# Planning on vacationing in Florida? Take your bullet proof vests. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 7, 2005, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/planning-on-vacationing-in-florida-take-your-bullet-proof-vests/298137 "2005-04-07T01:15:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2005, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/planning-on-vacationing-in-florida-take-your-bullet-proof-vests/298137/41 "2005-04-08T18:36:37Z")
> [@](#): > > Hell, it may deter officers from making an arrest. Section 776.032 of the new law: officers can investigate, but they can’t arrest until they have probable cause that the force used was unlawful under the new standard. Not “charge”, even, “arrest”. And that worries me. Huh? It worries you that the cops have to adhere to a “probable cause” standard before they arrest someone? That sounds outrageous to me, Shouldn’t “probable casue” be a _universal_ benchmark to be met before _any_ arrest is made? ---
**Author:** ![Kinthalis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kinthalis/32/16084_2.png) [@Kinthalis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kinthalis)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2005, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/planning-on-vacationing-in-florida-take-your-bullet-proof-vests/298137/42 "2005-04-08T18:52:16Z")
> [@flight](#): > > What the hell kind of crazy ass martial art do you take? Combative forms 🙂 Actually I’ve taken several years of Judo, Karate, and more recently Historical European Martial arts. > [@](#): > > I have trained in several for about ten years and have never heard this. What they WILL tell you, however, is that the best way to survive an encounter is to retreat, as the current law requires. I don’t disagree with this. Obviously if you can get away, you should attempt to do so. I’m not talking about those situations. > [@](#): > > If it is IMPOSSIBLE to retreat (the attacker is likely faster or there is no route) than you work as quickly and efficiently as possible towards **disabling** them, and then retreat. This is fantasy. Specially when discussing fighting with deadly weapons, such as knifes. Your premises that it would be easier to disable someone applies, but only to purely unarmed combat, and then only to someone who is not looking to kill you (i.e the school bully, the drunk trouble maker). However, when it comes to using instruments that could easily kill you, the proper way to respond is to move to kill your opponent quickly. This isn’t the movies, where the wise old monk disarms the 8 guy with knifes and knocks them all out with expert taps on the back of their heads. In a knife fight ANY move that is not aimed to remove the imminent threat is likely to get you killed. IF the oportunity arises somewhere in the melee to disarm your opponent and grapple with him so as to disable him, the more the better! But if you begin with that goal in mind while your opponent retains the intent of gutting you like a fish, you are playign fast and loose with your very life. > [@](#): > > Unless you have been studying Dim Mak or something it is a hell of a lot harder to kill someone than disable them, and you usually have to go through disabling them first, at which point you should stop attacking. Again, true, when speaking of purely unarmed encounters. Wether knifes or guns, the realistic way to handle the situation (again, as long as you cannot reasonably remove yourself from that situation) is to use deadly force. If you have a thug with a gun shooting at you, are you going to try and aim for his foot? Maybe try and shoot the gun out of his hand? Hells no! You’re going to aim for center of mass, that’s what he’s going to be doing. > [@](#): > > Plus, you don’t know if they have friends around. In fact, continuing to fight goes against the basic principles they teach in most schools. I agree. This is why you must be sure to end the fight quickly. When unarmed, this usually means hit first, hit hard, hit fast. When dealing with armed people it’s kill or be killed, and do it quickly. > [@](#): > > If you have a gun you shoot to kill, and you do not draw it unless you plan to kill. That hardly applies to hand to hand combat though. Unarmed combat, yes, you’re right. > [@](#): > > Which is exactly as it should be. Are you saying that you should be able to kill people if you _weren’t_ trying to defend yourself? Of course not! When did I say this? > [@](#): > > You know why? Because they are COPS. It is their job to be there and to intervene. They are supposed to take care of the situation. Cops are not always there. In fact, I’ll wager that most times they will NOT be there to help you. > [@](#): > > You are not. You are supposed to get the hell out of there if you can. Again, I agree with this, I’m not discussing these type of situations. > [@](#): > > You all seem to be of the opinion that you are supposed to try to escape when a guy is standing right in front of you waving a knife or revolver in your face. As I understand the application of the current law this is not so. You will be shot or stabbed in this case and have a right to defend yourself. However, if you are outside of a bar and the jerk who was threatening you earlier steps out waving a knife and cursing you about 20 feet away, then you have an obligation to try and get the hell out of there. You are not allowed to draw your own knife and ask to repeat what he just said or to move at him. Only seems to make sense. Nothing I’ve said contradicts what you’ve said. Obviously that would be the correct thing to do IN THAT SITUATION. ---
**Author:** ![Orbifold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/779978/32.png) [@Orbifold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orbifold)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2005, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/planning-on-vacationing-in-florida-take-your-bullet-proof-vests/298137/43 "2005-04-08T19:23:19Z")
Actually, it occurs to me now that I may be confusing “arresting” with “taking into custody”, and drawing a distinction between “charge” and “arrest” that doesn’t exist anyway. So upon further reflection, I’ll withdraw the last paragraph from my previous post. However, since you replied: > [@UncleBeer](#): > > Huh? It worries you that the cops have to adhere to a “probable cause” standard before they arrest someone? That sounds outrageous to me, Shouldn’t “probable casue” be a _universal_ benchmark to be met before _any_ arrest is made? “Probable cause” that deadly force has been used, or “probable cause” that deadly force has been used _and_ that the person who used it didn’t have a reasonable belief that their life was in imminent danger? It’s the latter that struck me as being too high of a standard to meet before taking someone into custody. However, as I said I think I was confusing “taking into custody” with “arrest”. Upon reflection, I don’t see how the new law will stop police from taking a suspect into custody for questioning while they investigate the matter, so that particular objection of mine was misplaced. Sorry for the confusion. ---
**Author:** ![flight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbce88/32.png) [@flight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flight)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2005, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/planning-on-vacationing-in-florida-take-your-bullet-proof-vests/298137/44 "2005-04-08T20:22:54Z")
**Kinthalis** , sorry if I misinterpreted you, but look back at your earlier post and I think you can see that you did not add all of these qualifiers back there. You just said a situation where your life is in danger, not such a situation that you could not escape from. As the question of whether or not an attempt at escape is required is central to the current topic I did not realize you had dismissed it. > [@Kinthalis](#): > > This is fantasy. Specially when discussing fighting with deadly weapons, such as knifes. Your premises that it would be easier to disable someone applies, but only to purely unarmed combat, and then only to someone who is not looking to kill you (i.e the school bully, the drunk trouble maker). Not really, I think you misunderstand. My point is that you try to incapacitate the person as quickly as possible with no real regard to their wellbeing. Even with a knife though, it is far more likely that they will be reduced to a point where they can not fight back, or even better can no longer chase you, before you actually kill them. Most people are damn surprised the first time knife hits flesh even if it is not a serious wound it can provide an ideal chance to leave the scene quickly. My point is not that you should try some movie heroics to disarm them and subdue them, but that the act of agressively defending yourself, when unarmed or armed with a non-firearm, will very likely afford you an opportunity of escape long before it results in someone’s death. You should then follow the current law and take this opportunity rather than the new law which may allow you to beat the guy down more. > [@](#): > > Again, true, when speaking of purely unarmed encounters. Wether knifes or guns, the realistic way to handle the situation (again, as long as you cannot reasonably remove yourself from that situation) is to use deadly force. > > If you have a thug with a gun shooting at you, are you going to try and aim for his foot? Maybe try and shoot the gun out of his hand? Hells no! You’re going to aim for center of mass, that’s what he’s going to be doing. As I said, any time you are firing a gun at someone you are firing to kill. I am not arguing that with you. In fact I think we agree on most points. I just differ in how you are saying that your goal is to kill as quickly as possible. Your goal is to make the other person incapable of continuing to fight/chase you as quickly as possible. The same techniques may be implemented but what I am saying is that you do not continue the fight until the guy is dead. In most cases you should reach a point where flight is an option before that. > [@](#): > > Of course not! When did I say this? Here. > [@](#): > > If you kill someone in such a confrontation you are probably going to get in toruble unless there is absolutley no doubt that you were tyring to defend yourself. Looking back I see that your focus is on the absolutely, but even still I agree that you should get in trouble. If you kill someone in self defense and it wasn’t absolutely no doubt that it was in self defense then a jury should decide the issue. This is right and proper. > [@](#): > > Cops are not always there. In fact, I’ll wager that most times they will NOT be there to help you. > > Again, I agree with this, I’m not discussing these type of situations. My point was, again, that your object should not be to handle the situation or to kill your attacker, but to turn it into a situation where flight is possible. The way you first phrased it (which I see now is not how you meant it) looked a lot like vigilateism. ---
**Author:** ![Kinthalis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kinthalis/32/16084_2.png) [@Kinthalis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kinthalis)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2005, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/planning-on-vacationing-in-florida-take-your-bullet-proof-vests/298137/45 "2005-04-08T20:46:58Z")
Indeed, looking back at my original post, I wasn’t being very clear. My apologies for that. I agree with everythign you are sayign except: “My point was, again, that your object should not be to handle the situation or to kill your attacker, but to turn it into a situation where flight is possible.” This should be a lucky happenstance. If it becomes possible, then certainly. But your main objective is to dispath your opponent, because that’s what he’s trying to do to you. If in attmepting to dispatch him you manage to create an opening for yourself to escape the situation, you should take it. I’m not saying have the guy down then finish him off. I’m saying, to survive your purpose should be to kill. If you end up maiming or making him relent, great! ---
**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 8, 2005, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/planning-on-vacationing-in-florida-take-your-bullet-proof-vests/298137/46 "2005-04-08T20:53:35Z")
> [@Orbifold](#): > > However, private citizens are perfectly able to go to court and claim the charges against them should be dismissed due to sections 776.013 (3) and 776.032 of the law to which **UncleBeer** so helpfully linked. And the courts will then evaluate the situation on its merits. Sometimes, they’ll get it wrong (treating a valid case of self-defense as a stupid overreaction, or treating a stupid overreaction as a valid case of self-defense). That is not a sufficient reason to reject the general principle that people have a right to defend themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2005, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/planning-on-vacationing-in-florida-take-your-bullet-proof-vests/298137/47 "2005-04-08T21:13:20Z")
The new Florida law sounds like a political ploy that will have very little real world impact, except that it might save a few people from being prosecuted for defending themselves, and might absolve a few from being held responsible for reckless use of force, though I think that is less likely. Blaring warnings about legalized dueling or a “Wild West” atmosphere is political bunkum as well. The case cited in Florida does not seem directly applicable, and I haven’t seen any cases cited from the other states having this law already, which would indicate a problem. We have had a concealed carry law in Ohio for a year now. Before it was passed, there were all sorts of warnings about Wild West shootouts and the horrific dangers of encouraging armed citizenry. The net effect, even with a gunslinging **Uncle Beer** roaming the streets\* has been virtually nil. A small percentage of people feels safer. I’m unaware of any significant drop in the crime rate, which proponents of the law were predicting. I’m picking up this Yosemite Sam imagery… ---
**Author:** ![Reeder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Reeder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reeder)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2005, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/planning-on-vacationing-in-florida-take-your-bullet-proof-vests/298137/48 "2005-04-08T21:32:04Z")
Y’all remember those girls that were fined in Florida for scaring the woman by leaving a cake, I think it was a cake, on her doorstep? They were punished for what they did so it seems the courts accepted the womans fear claim. So it seems to me, under this law, she could have shot them. But my point was not about the two doing the fighting, but about innocent bystanders. ---
**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 8, 2005, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/planning-on-vacationing-in-florida-take-your-bullet-proof-vests/298137/49 "2005-04-08T23:52:10Z")
> [@Orbifold](#): > > This is only tangential to the discussion, but…“multiple” warnings? I’ve seen no information anywhere that suggests Mr. Hattori was given more than one warning before he was shot. If you have information that suggests otherwise, please share. From what I read many years ago he was given multiple warnings before being shot. Is that incorrect? > [@](#): > > Why is that so hard to believe? Louisiana’s version of the home defense law was part of the defense in the case of Mr. Hattori’s murder. I’m sure it’s not outside the realm of possibility but I don’t think it’s likely. Do you really think this law will turn Florida into Dodge City? > [@](#): > > Now Florida has decided that _anyone_ has the legal justification to make those kinds of decisions in the heat of the moment without making an effort to retreat first, _anywhere_ where they have a right to be. Would you rather individuals wait until they’ve got a knife sticking out of their bellies before making those kinds of decisions? Marc [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/planning-on-vacationing-in-florida-take-your-bullet-proof-vests/298137.md?page=2)