# New Self-Defense Bill in Florida **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 7, 2005, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-self-defense-bill-in-florida/298300 "2005-04-07T22:50:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2005, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-self-defense-bill-in-florida/298300/61 "2005-04-11T17:58:48Z")
> [@MGibson](#): > > I certainly don’t have a crystal ball with which to divine the future so I can’t rule out the possibility that someone would attempt to use it as part of a defense. That’s an odd argument. If you’re going to pass a law, you would want to know exactly what effect the law is going to have. To say, “We don’t have a crystal ball, so we don’t know what’s going to happen, but we’ll pass the law anyway”, makes no sense. You seem to want to downplay the possibility that killings that _shouldn’t_ be justifiable might _become_ justifiable under the new law. You want to brush it aside as “I don’t have a crystal ball”. Well I think it ought to be a matter of concern if it could result in murderers getting off. > [@](#): > > Florida law does define when deadly force can or cannot be used and I don’t see how this bill changes those conditions radically. Well I explained how it might do so, and I gave a possible scenario. And I haven’t really gotten a satisfactory answer other than “who knows?” > [@](#): > > I don’t think you’ll see an increase in homicides or assaults because of this bill. I don’t either; that’s not the issue. The issue is not whether there will be _more_ homicides and assault, but whether the people guilty of those homicides or assaults are going to be punished, or whether they might escape punishment through a legal loophole. > [@](#): > > Sure, but there’s a big difference between giving it some thought and actually going through such a scenario. I expect an investigation no matter when a shooting occurs and I wouldn’t expect that to change because people no longer have a duty to retreat. Exactly my point - there should be an INVESTIGATION. In other words, the shooter’s state of mind and the particular circumstances of the shooting (or stabbing or whatever) are _facts to be determined_, not assumptions to be made blithely. But the vibe I’m getting in this thread is that some people think we should just automatically assume the shooter was in the right. I disagree with that. > [@](#): > > I used to have a concealed carry permit when I lived in Texas. One of my hobbies was night time photography and I would often find myself alone in Dallas after midnight with a couple of thousand dollars worth of photography equipment. It’s difficult to give concrete examples of what I’d do if faced with a robbery because it depends on so many variables. Would I shoot someone who was 50 ft. away and armed with a knife? No. Would I shoot if he was 15 ft. away and refuses to heed my warnings? There’s an excellent chance that I would. Once I set up all my equipment it would have been next to impossible for me to flee without abandoning a small fortune. Should I be required to flee and lose thousands in equipment? If I shot someone who was trying to rob me what have I done wrong? No, and I don’t believe that in such a case, you _would_ be required to flee. Despite what the proponents of this law would have us believe, I don’t see people being sent to prison by the hundreds for defending themselves against robbers. The problem is that it’s not always a clear-cut case of a random assailant attacking an innocent person on the street. Read the case-studies in that pamphlet that was linked to earlier. It’s not always clear-cut as to who’s the good guy and who’s the bad guy. The law has to be able to address that. > [@](#): > > I’m not reading it that way at all. It just doesn’t look like they can be prosecuted for murder or assault because they didn’t make an attempt to flee first. You’re talking about the _first_ part that I quoted. Read the _second_ part that I quoted, please. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2005, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-self-defense-bill-in-florida/298300/62 "2005-04-12T05:58:38Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > That’s an odd argument. If you’re going to pass a law, you would want to know exactly what effect the law is going to have. Sorry, the truth is we aren’t always prepared for the unintended consequences of laws passed. Did anybody really think that Prohibition would have resulted in drive by shootings, the rapid rise of organized crime, or widespread corruption of public officials? I don’t doubt that someone would try to use the law as part of a defense but that doesn’t mean I think they’d be successful. > [@](#): > > Exactly my point - there should be an INVESTIGATION. In other words, the shooter’s state of mind and the particular circumstances of the shooting (or stabbing or whatever) are _facts to be determined_, not assumptions to be made blithely. But the vibe I’m getting in this thread is that some people think we should just automatically assume the shooter was in the right. I disagree with that. I’m sure there will be an investigation. It’s just that if the shooter was justified in using deadly force, or force, he won’t get into trouble because he didn’t flee. > [@](#): > > Read the case-studies in that pamphlet that was linked to earlier. It’s not always clear-cut as to who’s the good guy and who’s the bad guy. The law has to be able to address that. Which is why we have the police investigate these things. I don’t believe it’s going to give anyone free pass to shoot others in the street. Marc ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2005, 7:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-self-defense-bill-in-florida/298300/63 "2005-04-12T07:33:02Z")
> [@MGibson](#): > > Sorry, the truth is we aren’t always prepared for the unintended consequences of laws passed. Did anybody really think that Prohibition would have resulted in drive by shootings, the rapid rise of organized crime, or widespread corruption of public officials? I don’t doubt that someone would try to use the law as part of a defense but that doesn’t mean I think they’d be successful. Passing a law that one _thinks_ will have a certain effect, that ends up having a different effect, is quite a different thing from passing a law for which one _admits_ that they don’t know the effect. Also, it’s odd that you would use an absolute miserable failure of a law such as Prohibition as your example of how these things should be done. 😕 > [@](#): > > I’m sure there will be an investigation. Well then we agree that such things are _facts to be determined_ rather than assumptions to be made. At least we agree on _one_ thing. > [@](#): > > It’s just that if the shooter was justified in using deadly force, or force, he won’t get into trouble because he didn’t flee. No, it’s not “just” that. Why did you ignore my request that you consider the _other_ part of the law that I quoted? 😕 > [@](#): > > Which is why we have the police investigate these things. I don’t believe it’s going to give anyone free pass to shoot others in the street. That’s nice that _you’re_ sure, but you haven’t really explained why the person in my scenario wouldn’t be able to use the law to get off. See, you can’t just say, “That would be wrong, so it wouldn’t happen.” Laws must be _written_ so that wrong things don’t happen. You can’t just leave it up to dumb luck. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2005, 9:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-self-defense-bill-in-florida/298300/64 "2005-04-12T09:05:38Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > Passing a law that one _thinks_ will have a certain effect, that ends up having a different effect, is quite a different thing from passing a law for which one _admits_ that they don’t know the effect. For the record I don’t think this law will result in more assaults or murders nor do I think it will result in people getting off scot free for murder or assaults. What I think it will do is prevent someone from getting in trouble because they didn’t attempt to flee. Will someone try to use this law as a defense? Maybe. > [@](#): > > No, it’s not “just” that. Why did you ignore my request that you consider the _other_ part of the law that I quoted? 😕 What other part are you talking about? > [@](#): > > That’s nice that _you’re_ sure, but you haven’t really explained why the person in my scenario wouldn’t be able to use the law to get off. See, you can’t just say, “That would be wrong, so it wouldn’t happen.” Laws must be _written_ so that wrong things don’t happen. You can’t just leave it up to dumb luck. Nor have you given me any reason to suspect that this law will help people get away with murder. I suppose it’s within the realm of possibility because juries do make silly decisions from time to time. Marc ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2005, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-self-defense-bill-in-florida/298300/65 "2005-04-12T12:59:47Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > I’m sure there will be an investigation. > > Well then we agree that such things are facts to be determined rather than assumptions to be made. Again, the term “presumption” in law does not mean that investigation is unneccessary. If it did, then the doctrine of “presumption of innocence” would preclude the need to bother with trials – everyone would simply be declared innocent and released. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2005, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-self-defense-bill-in-florida/298300/66 "2005-04-12T18:54:12Z")
Did somebody say something? ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2005, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-self-defense-bill-in-florida/298300/67 "2005-04-12T19:14:15Z")
> [@Nicodemus2004](#): > > There is before the State Senate a bill to make it possible for citizens to “Stand-Their-Ground” up to and including deadly force. We are no longer will be required by law to attempt to escape when faced with a threat of extreme bodily harm or death. A local paper, The [Orlando Sentinel](http://www.orlandosentinel.com) , has been following this. Our Gov. Jeb Bush has said he will sign it if it comes to his desk. Are there similar laws existing in other States? In TX, there is no “duty to retreat”. I understand that the vast majority of states are the same. > [@Nicodemus2004](#): > > Any thoughts pro or con on the rights of criminals being violated by armed citizens? I’m in favor of felons in the act being shot many times by many people. [http://www.darwinawards.com/](http://www.darwinawards.com/) Find the one titled “Wrong Time, Wrong Place” ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2005, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-self-defense-bill-in-florida/298300/68 "2005-04-12T19:22:32Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > That’s my concern - that something that does seem to offend our sensibilities, e.g. goading someone into a fight and then shooting him, perhaps would be legally defensible under this proposed law. If you can tell me why it’s not applicable, by all means please do. Here’s why: Provoking a fight (as per the long-established “fighting words” doctrine) would, if proven, serve as a special circumstance that would rebut the normal presumption of self-defense. QED. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2005, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-self-defense-bill-in-florida/298300/69 "2005-04-12T21:36:47Z")
> [@Steve MB](#): > > Here’s why: Provoking a fight (as per the long-established “fighting words” doctrine) would, if proven, serve as a special circumstance that would rebut the normal presumption of self-defense. QED. I believe you’re using that term incorrectly. “Fighting words doctrine” usually refers to a First Amendment issue (i.e. - can such speech be restricted) not a self-defense issue: > [@](#): > > Fighting words doctrine. The First Amendment doctrine that holds that certain utterances are not constitutionally protected as free speech if they are inherently likely to provoke a violent response from the audience. N.A.A.C.P. v. Clairborne Hardware Co., Miss., 458 U .8. 886, 102 8.Ct. 3409, 73 L.Ed.2d 1215 (1982). Words which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace, having direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the persons to whom, individually, remark is addressed. The test is what persons of common intelligence would understand to be words likely to cause an average addressee to fight. City of Seattle v. Camby, 104 Wash.2d 49, 701 P.2d 499, 500. > > The “freedom of speech” protected by the Constitution is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances and there are well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which does not raise any constitutional problem, including the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or “fighting words” which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 62 S.Ct. 766, 86 L.Ed. 1031. > > —Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, pages 627-28. Do you have a cite for “fighting words doctrine” being a rebuttal to claims of self defense? ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2005, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-self-defense-bill-in-florida/298300/70 "2005-04-12T22:45:03Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > Do you have a cite for “fighting words doctrine” being a rebuttal to claims of self defense? Your own cites show that the “fighting words doctrine” treats the utterer of the “fighting words” as the one who started the fight. That clearly negates any self-defense claim. ---
**Author:** ![Nic2004](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/4491bb/32.png) [@Nic2004](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nic2004)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2005, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-self-defense-bill-in-florida/298300/71 "2005-04-12T23:36:45Z")
**blowero** - If I may ask, how did you access that quote? Online? I think that would be a great tool to have at my disposal also. I only see links to buy the book(s). Thanks ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2005, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-self-defense-bill-in-florida/298300/72 "2005-04-13T06:59:16Z")
> [@Nicodemus2004](#): > > **blowero** - If I may ask, how did you access that quote? Online? I think that would be a great tool to have at my disposal also. > I only see links to buy the book(s). Thanks I just googled “fighting words doctrine”. I apologize for not including the link, I intended to but somehow left it out. The Black’s Law Dictionary entry is quoted on a number of websites. > [@Steve MB](#): > > Your own cites show that the “fighting words doctrine” treats the utterer of the “fighting words” as the one who started the fight. That’s vague. Which cites? > [@](#): > > That clearly negates any self-defense claim. Cite for being the one who “started the fight” clearly negating any self-defense claim? ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2005, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-self-defense-bill-in-florida/298300/73 "2005-04-13T12:49:05Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > Cite for being the one who “started the fight” clearly negating any self-defense claim? Er, the dictionary entry for “self-defense”? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2005, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-self-defense-bill-in-florida/298300/74 "2005-04-13T17:23:30Z")
> [@Steve MB](#): > > Er, the dictionary entry for “self-defense”? :rolleyes: Er, uh, yeah, um, the thing is, the courts don’t base their decisions on “the dictionary”. Now I remember why I was ignoring you. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2005, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-self-defense-bill-in-florida/298300/75 "2005-04-13T17:37:29Z")
Oh, er, um, uh, just so we’re clear - When you say “starting the fight” negates any possible claim of self-defense, and I ask for a cite on that, I mean some sort of legal principle, not “the dictionary”. Maybe you should stay out of G.D. if you can’t handle it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-self-defense-bill-in-florida/298300.md?page=3)