a spaghetti western in your presence?
Two real cases, and one hypothetical:
1) Grandma has a concealed carry permit and is packing in WalMart. Guy comes in and starts slashing up one of the employees. Grandma pulls the gun, and fortionately didn't have to shoot, but stops the criminal until the police arrive. If she had been forced to shoot, without this law, she goes to jail. And the employee is probably killed.
2) An elderly man is car-jacked. He's able to get out of the car and get away. His wife is still in the car and can't, and is later found dead. Under the previous law, since he had a route to escape, he couldn't fight back (use lethal force) against the attacker. This prompted a law change in Georgia to treat your car the same as your home for self-defense purposes.
3) Hypothetical: Someone grabs one of your little girls and starts dragging her into a car. Should you or your wife be permitted to kill or seriously injure him without going to prison? (There are plenty of related hypotheticals about, "Should you be required to flee if your child is imminent danger of harm?")
Frankly, if someone wants to use a gun (or a baseball bat or even just their fists) to protect me when someone is threatening my life, more power to them. And if I have the opportunity to protect someone else's life or limb, I want the option to be able to do so without going to jail.
(And I think the protect others is the most important part of this revision to the law...)
And I'll bet we don't get a dozen cases successfully invoking this defense within the next year.
Here is a scenario: 5 young black kids with a boom box are being rambunctius and rowdy on the subway home. They are the only ones on the car except for a white girl about their same age. They start cat calling and wolf whistling at her. Several of them say things like "Girl you are fine.!" and "I'd love to get a piece of that ass." and other lews and suggestive comments of what they would like to do. One of the guy walks up to her. She pulls out a gun and says "stay back or I'll shoot". The guy backs off and says "Woman are you crazy!". The rest of the boys yell unpleasant comments such as "That bitch is crazy" or "I'll fuck you up Bitch" and things like that. She unloads her gun on the boy that orginally approached her, killing him. The other boys scamble to get away from her and she unloads on them as well, killing a few and wounding others.
Under the law, she is completely innocent of no wrong doing. And I don't see it that way.
Wrong. Under the law, if she shot the boy after he backed off, as you describe, she was clearly not in fear for her life -- he'd backed off -- and she's guilty of probably at least first-degree homicide even before opening fire on the others too. There is not even the slightest shade of grey in your scenario -- you cannot shoot someone in the back as he's fleeing and expect your lawyer to argue self-defense with a straight face in court.
You really, really haven't thought this through. You're letting the gun-phobics sway you with an emotional appeal to panic that doesn't stand up to even the most cursory scrutiny.
Even if she was considered guilty and liable for the crimes and torts committed, and even if she was processed through the legal system, and ended up in prison, and put up on death row and executed for committing a massacre, ultimately, you've just got a bunch of dead bodies, because someone believed they had the right to shoot someone else.
I'm not a gun-phobic. I've been shooting since I was in my single-digit years. I've been around guns my entire life, I've shot a variety of them, and I can even hit the broad side of a barn.
Objectively, though, this is not a fair law.
Will gang members get fair representation for shooting other gang members that threaten to kill them?
Will a white person be given special dispensation if they shoot minorities, because minorities are characterized as more prone to criminal activity?
What happens when someone shoots a minor?
From a detached perspective, it will be very interesting to see what happens. From an involved and human perspective, it's about the saddest thing I've ever heard. Because people are stupid, and stupid people having license to use guns outside of a military environment is a really bad, bad, bad idea.
This law does not grant any right to anyone that does not already exist, without being abused, in other states. The anti-gun hype painting it as the sixth sign of the coming apocalypse is just that: exaggerated, worn-out, hollow hype.
Will a white person be given special dispensation if they shoot minorities, because minorities are characterized as more prone to criminal activity?
Extremely unlikely. If they can't show that they had good and reasonable cause to fear death or serious injury at the hands of an attacker, this law doesn't grant them squat. Whether the jury is racist and predisposed to find against a minority defendant is a totally separate issue; any bias on that score is pre-existing in the jury and is not introduced by this law.
Will gang members get fair representation for shooting other gang members that threaten to kill them?
Since the law does not at any point say "...except gangbangers" (see above), then yes, if they're being threatened with death or grievous bodily harm by a rival gang and they get their chops in first, I suppose they would. And you know what? If they do ... I don't have a problem with that. Personally, I'm all in favor of gangbangers killing each other. It means less gangbangers to endanger the rest of us and less drugs on the streets.
I have a friend who is a firearms instructor in LA, who seriously proposed giving free basic pistol classes to gangbangers, on the theory that if they could actually hit what they aimed at, they'd kill more of each other and less innocent bystanders. And honestly, I think he had a valid point.
If you think that enforcement of this law is going to be racially equitable, then you're not being very realistic. Our society already paints a picture of "minorities commit crimes". If someone wants to fake a crime, they say a minority committed it. If someone wants to portray a criminal on TV, unless it is a criminal mastermind of some type, it is typically a minority. Racist jokes center around minorities being criminals. Even though crime doesn't obey racial lines.
Since, however, you have indicated quite clearly that you are okay with people killing each other, I do not expect that you will be capable of easily seeing the problems with this law.
"Your Honor, my client felt that Officer Smith was threatening his life, and so he stood his ground and used the rights accorded to him by the laws of the state of Florida."
The main problem with this whole law is that it is based on something purely subjective that cannot be quantified, and consistent enforcement of the law is going to be impossible. People don't need more excuses to commit murder.
This country is being run by the fucking Church of Alvis.
Since, however, you have indicated quite clearly that you are okay with people killing each other,
Excuse me, that's not what I said. What I said was that if gangbangers are going to kill people, I'd rather they killed each other than innocent bystanders. (And for that matter, I'd rather see intended victims kill criminal attackers than criminals kill victims.)
If you're going to resort to putting words into my mouth in order to defend your position, this discussion is over. Goodbye.
Don't try to come off like you haven't said something that you have clearly said numerous times. I apologize if my pointing out what you said bothers you.
In bold type, you stated that you do not have a problem with, and are in favor of, gang members killing each other. How many ways can that be taken? Where did I put words in your mouth? Any indication of them killing each other instead of bystanders is a sentiment of your friend you reference, and not yourself.
Having said that, you still have yet to address the pure subjectivity that the law is based upon, the unfairness of the current legal system in regard to minorities and how this new law fits into that situation, and the implications this law has upon homicide involving minors. It's well and good to think that everyone can pick up a gun and be responsible with it, but it's not very realistic.
This is a state that cuffed a five year old for acting up in class. Next time she picks up and brandishes a pencil threateningly, the teacher can just blow her head off and be done with it. That's one less potential future gang member, right?
People are shot, hurt, killed because they didn't fight back. The wolves prey on the sheep -- at least until the sheep start packing and are willing and responsible in the use of their weapons.
Yeah, but the law only says that "sheep get to shoot when feelinng threatened" and nothing about being responsible int he use of their weapons.
Trading one problem from another at best. And odds are it'll just create more problems in general. When are they going to start attacking the problem and not the symptom?
the state of georgia requires that you attempt to flee before responding with deadly force...ie if there is a window behind you you must try to jump out before you can attempt to defend yourself, and you CANNOT use deadly force to defend others(even if they do not have an escape route)
so to use a hypothetical scenario....you are in your apt relaxing...fellow with a shotgun kicks in door...you must try to escape out window before using deadly force...it there are others in the apt...well its up to the police to defend them.....if he heads down the hall on the way to the kids room and you step behind him, then you must try to leave through the open door behind you(open avenue of escape!)...BEFORE you can use deadly force(use of deadly force to defend others is a privilege reserved for Law enforcement...)
IN SF california this past week a police officer was shot and killed as a bank robbery suspect fled out the door of the bank (with gun drawn)...police are not allowed to fire first...(the officer leaves a wife and two grade school children)
there should be measures to prevent irresponsible use of firearms...but there should also be the allowance for responsible use as well....
I think there is a lot of leeway in the florida law(abit too much) but it is a bad application of a good idea...although now when you are being car-jacked, you dont have to try to crawl out the far door first...
I believe Heinlein said"an armed society is a polite society"
I think there is a lot of leeway in the florida law(abit too much) but it is a bad application of a good idea...although now when you are being car-jacked, you dont have to try to crawl out the far door first...
I think the key things is the first half of this statement. This is just a bad a law as requireing you to run instead of defending yourself. however, a bad law replacing a bad law doesn't make it a good law. This is not an acceptable way of solving the problem.
It just always amazes me how the laws tend to the extremes instead of the moderate center.
It just always amazes me how the laws tend to the extremes instead of the moderate center.
I think it's partially because violent crime, inherently, is of an extreme nature. It's very difficult to pick out the moderate center when you're talking about defending your life.
I have to say that I agree with you. The intent of the law is not so bad. But the law itself falls quite short. Giving someone the implicit right and authority to use lethal force in any situation that they think endangers them is the slippery slope. I'm not saying that there will be blood in the streets. but the law doesn't solve a problem at all. It doesn't even address the symptom
I'm a gun proponent. I think that average citizen should be able to purchase a firearm and under certain circumstances carry it on their person. I believe in proper gun control via education and some restriction. This law doesn't help a gun wielder at all. It is the pendulum swining in the other direction
Where is this found in Georgia law? Code section 16-3-21 outlines when it is permissible to use force against another in Georgia, including lethal force, and mentions NOTHING about a duty to retreat. In fact, existing Georgia law already matches Florida's new law, in addition, Georgia has the 'Castle' law (16-3-23) that basically allows one to use lethal force against intruders who force their way in to your home. There are exceptions for starting fights, during the commission of a felony, and mutually agreed upon combat.
And the standard used is the 'reasonable man' standard: If a 'reasonable man' (as determined by a jury) would feel that he was at risk for serious injury or death, or the serious injury or death of another, he can use lethal force to defend himself or that other.
And a single female, approached by multiple males at night, making suggestive comments and refusing to back off, WOULD generally be considered reasonable to fear for her life, particularly if they refused to back off when warned. There are several books on the lawful use of lethal force, Massad Ayoob's "In the Gravest Extreme" being highly recommended, for anyone considering having a firearm.
Wow, this is a new one. I've heard so much about crazy shit going on in Florida that I completely missed this news. I'm still pissed someone put cuffs on a 5 year old.
Apperently this law got passed because our Gov'ner is from Texas. Sounds close to the old, "Needed killin' " law they had on the books until the 20'th century.
The thing about law, including this one, that I find comforting is that it's not black and white. Someone shoots up a bus of black kids, while not being bruised up from an assault is *going* to be arrested, even if she tells this story of fear. She'll be put on trial, and the law in question will be used as a defense. She will still be judged.
Personally I think it's a redundant law anyway. I always figured if I needed to use deadly force to defend myself then going on trial and pleading self defense was the price I would have to pay. I also always figured that if I killed someone while defending family, or home, and went to jail, then so be it. But I do have the philosophy of "I'm not dieing for property." Someone hops in my car, I'm hopping out. That's what insurance is for. If I'm placed in a position where I can't get out, then self defense comes into play. If someone dangerous gets between me and my kids, when I one day have them, then he'll almost have to shoot me. I have the Momma Grizzly instict.
This is a very interesting law, and I have, I think, some similar fears that you do. Primarily, what if a fearful citizen goes nuts with fear and opens fire, intending to hit the criminal, but instead harms a 3rd party?
What's interesting here, is that they do clarify the threat as, "creating a presumption that a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm exists under certain circumstances". It also goes on to say,
"providing that a person is justified in using deadly force under certain circumstances; declaring that a person has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be and the force is necessary to prevent death, great bodily harm, or the commission of a forcible felony;"
I think the first court case to determine what was a "reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm" as well as under what conditions force would be viewed as necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm will be interesting.
In your example above, cat calls and flirtation in a subway may not be a circumstance where reasonable people would hold that bodily harm was imminent. No weapons were drawn, and before she pulled out the gun, she was not threatened in any way.
I think the first court case to determine what was a "reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm" as well as under what conditions force would be viewed as necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm will be interesting.
I agree... I would love to see how they define "bodily harm"!!!!
Racial issues aside, I put old women and small children in "reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm" simply by my presence.
think... Hagrid. Or ZZ-Top.
So I should stay away from the pistol-packin' grandmas in FL, eh? I'd say skittish pistol-packin' grandmas, but I'm sure it's precisely the skittish ones that're packin'.
And yes, i think this is the Texas influence of good ol' Jeb.
I want to clarify that “you” in this post does not refer directly to you ‘V’. It refers to anyone who reads this post.
First of all does anyone have a link to the exact bill as signed by the Gov.?
Now…
Even as a gun owner myself, I find this law disturbing. Granted I live in NJ and this state has the tightest gun control laws in (I think) all 50 states. (ie: Even to use lethal force within your own house is difficult to do without facing criminal charges. If an intruder enters your house, before you shoot you MUST announce, “You are intruding on my property, leave peacefully or I will be forced to shoot” (or “Get out or I’ll shoot” for short). That person better also be committing a criminal act, because if you just shoot someone for a misdemeanor (like trespassing), you are subject to criminal charges. If you do shoot and they die, they better die INSIDE your house. If they walk/stumble/crawl or there’s evidence they died outside of your home, you will be investigated and possibly brought up on criminal charges.) All that said, most people would think I’d be happy to see a law like this, but I’m not. I think it is a stupid law.
Most everyone will say, “If you threaten me or someone I care about, hell yeah I’d kill them.” However, saying it and doing it are 2 different things, and most people cannot follow through. If you are going to carry a weapon, you had better be ready and able to kill another human being if you are going to pull it from concealment. I have read in too many news articles of someone being robbed, carjacked, raped, or whatever and pulled a weapon to “protect themselves” only to find out that they physically/mentally could not use it on their perpetrator. Their weapon was then taken by the perpetrator and used on them. In all honesty, they pulled the weapon to “scare off” the perpetrator when they thought they were going to “protect themselves.”
I would have to ask anyone who likes the idea of this law, “Have you ever killed someone?” Then I would have to ask them to think long and hard and tell me if they are mentally prepared to kill another human being.
Take this situation into consideration…
You and some people you truly care about (brother/sister/boyfriend/girlfriend/parents) are leaving a bar. Someone follows your group out and walks up to 1 these people you truly care about says “I’m gonna kill you” and throws a punch. Your loved one may “fear for their life.” According to what I understand of this law so far, if you have a concealed weapon and use it to protect your loved one, you are not protected by this law. From what I understand of it, it’s saying if you PERSONALLY fear your life you may use lethal force. Now, your loved one pulls a gun because they are “in fear of their life,” however they find out that they can’t mentally kill someone (or it is just wrestled out of their hands). Their perpetrator takes the gun from them and proceeds to shoot them dead. Legally, you still cannot use lethal force on this person because your life has not yet been threatened.
In the situation above, the individually that originally started the fight may now be protected by this law. In all rights, this person could argue that when your loved one pulled the weapon, it caused them to “feared for their life” and therefore used lethal force.
I think the NRA outdid themselves this time, and Florida’s government followed them right into the fire.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2005-05-01 06:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-01 06:33 pm (UTC)But if you like the law then you are welcome to move down there. I think its a great experiment in social darwinism.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-02 01:58 am (UTC)Actually, no, the law is quite reasonable -- if you read the article, it admits (in passing, true, and doesn't call attention to it, but admits it nevertheless) that it authorizes use of deadly force for self-defense, anywhere, if you are in fear for your life. The onus is still upon you, the law-abiding citizen, should you have to shoot somebody, to convince the police, the DA, and possibly a judge and jury that you were, in fact, legitimately in fear for your life. If you shoot some ninety-year-old lady at the supermarket for taking eleven items through the "10 or less" express lane, (a) they're going to throw you in jail just as fast after this law as before, and (b) if you're that fucking bugnuts, you were probably going to shoot the old lady whether the law passed or not.
If you're at all familiar with the history of gun control legislation and the hyperbolic hysteria used by the left against EVERY law that makes it even slightly easier for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against criminals, the arguments this article is making against this law are instantly recognizeable as PRECISELY those that were used to predict hot and cold running gun battles in the streets and gutters filled with blood before Florida passed its shall-issue concealed-carry law .... predictions which, in Florida as in every other state in which such laws have passed, conspicuously failed to come to pass.
They even go so far as to invoke the specter of Dodge City -- in blissful ignorance of the historically documentable fact that in Dodge City at the height of the roaring days of the Wild West, despite the bloodsoaked portrayals merrily portrayed by Hollywood in the quest for action and excitement, the rate of violent crime was actually far lower than in many modern-day cities. (Of course, if you did something stupid like going walking through the worst parts of town alone after midnight, or going carousing in the seedier saloons on Saturday night with a .45 and an attitude, you were probably in for trouble. But, honestly, well, DUH!)
The honest truth of the matter is that "turning [much of, say, modern-day Dade or Broward Counties] into Dodge City" would probably be a big improvement.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-03 04:13 pm (UTC)If you don't like the fact that there is a law that requires you to flee intead of defending yourself with lethal force then attack the bad law instead of creating another bad one.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-03 04:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-04 12:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-01 06:46 pm (UTC)While I certainly do see a law like this presents the very real opportunity to have people duking it out in the streets or shooting each other on sight, I can also see the other side.
How many people have shot or injured others while that other person was in the midst of an act of malice against them, and then faced a lawsuit for it? Sadly, the answer is way too many. Maybe not so much in Georgia, but in other parts of the country you can have civil suits levied against you because you were defending yourself.
Frankly, I don't want to have to retreat and let a thief take my car, rob my house, rape me or anything else in order to maintain the peace. If someone comes at me or someone I love with the intent to harm in *any* way, I want, and thoroughly intend, to fucking end their life. Period. And I don't want to be sued by their estate after the fact.
If you look at our current system you've got some major obstacles to violent offenders even serving time for their crimes. It only happens *if* the policy catch them. And then the court system has to actually impose real sentences, which doesn't happen *nearly* often enough in my mind. And then we've got a prison system that is over-run and those same violent offenders are turned back out into the streets well before they were supposed to be, much less when they *ought* to be.
Such was the case with the trial I was on the jury for last spring. A known violent offender (he had served time for armed robbery and attempted murder) was released early due to prison overcrowding and (less than 3 months after his release) then shot and killed a laundrymat owner in cold blood, in the middle of the day, in front of 14 witnesses.
Now I'm not saying that if a law like the one in Florida existed here, that crime wouldn't have happened. Not at all. But for me, as a citizen, I want the right to fight back and protect myself against crimes like that because frankly, I don't trust the police or our justice system to function properly. I want the right to kill someone if they legitimately threaten me. And I want the right to do so without the fear that person can come back and prosecute me because I turned their crotch into something resembling lasagna.
That's just my perspective though, maybe I'm not understanding something...?
no subject
Date: 2005-05-01 07:07 pm (UTC)When you can find a way to resoanble define "legitimately threaten" then I'll be more than happy to support this law. but the way it is currently written, you are able to use lethal force for assault. By the way assault is "I felt in fear for my life."
Here is a scenario: 5 young black kids with a boom box are being rambunctius and rowdy on the subway home. They are the only ones on the car except for a white girl about their same age. They start cat calling and wolf whistling at her. Several of them say things like "Girl you are fine.!" and "I'd love to get a piece of that ass." and other lews and suggestive comments of what they would like to do. One of the guy walks up to her. She pulls out a gun and says "stay back or I'll shoot". The guy backs off and says "Woman are you crazy!". The rest of the boys yell unpleasant comments such as "That bitch is crazy" or "I'll fuck you up Bitch" and things like that. She unloads her gun on the boy that orginally approached her, killing him. The other boys scamble to get away from her and she unloads on them as well, killing a few and wounding others.
Under the law, she is completely innocent of no wrong doing. And I don't see it that way.
Its a very veyr slippery slope. And erring on the side of caution is not the solution. You've made it perfectly clear that you don't trust the police to keep me safe. Neither do I. But I don't trust the average judgement of the collective populace to keep me safe either. And this law puts that judgement into their hands which is no better and allows for more opportunity for abuse.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-01 08:11 pm (UTC)However, let me just say that if I were in the place of that girl on the subway, I would've most certainly pulled a gun if approached in such a manner. Now, I wouldn't have started firing just because they started calling me names, but I do stand by my one-warning rule:
When I feel threatened by someone I communicate that to them: i.e. "If you touch me one more time, things are going to get ugly up in here." If they then come at me a second time in a threatening manner, then absolutely, I will use force. And I will use lethal force.
I am not one of those people who thinks the best approach when someone is breaking into my home is to shoot the intruder in the kneecap or arm or whatever. In my house, the targets are shot in the head, groin, heart and stomach. With a shotgun.
A shotgun that I keep loaded, with the safety off, and propped up beside my bed. And let me tell you, I will not be trying to go out the window to escape. Fuck that shit.
I do see the potential for abuse at the hands of the mass public. But I'll tell you what, I'm fed up past belief with violent offenders and I think it's time they learned to change their ways or die.
I admit that part of my issue results from having been a victim of violent crime in my past. It probably makes me less-than-level-headedly passionate about the subject. I also feel that I am able to discern a credable threat vs. being pissed off that someone stole my parking spot. I also realize that, unfortunately, not everyone is able to do that.
Perhaps they should amend the law by saying that the person has to be within a certain distance from you (say 10-15 feet), has to be facing you, has to have made some indication of an intent to harm you and has to have been persistent despite initial warnings. I'd have no problem with wording like that. (Except for the distance when involved in the home. In my mind, if they are in my home without my express permission, hunting season is open game.)
My main point is that I don't think it's fair just to totally say the laws are insane. Not well-worded, absolutely, but not insane.
you stay in your state, and i'll stay in mine
Date: 2005-05-03 03:21 pm (UTC)Man - if you can't face a gang-banger without drawing down in a public place, I'm REALLY glad you're living 400 miles away. To my mind, drawing a firearm in that circumstance qualifies you as dangerously psychotic. Firing only puts the exclamation point on it.
Think about it, would you REALLY want to shoot someone in the subway? With 4-5 of his friends within 30 feet? How many do you think you could take down? How many by-standers would get ventilated? Keep in mind that you should never draw unless you are prepared to fire.
NOW I'm really frightened ...sigh...
What would Gandhi do? What would ML King do? What would Jesus do? What would Bryan Boitano do?
Sounds good to me.
Date: 2005-05-04 01:42 am (UTC)What I do want to do is protect myself. I'm sorry but I don't tolerate anyone putting their hands on me without my consent. I have wiped the floor with people for less offensive acts. I will always look for the most expeditious way possible to end any conflict and if that opportunity is through the court system or some less-'dramatic' solution, then so be it. But if it comes down to me or them, I will, by whatever means necessary, do what I have to do to ensure my own survival. That includes the use of lethal force.
As for bystanders, they don't really apply to
And yes, I do know the difference between my ass and a hole in the ground and I learned rules like 'never touch another man's gun' and 'don't draw unless you are prepared to fire' and take them quite seriously. Let's not be so patronizing. Just because we disagree on this issue does not mean you're dealing with someone who hasn't thought through the potential consequences of such actions. It just means I've thought them through and reached a different conclusion than you did.
If shooting someone who threatens me with physical harm as well as taking out as many of his cronies as possible along with him (even if they do get me in the end) makes me a dangerous psychotic, then so be it. I've been told for a while now that I'm crazy, I've grown comfortable with it.
But for the sake of hearing out the other side, tell me: In the same scenerio that
Or maybe people should fucking learn the hard way to keep their fucking hands to themselves.
Oh, and about Ghandi, MLK and Jesus? They all wound up dying as martyrs. While I respect their viewpoints and passion, that's a sacrifice I'm not willing to make.
Re: Sounds like escalation to me
Date: 2005-05-04 02:39 am (UTC)God forbid none of that defuses the situation, she's unarmed, and she gets raped. This is a terrible outcome - but even at that, NO ONE HAS BEEN KILLED. If the young lady pulls a piece, she's just escalated the stakes. It may be true that her odds of escaping the situation with honor and dignity intact just went up, but so did the odds of SOMEONE winding up in the hospital or the morgue. I don't have numbers available (I seldom consider this unless actively drawn into a debate), but my common sense tells me the young lady isn't likely to end up dead unless she does someone grievous harm.
My fundamental disagreement with the "armed society" position is that guns offer no defense. A firearm is a psychological and offensive weapon, but offers NO protection against harm. I'm much more in favor of allowing everyone to carry 3 feet of steel - at least swords 1) aren't ranged, and 2) allow you to defend yourself from someone similarly armed without necesarily killing them.
I'm in favor of carrying tazers, or mace, or something similarly non-lethal, even though they don't actually offer any defense either.
Finally, at the end of the day, I'm most strongly in favor of acting as though we live in a civilized society, rather than acting as though we're living in a spaghetti western.
Re: Sounds like escalation to me
Date: 2005-05-04 03:40 am (UTC)You evidently have no idea what it is to face a threat like that. And I do. That is, ultimately, the big difference between us: You wish people would stop 'acting as though we're living in a spaghetti western' and I know from personal experience that anyone who thinks we live in a civilized society is deluding themselves. The reality is something much closer to a sociological horror story.
I'd rather take my chances against an intruder with my shotgun than with 3 feet of steel because I can end that confrontation once and for all from 15 feet, never giving the intruder the chance to get close enough to take my weapon and use it against me. If he dies, that's his problem. He should've considered that consequence before breaking and entering.
my common sense tells me the young lady isn't likely to end up dead unless she does someone grievous harm.
If your common sense is telling you things like this, you ought to read the newspapers more. Women *routinely* get assaulted AND killed when doing absolutely nothing wrong at all.
I guess I'm just lacking in compassion because I really don't fucking care if I kill a rapist or a murderer. Good riddance to bad rubbish. Better that my tax dollars go towards his funeral than his jail time. I do value life, but only of those individuals who contribute to society instead of trying to take advantage of it.
I think with this comment, it's been sufficiently proven to me that we're living on two alternate planes of reality, not just two different states and that any further discussion would be an exercise in futility.
I'm not changing your mind and you're definitely not changing mine. I think we're just going to have to pick our kind of crazy and leave it be.
Re: Sounds like escalation to me
Date: 2005-05-04 05:52 am (UTC)First, I have been in the type of situation discussed above - though I've never quite been perceived as a "pushover" (bearing something of a resemblence to Hagrid from harry potter, or ZZTop..). That aside, I have been in "bad neighborhoods" at odd hours of the middle of the night, and had occasion to say, "Oh. oops. This could get ugly." Eddie Maise and I were at Georgia State in the middle of the Rodney King "disturbances", for instance.
Intruders in the home are, indeed, a very different story. I would not advocate confronting an intruder in the home with a bat or a sword. I would ALSO caution against indiscriminantly shooting an intruder - mistakes are made far too often.
On the topic of "routine" slayings of random young ladies minding their own busines... We definitely have different definitions of "routine". We're back to perceptions of small risks - Our young lady is 4-5 times more likely to die of an accident than homicide, and about 50% more likely to do herself in. And that's any homicide - getting killed by a stranger is pretty unusual among homicides (36% for females, 50% for males). (CDC and DoJ numbers - ain't the web wonderful?) And you know what - the odds of a female being murdered by someone she doesn't know is approximately 1/100,000 per year.
So yeah, maybe we do live in different planes of reality. Or maybe it's outlook and expectation - I think I live in a more hopeful place than your socialogical horror. And maybe i'm a bit more likely to end up a martyr - but if it's martyrdom to the value of life, even a rapist or murderer's life, then I'll accept (though not invite) that margin of error.
Re: Sounds like escalation to me
Date: 2005-05-06 05:20 pm (UTC)But what happens when other people are acting like they are in a spaghetti western in your presence?
Two real cases, and one hypothetical:
1) Grandma has a concealed carry permit and is packing in WalMart. Guy comes in and starts slashing up one of the employees. Grandma pulls the gun, and fortionately didn't have to shoot, but stops the criminal until the police arrive. If she had been forced to shoot, without this law, she goes to jail. And the employee is probably killed.
2) An elderly man is car-jacked. He's able to get out of the car and get away. His wife is still in the car and can't, and is later found dead. Under the previous law, since he had a route to escape, he couldn't fight back (use lethal force) against the attacker. This prompted a law change in Georgia to treat your car the same as your home for self-defense purposes.
3) Hypothetical: Someone grabs one of your little girls and starts dragging her into a car. Should you or your wife be permitted to kill or seriously injure him without going to prison? (There are plenty of related hypotheticals about, "Should you be required to flee if your child is imminent danger of harm?")
Frankly, if someone wants to use a gun (or a baseball bat or even just their fists) to protect me when someone is threatening my life, more power to them. And if I have the opportunity to protect someone else's life or limb, I want the option to be able to do so without going to jail.
(And I think the protect others is the most important part of this revision to the law...)
And I'll bet we don't get a dozen cases successfully invoking this defense within the next year.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-02 02:03 am (UTC)Wrong. Under the law, if she shot the boy after he backed off, as you describe, she was clearly not in fear for her life -- he'd backed off -- and she's guilty of probably at least first-degree homicide even before opening fire on the others too. There is not even the slightest shade of grey in your scenario -- you cannot shoot someone in the back as he's fleeing and expect your lawyer to argue self-defense with a straight face in court.
You really, really haven't thought this through. You're letting the gun-phobics sway you with an emotional appeal to panic that doesn't stand up to even the most cursory scrutiny.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-02 05:45 pm (UTC)Even if she was considered guilty and liable for the crimes and torts committed, and even if she was processed through the legal system, and ended up in prison, and put up on death row and executed for committing a massacre, ultimately, you've just got a bunch of dead bodies, because someone believed they had the right to shoot someone else.
I'm not a gun-phobic. I've been shooting since I was in my single-digit years. I've been around guns my entire life, I've shot a variety of them, and I can even hit the broad side of a barn.
Objectively, though, this is not a fair law.
Will gang members get fair representation for shooting other gang members that threaten to kill them?
Will a white person be given special dispensation if they shoot minorities, because minorities are characterized as more prone to criminal activity?
What happens when someone shoots a minor?
From a detached perspective, it will be very interesting to see what happens. From an involved and human perspective, it's about the saddest thing I've ever heard. Because people are stupid, and stupid people having license to use guns outside of a military environment is a really bad, bad, bad idea.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-02 06:11 pm (UTC)Will a white person be given special dispensation if they shoot minorities, because minorities are characterized as more prone to criminal activity?
Extremely unlikely. If they can't show that they had good and reasonable cause to fear death or serious injury at the hands of an attacker, this law doesn't grant them squat. Whether the jury is racist and predisposed to find against a minority defendant is a totally separate issue; any bias on that score is pre-existing in the jury and is not introduced by this law.
Will gang members get fair representation for shooting other gang members that threaten to kill them?
Since the law does not at any point say "...except gangbangers" (see above), then yes, if they're being threatened with death or grievous bodily harm by a rival gang and they get their chops in first, I suppose they would. And you know what? If they do ... I don't have a problem with that. Personally, I'm all in favor of gangbangers killing each other. It means less gangbangers to endanger the rest of us and less drugs on the streets.
I have a friend who is a firearms instructor in LA, who seriously proposed giving free basic pistol classes to gangbangers, on the theory that if they could actually hit what they aimed at, they'd kill more of each other and less innocent bystanders. And honestly, I think he had a valid point.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-02 06:56 pm (UTC)Since, however, you have indicated quite clearly that you are okay with people killing each other, I do not expect that you will be capable of easily seeing the problems with this law.
"Your Honor, my client felt that Officer Smith was threatening his life, and so he stood his ground and used the rights accorded to him by the laws of the state of Florida."
The main problem with this whole law is that it is based on something purely subjective that cannot be quantified, and consistent enforcement of the law is going to be impossible. People don't need more excuses to commit murder.
This country is being run by the fucking Church of Alvis.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-02 07:04 pm (UTC)Excuse me, that's not what I said. What I said was that if gangbangers are going to kill people, I'd rather they killed each other than innocent bystanders. (And for that matter, I'd rather see intended victims kill criminal attackers than criminals kill victims.)
If you're going to resort to putting words into my mouth in order to defend your position, this discussion is over. Goodbye.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-02 07:46 pm (UTC)Don't try to come off like you haven't said something that you have clearly said numerous times. I apologize if my pointing out what you said bothers you.
In bold type, you stated that you do not have a problem with, and are in favor of, gang members killing each other. How many ways can that be taken? Where did I put words in your mouth? Any indication of them killing each other instead of bystanders is a sentiment of your friend you reference, and not yourself.
Having said that, you still have yet to address the pure subjectivity that the law is based upon, the unfairness of the current legal system in regard to minorities and how this new law fits into that situation, and the implications this law has upon homicide involving minors. It's well and good to think that everyone can pick up a gun and be responsible with it, but it's not very realistic.
This is a state that cuffed a five year old for acting up in class. Next time she picks up and brandishes a pencil threateningly, the teacher can just blow her head off and be done with it. That's one less potential future gang member, right?
no subject
Date: 2005-05-01 07:29 pm (UTC)Yeah, but the law only says that "sheep get to shoot when feelinng threatened" and nothing about being responsible int he use of their weapons.
Trading one problem from another at best. And odds are it'll just create more problems in general. When are they going to start attacking the problem and not the symptom?
no subject
Date: 2005-05-02 01:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-01 07:16 pm (UTC)so to use a hypothetical scenario....you are in your apt relaxing...fellow with a shotgun kicks in door...you must try to escape out window before using deadly force...it there are others in the apt...well its up to the police to defend them.....if he heads down the hall on the way to the kids room and you step behind him, then you must try to leave through the open door behind you(open avenue of escape!)...BEFORE you can use deadly force(use of deadly force to defend others is a privilege reserved for Law enforcement...)
IN SF california this past week a police officer was shot and killed as a bank robbery suspect fled out the door of the bank (with gun drawn)...police are not allowed to fire first...(the officer leaves a wife and two grade school children)
there should be measures to prevent irresponsible use of firearms...but there should also be the allowance for responsible use as well....
I think there is a lot of leeway in the florida law(abit too much) but it is a bad application of a good idea...although now when you are being car-jacked, you dont have to try to crawl out the far door first...
I believe Heinlein said"an armed society is a polite society"
no subject
Date: 2005-05-01 07:27 pm (UTC)I think the key things is the first half of this statement. This is just a bad a law as requireing you to run instead of defending yourself. however, a bad law replacing a bad law doesn't make it a good law. This is not an acceptable way of solving the problem.
It just always amazes me how the laws tend to the extremes instead of the moderate center.
*sigh*
no subject
Date: 2005-05-01 08:14 pm (UTC)I think it's partially because violent crime, inherently, is of an extreme nature. It's very difficult to pick out the moderate center when you're talking about defending your life.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-03 04:20 pm (UTC)I'm a gun proponent. I think that average citizen should be able to purchase a firearm and under certain circumstances carry it on their person. I believe in proper gun control via education and some restriction. This law doesn't help a gun wielder at all. It is the pendulum swining in the other direction
Its extremism pure and simple.
Duty to retreat?
Date: 2005-05-18 09:46 pm (UTC)And the standard used is the 'reasonable man' standard: If a 'reasonable man' (as determined by a jury) would feel that he was at risk for serious injury or death, or the serious injury or death of another, he can use lethal force to defend himself or that other.
And a single female, approached by multiple males at night, making suggestive comments and refusing to back off, WOULD generally be considered reasonable to fear for her life, particularly if they refused to back off when warned. There are several books on the lawful use of lethal force, Massad Ayoob's "In the Gravest Extreme" being highly recommended, for anyone considering having a firearm.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-01 08:40 pm (UTC)Apperently this law got passed because our Gov'ner is from Texas. Sounds close to the old, "Needed killin' " law they had on the books until the 20'th century.
The thing about law, including this one, that I find comforting is that it's not black and white. Someone shoots up a bus of black kids, while not being bruised up from an assault is *going* to be arrested, even if she tells this story of fear. She'll be put on trial, and the law in question will be used as a defense. She will still be judged.
Personally I think it's a redundant law anyway. I always figured if I needed to use deadly force to defend myself then going on trial and pleading self defense was the price I would have to pay. I also always figured that if I killed someone while defending family, or home, and went to jail, then so be it. But I do have the philosophy of "I'm not dieing for property." Someone hops in my car, I'm hopping out. That's what insurance is for. If I'm placed in a position where I can't get out, then self defense comes into play. If someone dangerous gets between me and my kids, when I one day have them, then he'll almost have to shoot me. I have the Momma Grizzly instict.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-01 09:22 pm (UTC)Here is the actual text of the law.
What's interesting here, is that they do clarify the threat as, "creating a presumption that a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm exists under certain circumstances". It also goes on to say,
"providing that a person is justified in using deadly force under certain circumstances; declaring that a person has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be and the force is necessary to prevent death, great bodily harm, or the commission of a forcible felony;"
I think the first court case to determine what was a "reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm" as well as under what conditions force would be viewed as necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm will be interesting.
In your example above, cat calls and flirtation in a subway may not be a circumstance where reasonable people would hold that bodily harm was imminent. No weapons were drawn, and before she pulled out the gun, she was not threatened in any way.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-02 01:27 pm (UTC)I agree... I would love to see how they define "bodily harm"!!!!
I frighten old women and small children
Date: 2005-05-03 03:13 pm (UTC)think... Hagrid. Or ZZ-Top.
So I should stay away from the pistol-packin' grandmas in FL, eh? I'd say skittish pistol-packin' grandmas, but I'm sure it's precisely the skittish ones that're packin'.
And yes, i think this is the Texas influence of good ol' Jeb.
..sigh.. they're all crazy, the americans. crazy.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-02 01:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-04 06:31 pm (UTC)First of all does anyone have a link to the exact bill as signed by the Gov.?
Now…
Even as a gun owner myself, I find this law disturbing. Granted I live in NJ and this state has the tightest gun control laws in (I think) all 50 states. (ie: Even to use lethal force within your own house is difficult to do without facing criminal charges. If an intruder enters your house, before you shoot you MUST announce, “You are intruding on my property, leave peacefully or I will be forced to shoot” (or “Get out or I’ll shoot” for short). That person better also be committing a criminal act, because if you just shoot someone for a misdemeanor (like trespassing), you are subject to criminal charges. If you do shoot and they die, they better die INSIDE your house. If they walk/stumble/crawl or there’s evidence they died outside of your home, you will be investigated and possibly brought up on criminal charges.) All that said, most people would think I’d be happy to see a law like this, but I’m not. I think it is a stupid law.
Most everyone will say, “If you threaten me or someone I care about, hell yeah I’d kill them.” However, saying it and doing it are 2 different things, and most people cannot follow through. If you are going to carry a weapon, you had better be ready and able to kill another human being if you are going to pull it from concealment. I have read in too many news articles of someone being robbed, carjacked, raped, or whatever and pulled a weapon to “protect themselves” only to find out that they physically/mentally could not use it on their perpetrator. Their weapon was then taken by the perpetrator and used on them. In all honesty, they pulled the weapon to “scare off” the perpetrator when they thought they were going to “protect themselves.”
I would have to ask anyone who likes the idea of this law, “Have you ever killed someone?” Then I would have to ask them to think long and hard and tell me if they are mentally prepared to kill another human being.
Take this situation into consideration…
You and some people you truly care about (brother/sister/boyfriend/girlfriend/parents) are leaving a bar. Someone follows your group out and walks up to 1 these people you truly care about says “I’m gonna kill you” and throws a punch. Your loved one may “fear for their life.” According to what I understand of this law so far, if you have a concealed weapon and use it to protect your loved one, you are not protected by this law. From what I understand of it, it’s saying if you PERSONALLY fear your life you may use lethal force. Now, your loved one pulls a gun because they are “in fear of their life,” however they find out that they can’t mentally kill someone (or it is just wrestled out of their hands). Their perpetrator takes the gun from them and proceeds to shoot them dead. Legally, you still cannot use lethal force on this person because your life has not yet been threatened.
In the situation above, the individually that originally started the fight may now be protected by this law. In all rights, this person could argue that when your loved one pulled the weapon, it caused them to “feared for their life” and therefore used lethal force.
I think the NRA outdid themselves this time, and Florida’s government followed them right into the fire.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-04 06:32 pm (UTC)