And for gods sake don’t gig anyone.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-fguns06apr06,0,3757819.story
Practice your duck and cover.
I’m not sure which Governor he thinks he’s talking about, but responsibility doesn’t really seem to be Mr. Bush’s “thing”.
Some “society of life”, isn’t it?
Hot damn! It’s about time duelling came back into fashion.
I’m sure this somehow fits into the culture of life the conservatives these days keep blathering about; perhaps I shall tune into Fox News later today to let them explain to me how.
Opus1, you see, only unborn babies are actually ‘alive’. Legal practitioners of abortion are already dead inside, so they should be sniped on sight.
It sounds like a decent Bill to me. When I’m frightened because someone is seriously threatening to do me harm why should I be legally required to retreat before attempting to defend myself? I’d be interested to know what criteria they use to determine whether or not someone had tried to retreat prior to using force. Does it count if they take a few steps backwards or do they have to turn tail and run?
As Oliver W. Holmes put it “Detached reflection cannot be expected in the presence of an uplifted knife.” When your life is in danger you don’t necessarily have the presence of mind to go over each and every option to determine which would be best.
I think the opponents of the Bill are playing Chicken Little thinking this will turn the state into the “wide west.” In fact the wild west arguement was used in many states when they enacted concealed carry permits. It didn’t hold water then and it doesn’t hold water now.
Marc
Any reasonable person can make a distinction between an attempt to retreat peaceably and a failure to make such an attempt. Attempting to retreat, I would assume, means that you’re making an effort to fully remove yourself from the potentially dangerous situation. Are you saying that people should be able to just fire away if they can avoid violence instead? The current law seems to say that if you can’t get away, you can use violence to defend yourself. Sounds perfectly logical to me: try to get away first; failing that, attempt to forcibly end the threat. Is that not reasonable?
Yes, it’s unreasonable to expect people who are in immediate danger to reflect upon all their options before acting. If someone pulls a knife on me at a bar my first reaction might be to grab a stein and crack him over the skull with it. Should I be punished because my first reaction wasn’t to run? I’m not the one who initiated force by pulling a knife. To answer your question, am I saying that people should be able to just fire away if they can avoid violence instead? I’m saying that the burden of avoiding violence shouldn’t be on the heads of the victim.
Marc
Heh. I especially like the phrasing of the answers to the poll question on the sidebar:
Q: etc. etc. Should Gov. Bush sign it?
I guess that trying to retreat AND dodge the bullets that the other guy is firing at you is considered a “peaceful solution”?
I am no fan of Jeb Bush. No way, no how. But, I think this bill would be a step in the right direction in one way. It would take the burden of defense off of a victim who was only trying to stay alive, and put it back on the attacker. Right now, there is a poplular mindset that the attacker gets to make the rules. He can start it off anyway he chooses - beer bottle, knife, Uzi, etc. The victim is constrained by an idiotic “no more force than is necessary” philosophy and a “duty to retreat” rule. If he defends himself, he has to worry about “using excessive force” against someone who by all indicators was trying to maim or kill him.
It still makes sense usually to run like hell. But, sometimes you just can not. You can outrun a drunk with a broken bottle sometimes. You can outrun a knife wielder sometimes. There is no guarantee you can outrun the other guy. You can not outrun a bullet. There may not be any place to run to. There is no reason to legally require you to run. It may only be postponing another more vicious attack at some other time, if it was someone you know, or if it is a stalker.
The new bill may have a dampening effect on the dirtbags who have learned that all the rules were stacked against the victim. It may convince them that yes, they do have to behave.
If someone is trying to crush my skull with a beer mug, or is slashing at me with a knife, or firing an entire clip at me, I figure there is not even a remote possibility of “peaceful” soultion. Sorry, but my life is more valuable to me than his is. I’m a selfish bastard that way. People don’t win fights by talking. They win by staying in one piece, or at least being able to walk/stagger away. Words won’t stop a fist that’s already on its way.
In the situations where this law applies, it is already too late to avoid violence.
No, that is not reasonable. First, as several people have pointed out already, it unjustly holds the victim responsible for actions taken under severe duress. Second, there are many situations where trying to run away is more dangerous than resisting (e.g. if there’s no nearby bolthole, turning your back on a thug guarantees that he’ll catch you at a greater disadvantage).
This law probably won’t change anyone’s behavior. If you feel threatened to the point where you think you need to shoot someone to defend yourself, you will do it regardless of what the law says.
I’d like to see the text of this bill and also the text of the law it’s meant to change… anyone have a link?
Notably though, the Bill passed 39-0 in the FLA Senate & 94-20 in the House. Persuing the Florida Congessional pages we find there are 14 Democrats (outta 40 members total) in the Senate & 36 Dems (outta 120 members total) in the House. This means even if the all seven of the legislature members who didn’t vote were Democrats that at minimum, 27 of the total 133 votes (or 20%) in favor of this Bill were cast by Democrats.
To be fair, Opus1 did say conservatives, not Republicans, which probably provides cover for at least some of those Democrats.
SB 436. This looks like the latest version of it. The summary page is here.
And looking at the sponsors, we find among them at least five Democrats.
So the bill allows a person to use deadly force outside of the home if the person reasonably believes such action will prevent “death or great bodily harm” or “the commission of a forcible felony.”
Yeah, sounds like a free-for-all to me. :rolleyes:
So, how long until we have another incident like the one in which Yoshihiro Hattori died?
I don’t know, but if we do, it won’t be a result of this law.
What, in the name of thundering fuck, does that incident have to do with this law?