J. Bush to sign 'wild West' bill allowing violent responses to threats

[Sernov]

By Beth Kassab and Sherri M. Owens
Orlando Sentinel
Posted April 6 2005

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-fguns06apr06,0,3757819.story
TALLAHASSEE -- Floridians could "meet force with force" on the street, in a bar or just about anywhere else without fear of prosecution, under a bill that cleared the state Legislature on Tuesday.

Gov. Jeb Bush plans to sign the measure into law, even though opponents said it amounts to legalized dueling that could lead to simple arguments escalating into fatal fights...
-----------------------------

As if living in South Florida wasn't crazy enough :johnwoo:

[sfsdfd]

I think I'll just stay in Ohio and TiVo the inevitable "Florida Fight Club" reality show.

- David Stein

[bhk]

I anticipate that All Criminals Love Us will sue if the law is passed.

[mikehunt]

it's called self defense, and should always be legal with no requirement to retreat
now, sometime it might be a good idea to retreat even if not mandated by law, but you shouldn't be forced to have to try before using force

[phr33k]

hm... In california if someone broke into your house could you use deadly force?

[SFranke]

But Jeb, I'm confused. Doesn't the good lord want us to love our enemy? Shouldn't we, god's children, be a little consistent when applying god's word to law?

[Scorpio]

Being a practitioner of 14th century Italian longsword, I say SWEET!

[Ranger]

Doesn't Texas already have a law like this?

[FinkPish]

it's called self defense, and should always be legal with no requirement to retreat
now, sometime it might be a good idea to retreat even if not mandated by law, but you shouldn't be forced to have to try before using force
I understand what you are trying to say; that you shouldn't be forced, by law, to not use force to resolve a situation, but that can also lead to the defense that violence was the only resort. Some people just don't know when to back down in certain situations, because of ego, peer pressure, state of sobriety. If you give those kinds of people the option that they can use force if they feel it is necessary, then only bad things will come from it. For example, police are allowed to use force if necessary, but they are trained to exercise good judgement to make that decision. In a lot of these potential cases, I don't see the perpetrator using the best judgement based on the situation.

[movielib]

Doesn't Texas already have a law like this?
Yes and it's not the only state.

I saw on TV tonight that New Jersey requires a homeowner, if his or her house is invaded, to first tell the intruder to leave and if that doesn't work, to retreat. Only if they are actually directly attacked apparently can they defend themselves. In their own home where they and their loved ones reside. That's totally loony.

The fact that such laws as Florida's soon to be law have been in place for a long time in some states and obviously haven't led to "dueling" shows what nonsense such fears are.

[sfsdfd]

it's called self defense, and should always be legal with no requirement to retreat
If you can retreat, and you don't, then you're voluntarily engaging in a fistfight and should be held equally accountable. Care to explain what's wrong with that concept?

Of course, I completely agree that if someone forcibly breaks into your house, you should be allowed to shoot them.

- David Stein

[Ranger]

What if someone was being carjacked?

Was Obi-Wan wrong for cutting off that guy's arm at the bar? :)

[General Zod]

:banana: I think however, that before you respond with violence you should first have to tell the person you challenge them to a duel and then smack them in the face with some gloves. Then they battle may begin.

[kvrdave]

But Jeb, I'm confused. Doesn't the good lord want us to love our enemy? Shouldn't we, god's children, be a little consistent when applying god's word to law?

You mean like "An eye for an eye?" Or "turn the other cheek?" Or what in particular?

And having love for an enemy and being able to forgive an enemy is not the same as allowing him to rape your wife and kill your children. Yeah, that's extreme, but so would a position of "shut up and take it."

[sfsdfd]

What if someone was being carjacked?
Usually you don't have the ability to retreat: you find yourself either hauled out of the car or facing the business end of a pistol. Running away usually isn't an option, so blackjacking the perp with your Club is okay. (I doubt any jury on the planet would convict you, anyway.)

Of course, the textbook scenario where you're culpable for not just leaving is a bar altercation: someone starts getting in your face, and you choose to stay in that situation or escalate it instead of just leaving. In that case, you shouldn't be allowed to claim immunity by self-defense, because it isn't.

- David Stein

[kvrdave]

Okay, but suppose I was eating lunch and some a-hole decides he need insulin or something. Then I could kill him, right?

edit: Nice sig, Dave :lol:

[sfsdfd]

Nice sig, Dave :lol:
I thought so too. :D

- David Stein

[gcbrowni]

This is clearly aimed at the CCW holders in Florida. While de-escalating, through retreat or some other means, is always a good idea it is also not always possible. My take on this is that they are erasing a great big grey area, the hindsight 20/20 area. I would be surprised if there were not a response to either a specific case in Florida or the general nuttyness in England.

37 states now have CCW. In Indiana 1 in 10 people you meet is carrying a concealed firearm. CCW, and laws like this which make its practical application easier, are some of the best things to hit the books.

[DVD Polizei]

http://bipac.net/photos/20891.jpg

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


rotfl - yeah Eleanor, you go girl.

[DarkestPhoenix]

Why the hell does she care?

Oh, yeah...I forgot, everybody's busy trying to run down the next president.

;)

[Red Dog]

Good for the geezers down there since they are too slow to retreat.

[wendersfan]

Can someone post some stats on the effect of concealed carry on violent crime? I suppose I could do it myself, but I'm guessing there are people here who could find them faster.

I'm assuming they have very little effect on crime rates, positive or negative.

[raven56706]

great... its going to be a killers wet dream down there

[Red Dog]

I'm assuming they have very little effect on crime rates, positive or negative.


That would be my guess too.

I'm not a gun fan, but I actually prefer an open carry system like Virginia has.

[gcbrowni]

There are two types of crime stats generally associated with CCW: General crime and crime by CCW holders. The stats over general crime are the most argued. There are lots of studies that attempt to show increases and decreases. I think they are all a lot of bull; there are far too many other things going on that affect these numbers. In general the John Lott studies seem better than the VPC studies.

The numbers showing crime by CCW holders is far more interesting and relevant, I think. The implication, in this thread and in many other commentaries, is that these states, and Florida in particular, are going to have their streets running with blood. This doesn't happen. It turns out that people who are willing to sign up for a permit and be fingerprinted are the good guys. Of 204,000 permits in Florida on 17 were revoked. That's .008% or so. And those were mostly not for criminal use of firearm but for other technical violations. The stats from other states back this up: the rate of violent crime amoung CCW holders is so low as be nearly 0 and the number of revocations for all reasons is VERY small.

(Googles should probablly include 'CCW' and 'Florida'. Florida was amoung the first states to widely issues CCW permits and more studies have been done on it than other other more recent states.) The Pro CCW articles seem much better researced than the anti articles.

Pro CCW Stats & Articles:
http://www.acslpa.org/reciprocity/ccwstats.htm
http://www.packing.org/resources/?ccw_topic=29
http://www.johnrlott.com/

Anti CCW Stats & Articles:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/factsheets/
http://www.vpc.org/studies/cccrimst.htm
http://www.vpc.org/studyndx.htm

EDIT:
This is interesting also:
"Of incarcerated felons surveyed by the Department of Justice, 34% have been driven away, wounded, or captured by armed citizens; 40% have decided against committing crimes for fear their would-be victims were armed."

[mikehunt]

I understand what you are trying to say; that you shouldn't be forced, by law, to not use force to resolve a situation, but that can also lead to the defense that violence was the only resort. Some people just don't know when to back down in certain situations, because of ego, peer pressure, state of sobriety. If you give those kinds of people the option that they can use force if they feel it is necessary, then only bad things will come from it. For example, police are allowed to use force if necessary, but they are trained to exercise good judgement to make that decision. In a lot of these potential cases, I don't see the perpetrator using the best judgement based on the situation.

most of these laws also include a portion saying that it is only justifiable if you are not the initiator, and something like punching someone for saying something would still be assault

[mikehunt]

how about this.
you see someone mugging someone else. obviously you could walk away. But should you be forced to walk away?
I think in that case you'd be totally justified in using force to end the mugging
or what about rape?

[mikehunt]

brady's kids stat goes up to 19 years old
wanna know why? so they can include gang bangers in that stat. its mostly not little kids finding their parent's gun and accidentally shooting themselves
suicide? like those people killed themselves only because guns were around?

[Red Dog]

how about this.
you see someone mugging someone else. obviously you could walk away. But should you be forced to walk away?
I think in that case you'd be totally justified in using force to end the mugging
or what about rape?


Defense of 3rd parties is usually an affirmative defense.

[Manco]

Can someone post some stats on the effect of concealed carry on violent crime? I suppose I could do it myself, but I'm guessing there are people here who could find them faster.

I'm assuming they have very little effect on crime rates, positive or negative.

I remember on some talk show people were debating right to carry laws. They had a guy who said right to carry hasn't had an effect on crime positive or negative. He pointed out though thats mainly because not enough people carry.

I forget what percentage of people in right to carry states carry guns versus the total population but I think its less than 2%.

Pennsylvania has more CCW holders than any other state last I read. As of 2002 we had 600,000 license holders. Thats out of a population a little over 12 million. Florida is second I think with about 330,000. Texas is 3rd with over 220,000.

[sfsdfd]

you see someone mugging someone else. obviously you could walk away. But should you be forced to walk away?
As <b>Red Dog</b> pointed out, defense of third parties is usually an affirmative defense. However, if you decide to intervene, you assume the risk that your assessment was incorrect. If the assailant happens to be an undercover police officer trying to detain a fleeing criminal, you're going to get arrested for intervening - CCW law or no CCW law. That's the cost of being a vigilante.

- David Stein

[mikehunt]

are those just resident permits?
FL and PA are pretty popular states to get non-resident permits from

[DVD Polizei]

I pretty much agree with David. Also, when you have a CCWp, it is assumed you are more careful in everyday life and getting into situations that may require the use of deadly force. The overriding statement when taking Deadly Force classes, is you have a weapon to protect yourself FIRST, and others LAST. In addition, if there is already one victim, you should not be the second victim. Your weapon is the LAST resource you have.

[Manco]

are those just resident permits?
FL and PA are pretty popular states to get non-resident permits from

Not sure. I assume they're resident licenses. A local newspaper did an article a few years ago about the rise in Pennsylvanians applying for carry licenses. They got the number from the State Police.