board77

Looks like Florida is making it easier to shoot people. I can't believe you had to 'retreat' before shooting, the way the law used to read!

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/04/06/State ... _let.shtml

Quote:

Legislature say's let the force be with you
BILL ALLOWS FORCE TO BE MET WITH FORCE: The measure, which has Gov. Bush's backing, breezes through both houses.
By STEVE BOUSQUET, Times Staff Writer
Published April 6, 2005

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


TALLAHASSEE - Under the watchful eye of the National Rifle Association, the Legislature on Tuesday sent the governor a bill that allows people to shoot an attacker in their homes or in public places.

The legislation has overwhelming support from Republicans and Democrats, and Gov. Jeb Bush soon will sign it into law.

"It's a good, common-sense, anti-crime issue," Bush said.

The House approved the bill 94-20, as a dozen Democrats joined the Republican majority. Supporters called it a matter of self-defense, while opponents predicted a new wave of gun violence on Florida streets.

What began as a way to empower people attacked in their homes was expanded to include attacks in any place a person "has a right to be."

The bill (SB 436) originally was intended to put into law the "castle doctrine," a common law principle that allows a person to use deadly force if attacked in the home. At the NRA's urging, the bill removed a provision that says a person has a "duty to retreat" when attacked outside the home.

Under current law, a person acting in self-defense outside the home, workplace or car must use every reasonable means necessary to avoid danger before using deadly force. That, said NRA lobbyist Marion Hammer, is "absurd."

The new law would legalize retaliation. The bill says: "A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be." A person who uses force in such cases and is not violating another law could not be charged with a crime or sued.

The bill also says a person has "the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so, to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another."

Hammer said that means a person being attacked with a knife can respond with a gun, because a knife is capable of causing serious injury or death.

The measure raced through both houses by lopsided margins, underscoring the political influence of the NRA and the reluctance of many Democrats to appear soft on gun owners' rights. Democrats are struggling to redefine their image, especially on values issues, after a series of demoralizing losses at the polls.

Hammer sat in the front row of the House visitors' gallery Tuesday, in full view of lawmakers below.

"To suggest that you can't defend yourself against a rapist who's trying to drag you into an alley or against a carjacker who's trying to drag you out of your car is nonsense," said Hammer. "The ability to protect yourself, your children, or your spouse is important, no matter where you are."

One Florida gun control advocate accused legislators of pandering to the gun lobby.

"It's literally mind-boggling in its audacity," said Arthur Hayhoe of Wesley Chapel, president of the Florida Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. "If I make a mistake, all I have to do is repeat the NRA's magic words: "I feel threatened.' " I call this the "right-to-murder' bill."

In the House, 12 Democrats joined 82 Republicans in supporting the bill. Several Democrats have announced plans to run for state Senate seats next year against Republicans who voted in favor of the bill.

Among the supporters was Rep. Charlie Justice, D-St. Petersburg, a 2006 Senate candidate, who said a state law enforcement official advised him to vote for the bill.

"I think it gives people the opportunity to defend themselves," Justice said.

Asked if political considerations played a role, Justice said: "Sure, everybody thinks about the next election. Everyone thinks about how it impacts people back home."

Justice said he was "flooded" with e-mails in favor of the bill, including one from Terry Haddock, chief firearms instructor for the Hollywood Police Department.

The NRA's Hammer accused critics of deliberate distortions. For example, she said opponents predicted people would take guns into sports stadiums or bars, when that's already illegal.

The long-time gun lobbyist said the bill is needed because of cases such as the elderly man in Pensacola man who shot and killed an intruder who refused to leave his property last November.

James Workman killed Rodney Cox after Cox darted into a trailer where Workman's wife was. The couple was living in a trailer after their home was damaged by Hurricane Ivan. Prosecutors decided not to charge Workman with a crime.

Rep. Dan Gelber, D-Miami Beach, a former federal prosecutor, said Florida law is clear: "When you are in your home, you have no duty to retreat."

He said he opposed the bill because it would "dramatically change" law by giving people who are attacked the right to use deadly force in a public place without fear of civil or criminal prosecution.

"For a House that talks about the culture of life, it's ironic that we would be devaluing life in this bill, which is exactly what we're doing," Gelber told lawmakers.

The sponsor of the bill, Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala, fended off a batch of Democratic amendments, saying in one case a change would "blunt" the ability of a law-abiding person "to meet force with force."

"What this does is empower law-abiding citizens to stop violent crime in its tracks," Baxley said.

Opponents disagreed.

"This bill creates a wild, wild west out there," said Rep. Eleanor Sobel, D-Hollywood.

"We're going to have open season in our communities, as it relates to confrontations," said Rep. Frank Peterman, D-St. Petersburg.

Besides Peterman, the only other Tampa Bay lawmaker to vote against the bill was Rep. Arthenia Joyner, D-Tampa, who likely will face Peterman in a Senate race in 2006.

"We opened Pandora's Box, and inside that box will be death to some persons," Joyner told the House.

Love the title.

Personally, I'm behind such laws. When someone breaks into your home, in my opinion, they leave their rights at the door.

Lord_Morningstar wrote:

Love the title.

Personally, I'm behind such laws. When someone breaks into your home, in my opinion, they leave their rights at the door.

why stop at the door, it would be safer, and involve less cleaning if you shoot them in the street before, they enter your home, or why don't we just go blow up the houses in which the poor people live, after all they are the one's who are most likely to commit crimes.

to be serious for a second, your argument pre-supposes an ethical base for a society which empowers an individual to be a judge, jury and executioner, if we operate on that ethical basis, then it would seem to me you have no system of justice, and an individual who have just as much right to shoot you to get something you poseess that he covets, as opposed to your right to shoot him to protect it.

Lord_Morningstar wrote:

Personally, I'm behind such laws. When someone breaks into your home, in my opinion, they leave their rights at the door.

In your home, I would agree. But in a public place? A kid comes up to me to ask for five dollars and I shoot him because I feel threatened? He could have a knife, after all, and he looks like that creep out of that movie.

I also fail to see how anyone can feel safer when any nutcase feels entitled by law to open fire in a crowded supermarket.

My husband is an excellent shot, but we don't own a gun--partly because of his expressed reluctance to kill someone to protect his stereo.

Quote:

Firearms: A defensible right/ A regulated privilage/ No way

No way! Guns are designed to kill people. And they do.

*~Pips~*

I’m reluctant to allow people to shoot each other in public but I don’t see a problem as far as the inside of homes go.

There is a distinct boundary with home defense; whether someone is inside or outside a house is not ambiguous, and there is no legit reason why someone should be in someone else’s home without their permission.

You’ll find that people are actually reluctant to shoot others. Looking at the kill figures for units of soldiers in WWII, it becomes obvious that many soldiers did not, in fact, shoot at the enemy. Instead, they fired over their heads or not at all. People, with some notable exceptions, don’t like to kill other people. As such, I see the law as working well for its deterrent value. If you encounter a robber in your home and pull a gun on them, they know that their life is in very real danger. You probably won’t end up killing them, but they know that you can. Why has there never been a world war following the advent of nuclear weapons?

Prim wrote:

My husband is an excellent shot, but we don't own a gun--partly because of his expressed reluctance to kill someone to protect his stereo.

Which reinforces my above point.

Anyway, I doubt that many people who will be shot carrying out a house burglary will be killed by a home owner protecting their TV. More likely, they will shoot if the burglar attacks them. I read about people being bashed to death in their homes for $20 in the papers fairly often, and I don’t just read right-wing media either. The issue there isn’t the money; it’s the life of the home owner. Clearly, there are criminals out there who will value your TV more than your life. I don’t see why you shouldn’t be prepared for that.

Frelga wrote:

A kid comes up to me to ask for five dollars and I shoot him because I feel threatened? He could have a knife, after all, and he looks like that creep out of that movie.

I also fail to see how anyone can feel safer when any nutcase feels entitled by law to open fire in a crowded supermarket.

This is a serious problem, and one reason why I’m reluctant to allow shooting in public. However, there is the other side of the coin; people being attacked in an empty carpark walking out to their car after work. This is one I’ll have to think over.

I don’t expect much support for my ideas here; this is board is dominated by left-wing/communitarian/socialist beliefs. As a person of broadly liberal beliefs, however, I don’t trust Government to do many things properly. I believe that the safety and security of the citizens is Government’s number one priority, and while I think that it can and does this satisfactorily, I still think that individuals carry, in part, both the right and responsibility of self-defence. Thos who break the law break the social contract with the state, and as such the state’s responsibility to uphold its end of the bargain (protection of life and person) becomes reduced.

All IMHO of course.

The problem always with the libertarian argument is that liberians want the freedom to do as "they " want, they want "freedom" to exercise their right to control and dominate society, when you posit that real libertarianism is the law of the jungle they get all hot under the collar, and talk about law and property, as if they are sacred cows. I am waiting for the first honest libertarian, who will say, that I have a right to my property, as long as I am strong enough to keep it.

So let's now explore the notion of the home and the sanctity of the home - what for instance constitutes a home, is it the boundary of your property, is it the walls, how does the stoop figure in the argument, if you are attacked in a hotel room can you shoot them because it's your room on a temporary basis, how do student halls of residence figure in the argument. Can you shoot someone who is entering your home to re-possess an item that you have defaulted payment on, what about a fireman putting out a fire - sorry

What's this about a social contract with the state, what happens if you choose not to sign up for it, the notion of a contract implies a consensual agreement by both parties, that's not the case with most law making institutions.

btw I have not encountered much by way of what I would consider socialist views here, mores the pity

eborr wrote:

The problem always with the libertarian argument is that liberians want the freedom to do as "they " want, they want "freedom" to exercise their right to control and dominate society, when you posit that real libertarianism is the law of the jungle they get all hot under the collar, and talk about law and property, as if they are sacred cows. I am waiting for the first honest libertarian, who will say, that I have a right to my property, as long as I am strong enough to keep it.

I’m not a real Libertarian, if anything, I’m an old fashioned small-l liberal. My views on this subject, among many others, are very mainstream. This law breezed through the Florida Legislature, and Florida is neither an exceptionally red nor exceptionally blue State. Similar laws have passed easily through the Parliament in my own State (Queensland). I voted for option 3 in the political ideology thread that I started. In my own country, that puts me either on the left of the right wing parties or on the right of the left wing parties. In other words, in the middle.

eborr wrote:

So let's now explore the notion of the home and the sanctity of the home - what for instance constitutes a home, is it the boundary of your property, is it the walls, how does the stoop figure in the argument,

It’s the boundry between the interior and exterior of the house.

eborr wrote:

if you are attacked in a hotel room can you shoot them because it's your room on a temporary basis,

Yes.

eborr wrote:

how do student halls of residence figure in the argument.

They shouldn’t; the rules and security of the College/University should apply. If the Institution wishes to allow live-in students to keep guns, so be it.

eborr wrote:

Can you shoot someone who is entering your home to re-possess an item that you have defaulted payment on,

Does that give you a right to force entry into someone’s home? What about normal legal options?

eborr wrote:

what about a fireman putting out a fire – sorry

If you shoot a fireman putting out a fire in your home, you’re an idiot, and would be charged with murder.

eborr wrote:

What's this about a social contract with the state, what happens if you choose not to sign up for it, the notion of a contract implies a consensual agreement by both parties, that's not the case with most law making institutions.

There are a number of contracts that you do not sign up to but still bind you. For example, when you buy/sell something, there are many, many provisos that neither party is usually aware of. I’d like there to be a way that the social contract could be voluntary, but it’s impractical. I suppose that, by staying in the country as its citizen you are ‘digning up’ through conduct.

eborr wrote:

btw I have not encountered much by way of what I would consider socialist views here, mores the pity

Compare my identical political ideology poll threads between here and TORC.

I agree with you, LM, though I don't really feel like making the effort to defend the position just now. And you're doing fine.

I find it bizarre that anyone would defend their "right" to kill someone. It's farcical.

Alatar

I think it's more of a right to defend yourself, Alatar.

I was home alone this past summer and had a man break into our home. I was completely defenseless... defenseless in a way that perhaps only a woman facing a man would understand.

I was very lucky that I was not hurt. The bad guy was caught, and is currently in prison. All turned out well, actually. But I WAS lucky.

'Course, I still don't own a gun. I just can't make myself do that. They say that if you are not 100% sure that you would fire your weapon to defend yourself, you shouldn't own one. So... I shouldn't own one.

I have never been a crusader for or against guns... I tend to see many points of view in an argument, which generally makes me worthless in a debate.

From my personal point of view, though, I never wanted to own a gun. They scare me.

My brother was physically handicapped, and went to a "special" school with other handicapped kids. One of his best buddies was a 15 year-old kid who had been shot at the age of 5 by his 3 year-old brother. He was paralyzed from the neck down.

I went to school with the brother who shot him. My friend didn't remember the shooting at all, but he was burdened with such guilt... an incredibly sad story all around, and one I haven't forgotten.

So, once again, I am torn. I think guns are too dangerous to have in the home, especially where there are children. IMO. Many of you speak of "educated" children having more respect for firearms, and I'm sure you are right. But I do remember a kid who used to crawl up into the attic to access a locked room with his dad's guns in it. There are no "safe" guns.

However, the memory of that man breaking in my home and coming towards me is etched in my mind, and the memory of helpless overwhelming panic visits me frequently. He was only 15 days out of prison, as it turns out, and high on drugs at the time. He was a bad guy, and a real "threat" to me. Very real. I was tremendously lucky that day.

But I was not prepared to defend myself. I'm still not. (We have organized a block watch, and we have become pretty vigilant about locking the doors!)

I still don't have a gun. But I can commiserate more now than before with people who want the opportunity to defend their lives.

Alatar wrote:

I find it bizarre that anyone would defend their "right" to kill someone. It's farcical.

No, Alatar, what's farcical is to characterize arguements in favor of gun ownership rights as being the "right to kill people". This is simply intellectually dishonest.

I don't, actually, think the right to own firearms should be unfettered. I'm not even close to being an NRA type person, in fact I loath guns and the very idea of them.

Anth is right to say that it is more about the right to defend oneself. There are real world situations that happen everyday when due to differences in physical strength the only way one can feasibly defend oneself is with potential deadly force. But the point of the gun legally used is not to kill --- it is to defend. One can still argue against 'gun rights' reasonably, of course, but focusing only on the potential for killing as if it was self evident that this made the whole case isn't going to do it. You need to explain why the positive of the natural right to defend oneself is outweighed by whatever negatives you see.

Or you could just shoot me.

Faramond

Alatar - have a go at living in South Africa some day before you judge people wanting to be able to defend themselves too harshly. With that I mean, have a go at living in a country where it is REAL that you could be hijacked, assaulted, murdered. Where it doesn't happen to other people - it happens to YOUR people. YOUR family and friends.

It is not a right to kill that is being defended, it is the right not to be killed.

If an armed robber comes into my house, must I submit to being raped and killed? Not that I think I personally would ever be able to fire a gun at a human - I can't imagine it - but for those who could, let them have that option of defence.

Even having said that, I'm anti-gun. Or at least, anti-handgun. A handgun has one purpose. To kill people. A hunting rifle can be used for hunting as well, but handguns were designed to kill people.

I have only touched a handgun once in my life - a beautiful Glock gun - but it felt, and looked, evil. Such lines and elegance and function, but so evil.

Lord_Morningstar wrote:

I’m not a real Libertarian, if anything, I’m an old fashioned small-l liberal. My views on this subject, among many others, are very mainstream. This law breezed through the Florida Legislature, and Florida is neither an exceptionally red nor exceptionally blue State. Similar laws have passed easily through the Parliament in my own State (Queensland). I voted for option 3 in the political ideology thread that I started. In my own country, that puts me either on the left of the right wing parties or on the right of the left wing parties. In other words, in the middle.

I find these sort of comments so worrying, strikes me that this sort of result makes me doubt the notion of democracy as a valid political system.

Quote:

It’s the boundry between the interior and exterior of the house.


They shouldn’t; the rules and security of the College/University should apply. If the Institution wishes to allow live-in students to keep guns, so be it.

Does that give you a right to force entry into someone’s home? What about normal legal options?

If you shoot a fireman putting out a fire in your home, you’re an idiot, and would be charged with murder.

THe purpose of the questions I posed was to question the notion of what constitutes a "home" which seem to me to be your main criterion as to your "right" to attack someone with a lethal weapon.

Obviously I was being more abtuse than I intended, because I wished to demonstrate that the argument in it's simple form is farcial, do you wish to shoot people because they come un-invited to your property, or do you wish to shoot someone because they are going to relieve you of your property or do you wish to shoot someone because they endanger you,

I would suggest in this day you are far more likely to loose property because some pension company or your employer mismanages your pension contributions, and you are in far more danger of being killed on the highway, so by those ethical criterion I am entitled to go shoot fund managers and bad drivers

eborr wrote:

There are a number of contracts that you do not sign up to but still bind you. For example, when you buy/sell something, there are many, many provisos that neither party is usually aware of. I’d like there to be a way that the social contract could be voluntary, but it’s impractical. I suppose that, by staying in the country as its citizen you are ‘digning up’ through conduct.

then it's not a contract, the definition of a contract is that it is an agreement not an imposition which is the word you are looking for


Compare my identical political ideology poll threads between here and TORC.[/quote]

One of the reasons I have pretty much given up on TORC is the number of right wing tossers who post there, so I don't take that as any meaningful yardstick

Griffon64 wrote:

Alatar - have a go at living in South Africa some day before you judge people wanting to be able to defend themselves too harshly. With that I mean, have a go at living in a country where it is REAL that you could be hijacked, assaulted, murdered. Where it doesn't happen to other people - it happens to YOUR people. YOUR family and friends.

funnily enough it was living in South Africa, that re-inforced my feelings about the danger of private citizens owning guns.

eborr wrote:

funnily enough it was living in South Africa, that re-inforced my feelings about the danger of private citizens owning guns.

Yes?

eborr wrote:

One of the reasons I have pretty much given up on TORC is the number of right wing tossers who post there, so I don't take that as any meaningful yardstick

Manwe, at the very least, was notoriously pro-left, anti-right. The supression and hostility towards the views from the right was Manwe's greatest problem.

Oi! Start your own "Manwe was _______ " thread If this thread osgilates into something that ( sorry, folks! ) makes me go I'll ... just have to stop reading it!

Just sayin' I was surprised to hear eborr say TORC was too much to the right when my experience was the exact opposite. Continue on with you shootings and such. back atcha.