Florida legislators OK opening fire on criminals.

Posted by Les on Thursday, April 07, 2005 at 12:21 PM. Read 1590 times. Tags: ,
{name} pic

Just when I think the politicians down in Florida can’t get anymore insane than they already are they prove me wrong by passing legislation that allows people to open fire whenever they see a threat.

MIAMI (AFP) - Florida’s legislature has approved a bill that would give residents the right to open fire against anyone they perceive as a threat in public, instead of having to try to avoid a conflict as under prevailing law.

Outraged opponents say the law will encourage Floridians to open fire first and ask questions later, fostering a sort of statewide Wild West shootout mentality. Supporters argue that criminals will think twice if they believe they are likely to be promptly shot when they assault someone.

Republican Governor Jeb Bush, who has said he plans to sign the bill, says it is “a good, commonsense, anti-crime issue.”

Current state law allows residents to “shoot to kill if their property, such as their home or car, is invaded by an unknown assailant.”

But it also states that if a resident is confronted or threatened in a public place, he or she must first try to avoid the confrontation or flee before taking any violent step in self defense against an assailant.

I haven’t seen the full text of the law yet so it’s hard to say just what the legal definition of a “threat” is, but given the fact that I tend to intimidate people with my shaved head and Amish biker beard I think I’ll have to make up some t-shirts for my next visit to Florida that say “Please don’t shoot me. I’m not a terrorist. I’m just a tourist and I mean you no harm.”

Not surprisingly the bill was backed by the NRA and passed easily in both Republican controlled houses. I guess those jokes about how the Florida heat will affect your brain are true after all.

Thanks to JPV for emailing me the news item.

Comments:

Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 >

Chari United States Posted on 04/07/2005 at 01:59 PM

Chari pic

I just read somewhere the other day, “It’s not the heat; it’s the stupidity”. How apropo.

Bachalon United States Posted on 04/07/2005 at 03:12 PM

Bachalon pic

I think it would be funny if a person who was aggressively evangelizing was shot.

“He was following me and talking in a loud voice. I felt threatened, and now it’s my right to shoot when I feel so.”

decrepitoldfool United States Posted on 04/07/2005 at 04:31 PM

decrepitoldfool pic

Les’ t-shirt:

*TERRORIST*
*TOURIST*

I dunno, Les… they’re pretty similar.  You could be shot by a dyslexic redneck.

Actually I’m about 51% in favor of both concealed-carry and self-defense laws, provided they are coupled with some training and screening.  You can’t drive a car without a license, and there are some minimal standards for that.

Criminals are well aware they usually have nothing to fear from their victims.  They have no reason to be afraid of the cops or the courts, either.

Shooting someone, under any circumstances, is one of those “you’d better be right” dealies.  Or, it should be.

Iolite United States Posted on 04/07/2005 at 05:29 PM

Iolite pic

Mmmmmm...those yahoos on Stormfront insist that I am threatening just because I’m a minority.  So what happens if an innocent Black guy is walking down the street minding his own business and just happens to be behind a lady--can she shoot him for feeling threatend?  What if someone is in a store and they reach into their pocket for a wallet, but the clerk thinks they are reaching for a gun and kills the poor guy?  A similar case happened not to long ago in New York with an immigrant and the cops; the guy was reaching for his wallet, the cops mistook the movement, and now there’s a sad mother loud there somewhere.  There’s just so many ways that this law can go wrong.

 Signature 

<42><

jonesy United States Posted on 04/07/2005 at 05:32 PM

jonesy pic

Guess James Randi had better keep his head down. Some might consider him a threat to the moronic majority…

I think it would be funny if a person who was aggressively evangelizing was shot.

So, Mormon missionaries are “in season” in Florida. Hmmm… there might be an advantage to this law.

Infidel United States Posted on 04/07/2005 at 06:07 PM

Infidel pic

In my opinion, that Yahoo article is more than a little misleading, particularly the phrase “perceive as a threatâ€?.  The text of the bill reads “a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or anotherâ€?, which basically means that if some asshole looks at you funny or even punches you square in the nose, you don’t get to haul out the magnum and waste the guy.  He has to be threatening your life.  For the most part all the bill does is remove the duty to retreat that the current law requires: if the aforementioned bad guy attacks me with deadly force, I first have to try and back off.  Those of you who are thinking that this will lead to blood in the streets of Florida, try and keep in mind that such laws are already in place (I’m pretty sure, at least) in states like Washington, not to mention that the duty to retreat doesn’t apply to someone’s home or vehicle (the so called “castle doctrineâ€?), and I haven’t read a lot of stories where some redneck homeowner shoots 12 year old unarmed intruders without warning.

There’s a lot of people out there who want to demonize gun owners, and for some reason I just don’t understand why.  These people are not crazed, bloodthirsty maniacs, they’re people who live in a country with a lot of violent crime and simply want the right to defend themselves effectively.  Case in point: according to what I’m reading right now, in Florida from 1987 (when they legalized concealed carry) through 1997, only one permit holder out of 350,000 was convicted of homicide.  Doesn’t sound particularly Wild West to me.  Of course, I’m reading that on guncite.com, an obvious 2nd amendment supporter, so take that with a grain of salt if you need to.  Sort of like watching a Michael Moore movie …

By the way, excellent site, Les.  I’ve been lurking about for several months now and this is my first post – kinda been looking for the right story to comment on, and I guess this is it.  Something I’d been wondering for a while is what stance people around here would have on gun control – there doesn’t seem to be a lot of discussion about it.  And in case anybody’s wondering, I’m not a dyed-in-the-wool arch-conservative bible-thumping NRA member.  Quite the opposite.  Well, not quite the opposite.

 Signature 

_________________________
Infidel - Defender of Humanity

GeekMom United States Posted on 04/07/2005 at 08:04 PM

GeekMom pic

Hi, Infidel, and welcome.  Great name. wink

As for myself, I don’t want to demonize gun owners either, but on the other hand I can’t get on board with the NRA’s complete denial that widespread access to guns has any effect on crime rates.  If guns don’t kill people, but people kill people, then why did they bother with metal detectors at the Republican convention, for example?

Yes, people kill people, but it takes a lot longer, with more personal risk as a deterrent, to do it with a rock.

Les United States Posted on 04/07/2005 at 09:11 PM

Les pic

Truth be told I’m not out to have all guns banned as I largely don’t have a problem with their reasonable use and I admitted that I hadn’t seen the text of this new law. There’s plenty of hunters on both sides of my family and I was trained in how to shoot a rifle by my grandfather so I’m not opposed to gun ownership in and of itself.

My reaction is largely due to the fact that we just watched a lot of people act very stupid down in Florida (and elsewhere) over this whole Terri Schiavo thing and tossing about terms such as “Judicial Homicide” and mailing death threats to Michael Schiavo. I suspect some of those folks would argue that Michael was clearly a perceived threat to the life of his “disabled” wife and might feel justified in putting this new law to the test had it been in place at the time that whole sideshow was in full swing.

I guess I’m just opposed to stupid people owning guns than gun ownership in general.

 Signature 

All I know is the wine lasts longer when you don’t gotta share it with someone
All I know is my steak tastes better when I take my steak tastes better pill
-- I Feel Fantastic, Jonathan Coulton

Socialist Swine Canada Posted on 04/08/2005 at 12:02 AM

Socialist Swine pic

The way I see it, if people who vote for Jeb Bush want to shoot each other, well that’s fine with me.  I’m just going to stay away from Florida...and Texas...and Alabama...and well pretty much any state that isn’t California, New York, or in New England.  I still feel like people are in general reasonable in those places (this is not to say that everyone outside of those states are unreasonable, I just feel really sorry for those of you who still think that rationality is a virtue).

GeekMom United States Posted on 04/08/2005 at 08:25 AM

GeekMom pic

Awww, Swinie, does this mean you won’t come visit us in Texas?  Come on, Austin is the liberal oasis in this here Red Sea ... grin

Justice United States Posted on 04/08/2005 at 09:12 AM

Justice pic

Though I can see the possibilty of isolated incidents of idiots taking this new law too far (which would in part be caused by this seriously irresponsible article), I also see a basic right to defend oneself. I’m a fairly small woman. If someone has me backed in a corner trying to kill me or cause me serious harm, I don’t want to take any chances that person can get back up and come at me again. I might be callous, but when it comes down to the innocent or the potential murderer, I cannot seem to find a problem with the murderer catching a bullet between the eyes.

Incidentally, I prefer old fashioned weapons and despise the NRA.

SteveR United States Posted on 04/08/2005 at 09:37 AM

SteveR pic

Justice writes: “.. I cannot seem to find a problem with the murderer catching a bullet between the eyes. Incidentally, I prefer old fashioned weapons and despise the NRA.”

Actually, you seem to AGREE with the NRA - they support your right to put that bullet between the eyes of the murderer.

Justice United States Posted on 04/08/2005 at 10:01 AM

Justice pic

Whoa, there, SteveR. I would suggest some care in throwing out statements like that before you begin to look like the Straw Man out of Wizard of Oz. The KKK supports my right to freedom of speech, but you might have seen me protesting one of their Indianapolis rally’s. I didn’t get a chance to catch the one they held here.

I say again, and mean it whole-heartedly, I despise the NRA.

Chad United States Posted on 04/08/2005 at 12:15 PM

Chad pic

SS, you might want to avoid Massachusetts as well.  We have right-to-carry concealed weapons here too.  All you need is a proper permit.  A friend of mine has a permit and all he had to do was get a signature from the local law enforcement. 

I have little fear of people with legitimate weapons.  Most people I know have some kind of gun.  I have been to a range down in Florida and it was a public range with families in attendance.  The people I fear are those that have unregistered, illegal firearms without the proper training to use them.

Slick United States Posted on 04/08/2005 at 01:26 PM

Slick pic

Errm, Socialist Swine, you might want to avoid all parts of California that are not the city as well.  Those are generally all Right Wing Card Carrying NRA Members.  The only reason California usually appears as the Liberal state on the polls, is because the population is much more dense in the cities.

SteveR United States Posted on 04/08/2005 at 02:01 PM

SteveR pic

Justice writes: “ The KKK supports my right to freedom of speech, but you might have seen me protesting one of their Indianapolis rally’s. “

No strawman - I would assume that you support the right to free speech regardless of the KKK’s position, but how do you feel about the right to own firearms?

Justice United States Posted on 04/08/2005 at 05:56 PM

Justice pic

SteveR, What exactly is it that you are trying to get at? Just because I happen to agree with a couple of things the NRA supports, does not mean I “AGREE with the NRA” as you so generalized. I feel we should have the right to own weapons within reason, and that’s where I fall short of an NRA supporter. I am sure there are NRA members who go no further than I in my opinion, but the NRA generally supports arming people with weapons and ammunition that are completely unnecessary if not insane, such as machine guns and bullets capable of penetrating bullet-proof vests, and stockpiling as much as an individual can afford or acquire. Exactly whose side does that put them on? This is an organization motivated by money and politics and right-wing fanaticism hiding behind a mask of “keepers of the Second Amendment,” and led by a nut job old man who, with a different skin tone, would be on some terrorist watch list.

You seem set on finding some contradiction in my own convictions, but the fact that I happen to agree with a couple of things the NRA also supports absolutely does not contravene my rather hostile opposition to their organization.

Socialist Swine Canada Posted on 04/08/2005 at 06:51 PM

Socialist Swine pic

GM,

I’ve been to Austin, I really like it there.  So I shouldn’t say that I would avoid Texas at all cost.  Austin does seem to be a fine place.  As for Massachusetts I spent most of my early life there, so I feel pretty safe there too.  As for backcountry California.  It’s not gun ownership that I find troubling, most the people I know have guns as well, I just find it troubling that the gov’t of Florida is pretty much making vigilantism legal.  As for my refusal to go other places, that was more of the result of my frustration with all the attacks on education that seem to be coming from the red states.

binxwalker United States Posted on 04/08/2005 at 07:22 PM

binxwalker pic

Justice:
I think that I understand your comments re. “agreeing” with some points that the NRA makes, but it is always a little hard to tickle the dragon’s tail without getting burnt. I am a gun owner myself, but I really can’t think of a single issue that I agree with the NRA on because I think that they pervert all arguments that they make to support the gun manufacturers. They pander to the worst aspects of our society - just think back on Heston’s comments in Columbine. The thin veneer was pulled back from the NRA by their dottering, stupified leader to reveal what anyone with any sense already knew - they believe that guns are the answer to the innercity element that threatens their lily white lifestyles, i.e., those “bad elements.” “For God’s Sake, if we don’t have guns, whose gonna stop our little white girls from bein’ raped by those big black men?!” Enuff, I am ranting…

SteveR United States Posted on 04/08/2005 at 08:50 PM

SteveR pic

Justice writes: “ ..I feel we should have the right to own weapons within reason..”

Please define what ‘reason’ is.

Justice: “..but the NRA generally supports arming people with weapons and ammunition that are completely unnecessary if not insane, such as machine guns and bullets capable of penetrating bullet-proof vests..”

Again, who gets to define ‘unnecessary and insane’? The last time I checked, the only private citizens allowed to own fully automatic weapons were people with Federal Firearms Licenses. You and I could not legally own a fully automatic weapon,nor, IMO , should we be able to. (This is where I personally draw the line) Just about ANY centerfire rifle bullet will easily penetrate a bullet-proof vest - therefore, a lot of hunters stand to lose their guns if you had your way. ( I don’t think they would want you to be the one defining ‘within reason’)

Justice: “This is an organization motivated by money and politics..”

What special interest group ISN’T motivated by money and politics?

Justice: “You seem set on finding some contradiction...”

Not really. It’s just that it’s very unusual to encounter someone who believes it’s their right to shoot ‘a murderer between the eyes’, as you put it, and who also despises the NRA. Proving once again, that variety is the spice of life.

Justice United States Posted on 04/08/2005 at 10:45 PM

Justice pic

“Again, who gets to define ‘unnecessary and insane’?”

I do - for myself. When I am making the policies that effect your rights, then you can take issue with my definitions of ‘unnecessary and insane’.

“The last time I checked, . .”

We aren’t talking about what is. We are talking about what the NRA would have and do fight for.

“It’s just that it’s very unusual to encounter someone who believes it’s their right to shoot ‘a murderer between the eyes’, as you put it, and who also despises the NRA.”

Believe I have the right? Are you kidding me? I’m guessing you have never had to literally fight for your life. Let me assure you, should you ever be put in a kill or be killed situation, you will not be pondering whether or not you have the “right” to be the one who survives.

You find your encounter with me very unusual, but I find my encounter with you stunning. Your vision is so incredibly blurred on the line between my belief that I should have every right to defend myself to whatever extent necessary, from my refusal to back a group of moronic extremists who happen to also hold that ONE same opinion, and that is just… unbelievable.

Are you a card carrying NRA member, by chance?

Consigliere United States Posted on 04/09/2005 at 02:01 AM

Consigliere pic

Good intution SS.  Out here we like our swine served on a platter in 3 oz slices with a couple of eggs and some biscuits.  Best stay where they eat quiche. wink

 Signature 

To die one’s self is a thing that must be easy, & light of consequence; but to lose a part of one’s self--well, we know how deep that pang goes, we who have suffered that disaster, received that wound which cannot heal.
Mark Twain- Letter to Will Bowen, 11/4/1888

zilch Austria Posted on 04/09/2005 at 05:12 AM

zilch pic

Here in Austria, as in Europe in general, it is much more difficult for private citizens to purchase firearms and ammunition than in America.  There is also much less violent crime here, and although there are many reasons for that, one reason is almost certainly that it’s harder for criminals (and plain wackos) to get guns.

My uncle Bob, a card-carrying NRA member, thinks it’s ridiculous how easy it is to buy guns.  Then again, he voted Democratic for the first time in his life last election, so he’s obviously going soft.

Justice- I agree.  I too feel I should have the right to defend myself in extremis, and I too despise the NRA, although I understand their courses on gun safety are good.

 Signature 

You were born.  And so you’re free.  So happy birthday.
- Laurie Anderson

Socialist Swine Canada Posted on 04/09/2005 at 05:27 AM

Socialist Swine pic

Out here they just eat a lot of cows.  Us pigs are safe here despite the great number of guns.  Though it should be noted that our guns tend to only fire one shot at a time that tends to make them less efficient at doing away with me and my porcine friends.

zilch Austria Posted on 04/09/2005 at 07:08 AM

zilch pic

...our guns tend to only fire one shot at a time…

SS, you obviously live in some technologically forsaken place, like Canada…

 Signature 

You were born.  And so you’re free.  So happy birthday.
- Laurie Anderson

Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 >

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys


Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


<< Back to main