Law Lets Floridians `Meet Force With Force'

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » April 27, 2005, 1:54 pm

Go Jeb.

It's a more effective deterrent than stiffer sentencing laws as it has an immediate and noticeable impact on the would-be criminal. It also doesn't put someone capable of defending themselves in the more vulnerable position of trying to escape.

In the late '70s the St Louis area had a rash of carjackings, some very brutal. Then people started shooting the carjackers. Problem largely went away at that point.

It is either a Wild West revival, a return to the days of ``shoot first and ask questions later'' or a triumph for the Castle Doctrine, the notion that enemies invade personal space at their peril.
>>snip
``It's common sense to allow people to defend themselves,'' Bush said Tuesday as he signed the bill, which takes effect Oct. 1. ``When you're in a position where you're being threatened, to retreat and put yourself in a precarious position defies common sense.''

http://news.tbo.com/news/MGBPCES018E.html

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » April 27, 2005, 2:04 pm

WOOT!!!!

Love it when politicians implement laws that make sense.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » April 27, 2005, 2:27 pm

I always thought it was stupid that you could go to jail for shooting a burglar though (or get sued). However, it does have drawbacks when idiots like Funkmaster try to provoke people to 'make' him pull his gun out. Hopefully, they implement tougher penalties for people who abuse this.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » April 27, 2005, 3:18 pm

To clear up the facts for those who don't live in Florida, this (biased) article covers some of the details.

MIAMI, April 26 - Gov. Jeb Bush signed a bill on Tuesday giving Florida citizens more leeway to use deadly force in their homes and in public, a move that gun-control groups and several urban police chiefs warned would give rise to needless deaths.

The measure, known as the "stand your ground" bill, lets people use guns or other deadly force to defend themselves in public places without first trying to escape.

Floridians already had the right to defend themselves against home intruders under what is known as the castle doctrine, but until now, they could not do so in public.

The National Rifle Association lobbied hard for the bill's passage, and Wayne LaPierre, the group's executive vice president, said it would use the victory to push for similar measures elsewhere. The bill's sponsor, Representative Dennis K. Baxley of Ocala, said it would curb violent crime and make citizens feel safer.

"It's a clear position that we will stand with victims of violent attacks when the law is in their favor," said Mr. Baxley, a Republican. "People want to know we stand on the side of victims of crime instead of the side of criminals."

Governor Bush, a Republican, said he supported the measure because when people faced life-threatening situations, "to have to retreat and put yourself in a very precarious position defies common sense."

But John F. Timoney, Miami's police chief, called the bill unnecessary and dangerous. Chief Timoney, who has successfully pushed his police officers to use less deadly force, said many people, including children, could become innocent victims. The bill could make gun owners, including drivers with road rage or drunken sports fans who get into fights leaving ball games, assume they have "total immunity," he said.

"Whether it's trick-or-treaters or kids playing in the yard of someone who doesn't want them there or some drunk guy stumbling into the wrong house," Chief Timoney said, "you're encouraging people to possibly use deadly physical force where it shouldn't be used."

Chief Chuck Harmon of the St. Petersburg police and Sheriff Ken Jenne of Broward County also publicly opposed the bill. The Florida House of Representatives voted 94 to 20 in favor of the bill earlier this month, while the Senate passed it 39 to 0.

The measure codifies in state law what many courts have already ruled in Florida: that a citizen need not try to escape an intruder in his home or workplace before using deadly force in self-defense.

The measure also goes a step further, letting "a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be" use deadly force without first trying to flee.

Florida was among the first states to allow people to carry concealed firearms, and Sarah Brady, chairwoman of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a national gun-control group, said she was not surprised that the N.R.A. lobbied for the new law here first.

"The populace in Florida is very much common sense and on our side," Mrs. Brady said, "but the State Legislature is very conservative and the N.R.A. has control of them. I'm just sick. It's just a terrible, terrible bill."

Mrs. Brady, whose husband, James, was seriously injured in the 1981 assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan, said that while the Florida measure was disheartening, other states were taking a different stance. On Monday, Gov. Janet Napolitano of Arizona, a Democrat, vetoed a bill that would have let people carry loaded guns into bars.

Mr. LaPierre of the N.R.A. said his group would introduce the bill in every state, and he predicted it would win broad national support.

"We will start with red and move to blue," he said of the states. "In terms of passing it, it is downhill rather than uphill because of all the public support."

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » April 27, 2005, 3:19 pm

Sounds even better bolded!!!!! WOOT!!!!!!

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » April 27, 2005, 3:55 pm

Miami-Dade, parts of Orlando and to a lesser extent St. Petersburg are an extension of the NYC\NJ area for those that aren't familiar with FL politics. You've got them at the left, and then rest of the state leaning from middle to right.

I don't know that you'll find an unbiased article on this, it's a polarizing issue.

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » April 27, 2005, 4:01 pm

I don't know what to think about this one. I agree with being able to defend our home and I can see some deterrent value in this as well, but I can see an open door to a lot of abuses of this bill (as the Miami police chief stated). Its up to legislators to decide which is the greater danger: in Florida we know what they think, but it will be interesting to see if this spreads or if other jurisdictions take a "wait and see" attitude.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » April 27, 2005, 4:02 pm

While I'm leary of this because it's going to prove difficult for the courts and could be potentially very bad...

I'm going to give a big Hell YEA! out to Bushies bro for a job well done. If it doesn't work it can always be changed later, the other isn't working now and it nice to see someone take "chance" and put some power back to the people.

Marb

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » April 27, 2005, 4:02 pm

time for you florida residents out there to go buy that desert eagle you always wanted. Oh and don't forger the hollow points. If it's legal to shoot em now, might as well blow an arm, leg, or head clean off!!

Hesten · Post by **Hesten** » April 27, 2005, 5:51 pm

Lets see, this means that if a kid get picked on at school and attaced enough, school shootings are legal, right?

masteen · Post by **masteen** » April 27, 2005, 6:42 pm

Hesten: No, because it's still illegal to bring a weapon onto school grounds.

An armed society is a polite society.

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » April 27, 2005, 6:55 pm

IT'S COMING RIGHT FOR US! *bang*

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » April 27, 2005, 7:06 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:WOOT!!!!

Love it when politicians implement laws that make sense.

AGREED

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » April 27, 2005, 7:08 pm

Hesten wrote:Lets see, this means that if a kid get picked on at school and attaced enough, school shootings are legal, right?

i'd be a ok with that too

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » April 27, 2005, 8:10 pm

I actually have no problem with this, as I think a lot of the violent crimes in effect within the US occur because of a lack of threat of tangible retaliation. It is going to be interesting to see how this plays out when minors are involved on either end of the law.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » April 27, 2005, 9:55 pm

I find it hillarious that the country with the most liberal gun laws also has the most crime...

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » April 27, 2005, 9:57 pm

There won't be a visible minority or overt homosexual left in the entire state by 2007.

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » April 27, 2005, 10:12 pm

You know what the best part about relaxed gun laws in Florida is?

Fewer Floridians.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » April 27, 2005, 10:29 pm

masteen wrote:Hesten: No, because it's still illegal to bring a weapon onto school grounds.

An armed society is a polite society.

That explains why you're all so fake polite, then you leave the US and wonder why everyone is so rude (honest, relaxed)

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » April 27, 2005, 11:52 pm

heres a good law, i finally found a social issue in which im leaning more towards the "right", imagine that....although i do see some potential for this law to be abused, but i guess thats a price that will be payed for the potential good it can do

miir · Post by **miir** » April 28, 2005, 9:26 am

think a lot of the violent crimes in effect within the US occur because of a lack of threat of tangible retaliation

If that were the case, how come other countries...like, oh let's say Canada, have far less violent crime than the US?

American society is just an inherantly violent society.
This law wont change that whatsoever.

Deward · Post by **Deward** » April 28, 2005, 10:42 am

Kelshara wrote:I find it hillarious that the country with the most liberal gun laws also has the most crime...

Actually, research has shown that those countries with the strictest gun laws are usually the most violent. When Australia banned guns in their country, violent crimes increased by something like 700% in one year.

In the US, Washington D.C. has the strictest gun laws of any city. They also have the highest violent crime rate per capita.

Here in rural Wisconsin, you will very rarely find instances of home intrusions because everyone knows that every farmer owns at least 4 guns.

Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have them.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » April 28, 2005, 11:28 am

your math is incorrect.
the less number of absolute numbers of criminal events, the less it takes to increase by a percentage.

for instance lets say there were 10 crimes in 2004 in Australia.

lets say in 2005, there were 70 crimes. Well that is a 700% increase. But it is still only an increase of 60 crimes.

Lets say in the US in 2004, there were 1000 crimes.

in 2005 there were 1100 crimes, so an increase of only 10%.

was there less crime in the US than in Australia? well the rate of increase was 700% in Australia, and only 10% in America. Therefore America is safer!

Not so grasshoppah!!

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » April 28, 2005, 11:49 am

Deward wrote:
Kelshara wrote:I find it hillarious that the country with the most liberal gun laws also has the most crime...
Actually, research has shown that those countries with the strictest gun laws are usually the most violent. When Australia banned guns in their country, violent crimes increased by something like 700% in one year.

Ummm, what rabid NRA chain e-mail did you get that statistic from? Given the tightening of gun laws here (note: not banning) was at best a knee-jerk reaction to a particularly horrific mass-shooting by our far-right nutjob PM, one really wouldn't expect it to have much downward impact. That said your assertion is flat-out bullshit.

The total amount of assaults 1995-2003 increased at about 6% per year (the ban went in in 1996) in a relatively steady pattern, taking into account seasonal variation. http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/fact ... ig016.html

Murder/manslaughter on the other hand was really very flat http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/fact ... ig010.html and pre and post the change in the law, guns aren't the primary method of killing someone; beating someone to death with your bare hands is more common

/rant

Please continue with your pointless theorising.

miir · Post by **miir** » April 28, 2005, 11:51 am

In the US, Washington D.C. has the strictest gun laws of any city. They also have the highest violent crime rate per capita

Here in rural Wisconsin, you will very rarely find instances of home intrusions because everyone knows that every farmer owns at least 4 guns.

The violent crime rate in D.C has been steadily going down since it's peak in 1993... coincidence?

Massachusettes has some of the strictest gun laws in the US and enjoys one of the lowest violent, gun related crime rates.

Check out the violent, gun related crime rate in Louisiana, then do some research into their gun laws.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » April 28, 2005, 11:52 am

miir wrote:
think a lot of the violent crimes in effect within the US occur because of a lack of threat of tangible retaliation

If that were the case, how come other countries...like, oh let's say Canada, have far less violent crime than the US?

American society is just an inherantly violent society.
This law wont change that whatsoever.

Canada has more guns per head of population than America; thus proving what everyone already knew - Guns don't kill people, Americans kill people.

(yes, I know it's a statistic that Moore made up for Bowling, I just think it's funny as hell after that 700% horseshit)

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » April 29, 2005, 3:59 pm

do you honestly believe further regulating gun laws and or banning the right to bare arms will decrease the gun rate by a reasonable amount in america?

by the same token if we ban alcohol will there be less fatalitys due to drunk driving? are we willing to ban alcohol and go back to prohibition right now so that we save 2000 people a year from drunk driving deaths?

freedom always comes with some sort of price, a price i am willing to pay

miir · Post by **miir** » April 29, 2005, 4:10 pm

the right to bare arms

Hehehe...

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

Gun laws in Canada are pretty tight.
Violent, gun related crime in Canada is pretty low.

Gun laws in the US are pretty lax.
Violent, gun related crime in the US is pretty high.

by the same token if we ban alcohol will there be less fatalitys due to drunk driving?

Obviously, yes.

freedom always comes with some sort of price, a price i am willing to pay

What place does the 'right to bear arms' have in a civilised society?
What is the purpose of a firearm other than to make things dead?

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » April 29, 2005, 4:26 pm

miir wrote:Gun laws in the US are pretty lax.
Violent, gun related crime in the US is pretty high.

Both those points are true, but somewhat misleading as the two aren't connnected.

What is the purpose of a firearm other than to make things dead?

You may not be interested in shooting sports, many other people are.

Guns are only a symptom of the problem.

Are cars the cause of drunk drivers?

miir · Post by **miir** » April 29, 2005, 4:36 pm

Both those points are true, but somewhat misleading as the two aren't connnected.

On the contrary, they are directly connected.
I can provide shitloads of stats/evidence corroberating the connection between the two.

Guns are only a symptom of the problem.

Heh, you sound like a NRA spokesperson.

Are cars the cause of drunk drivers?

The primary use of an automobile is transportation.
The primary use of a firearm is to make things dead.

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » April 29, 2005, 5:39 pm

kyoukan wrote:There won't be a visible minority or overt homosexual left in the entire state by 2007.

Are you kidding? It's flordia! They float in every day!

nobody · Post by **nobody** » April 29, 2005, 5:42 pm

The Purpose of a firearm is for protection.
The Purpose of Alchohol (saying automobiles is skirting the issue) is to intoxicate yourself

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » April 29, 2005, 6:19 pm

nobody wrote:The Purpose of a firearm is for protection.

Protection from someone trying to kill you with a gun?

nobody · Post by **nobody** » April 29, 2005, 6:30 pm

Ya b/c we all know if we make guns illegal then criminals won't use them huh? Which was the whole point in bringing up prohibition in the first place.

besides we have the 2nd Amendment b/c the founding fathers believed that we should be able to overthrow our government if it became necessary.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » April 29, 2005, 8:01 pm

The purpose of a gun is to be used for violence. Violence can be offensive or defensive, and pigeonholing the 'purpose' of a gun as one or the other muddies the issue.

Additionally, it's pretty ridiculous to discuss the telos of an inanimate object.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » April 29, 2005, 8:28 pm

the point i was trying to make is that sure, banning guns would decrease the crime rate in the US, but by the same token banning alcohol will greatly decrease the amount of drunk driveing fatalitys and also greatly decrease the amount of violent crimes that occur while intoxicated, a FAR FAR greater amount of lives will be saved if we ban alcohol opposed to guns, knowing this fact...would you still support the banning of all alcohol? of course not, so by the same token, you have no logical argument to ban guns, because most people dont buy guns with the intention of commiting violent crimes, and those who do would find a way to get a hold of a firearm regardless if it was legal or not

nobody · Post by **nobody** » April 29, 2005, 9:23 pm

Xzion wrote:the point i was trying to make is that sure, banning guns would decrease the crime rate in the US, but by the same token banning alcohol will greatly decrease the amount of drunk driveing fatalitys and also greatly decrease the amount of violent crimes that occur while intoxicated, a FAR FAR greater amount of lives will be saved if we ban alcohol opposed to guns, knowing this fact...would you still support the banning of all alcohol?

um sorry but history has already proven this notion to be false. the mafia thrived under prohibition. hell NASCAR exhists b/c of prohobition. it boggles me why people want to legalize things like pot but make guns illegal. what needs to happen is we should quit sending people to prison so long for simple possession charges and start enforcing penalties for violent crimes.

Krurk · Post by **Krurk** » April 30, 2005, 1:58 am

I finally got my CCW today and after learning about this on the news, I was thrilled. I glossed over the replies so maybe someone mentioned this, but prior to this change, you were required to attempt to flee a situation before resorting to force. If you are unable to flee, then you are allowed to shoot. With this now, I can shoot first, shoot again to be sure, and then pop another round in the guy's corpse just for shits n giggles. Ok, maybe not that much, but still I am happy.

Say what you want, but living near a college in the 'not so nice part of town', we get our fair share of robberies, muggings, and rapes. Most of the time, it's either a couple of thugs armed with little more than a knife.

Oh, and for you hippies who want to take my gun away. If you want to cite examples like Canada of countries with tight gun laws and low violent crime rates, check this out.

U.S. DOJ study comparing violent crimes using firearms between 1993 and 2003. Notice the massive plunge in incidents.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/fir ... atalno.htm

Also, Britain and Italy recently tightened their gun control laws. Both countries have seen increased rates of gun crimes. Switzerland on the other hand practically requires its citizens to be armed with automatic weapons and has virtually no gun crime. Gun crime is typically related to societal norms, not gun laws. Americans are simply violent people compared to other nations.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » April 30, 2005, 3:33 am

Text Of The Second Amendment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State; the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Militia, not any yahoo! = fact

nobody · Post by **nobody** » April 30, 2005, 4:08 am

Nick wrote:
Text Of The Second Amendment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State; the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Militia, not any yahoo! = fact

sorry mate, try again. there would have been no militia in the Revolutionary War had THE PEOPLE not had their own weapons.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » April 30, 2005, 5:44 am

If you live in a place where its neccessary to carry a gun around for protection then its time to move.

As for the 2nd ammendment revolutionaries, do you think it even slightly possible to overthrow your government with its current military?

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » April 30, 2005, 8:04 am

Forthe wrote:If you live in a place where its neccessary to carry a gun around for protection then its time to move.

That pretty much sums up my personal stance on gun control.

As for the 2nd ammendment revolutionaries, do you think it even slightly possible to overthrow your government with its current military?

You can take down any organization if you have a gun. Haven't you played the video games?

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » April 30, 2005, 8:25 am

Forthe wrote:If you live in a place where its neccessary to carry a gun around for protection then its time to move.

As for the 2nd ammendment revolutionaries, do you think it even slightly possible to overthrow your government with its current military?

It's not just about that. What if we get invaded by China. Woiuldn't you want to defend yourself when they coming rolling into your town? I don't like guns either and in my little dream world, I wish no one had guns, but in the real world there are viable reasons why we have the laws we have.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » April 30, 2005, 11:34 am

Forthe wrote:If you live in a place where its neccessary to carry a gun around for protection then its time to move.

As for the 2nd ammendment revolutionaries, do you think it even slightly possible to overthrow your government with its current military?

First, yes it would be entirely possible to overthrow the government if there was an uprising by the people. You would be eliminating the Air Force and Navy from the equation in a civil war. There would be no military targets for the government's military to strike. Quite honestly I think you could wipe out the government's leaders with 10,000 or less fairly organized militia. The one thing you forget about the US military is that it by and large is required to go by rules. A non-government militia would be disregarding any regulations anyway and would have a huge advantage in a first strike.

Second, it is only time to move if you are a weak pussy who is willing to turn and flee at the first signs of trouble. The reason that the places are getting bad to live in is because of liberal pussies like you who turn the other cheek in every instance and allow the criminals to have more rights than yourself. Maybe when criminals realize that they might be giving themselves an instant death sentence instead of a slap on the wrist and a few months in the joint, they will decide that it might not be such a wise path.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » April 30, 2005, 11:40 am

On second thought I'm all for lax gun laws. Think I'll warm up by killing me a few idiots like Kilmoll. Self defense!

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » April 30, 2005, 12:05 pm

Come on down liberal pussy. I doubt you would have the balls to take someone out if they were systematically torturing and killing every one of your family members and gave you a loaded gun.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » April 30, 2005, 12:20 pm

My family is safe and sound away from rednecks like you who would think of doing such a thing

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » April 30, 2005, 1:39 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Come on down liberal pussy. I doubt you would have the balls to take someone out if they were systematically torturing and killing every one of your family members and gave you a loaded gun.

Inevitably, every firearms 'debate' will eventually deteriorate into an argument over the size on one's genitals.

I did a paper on it a few years ago.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » April 30, 2005, 2:22 pm

Come on down liberal pussy. I doubt you would have the balls to take someone out if they were systematically torturing and killing every one of your family members and gave you a loaded gun.

Is that a pretty common thing in Florida?

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » April 30, 2005, 2:54 pm

It's well documented that Florida's random-murdering psychopaths are among the world's least clever when it comes to arming their potential victims.

Either that, or Kilmoll's spent way too much time in his basement watching "Seven".