Florida- shoot first law

[Lohman446]

"(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. "

Thats what I expected, assuming there is not more of an issue. Basically it does away with the duty to retreat, but you cannot shoot at the slightest threat only - well read the bold part

[Jaan]

my grandfather always would follow jerk motorist who had done something stupid and forced him into a bad situation. We all have it happen, some butt face decides to merge late, and forces you to hit the breaks or hit his car. So he would follow said ***-face until he could get the car to pull over then demand a fight or an appology.

Yeah, I had a vigilante do that to me once ... except for one small teeeny tiny detail: I didn't do anything wrong AT ALL. The guy who decided to follow me and teach me a lesson was the one who made a mistake. I ran that jerk into someones front lawn (I was trying to wrap him around a telephone pole) ... and HE was the one who got 9 months in prison for assault and battery with a deadly weapon.

It was all worth it though ... the look on the guys face when he was explaining what happened to the cops, and the cops told him "uh, back there there is no left turn. He was supposed to go straight ... you were in the right turn only lane. You screwed up." The look went from righteous indignation, to horrible realization.

Most of the time he got the appology, but he did fight many. I dont think this was wrong, but under this new law he could be shot dead, for teaching some jack-A%# a well deserved lesson.

Really who is in the wrong here?

Your grandfather is absolutely wrong. A mistake is one thing, but deliberately hunting someone down is WAAAAAAAY over the line. Who the hell does your grandfather think he is? Does he think he's better than everyone else? That's the problem with guys like your grandfather ... they think that the creator endowed them with special powers. Sorry to burst your bubble, but your grandfather is a flawed human being prone to mistakes just like the rest of us. It's too bad he has a small penis. I hope you realize the new law was written because people like your grandfather exist ... it was passed to make it easier for people to shoot *him*.

I'm going to print out your post and show it to people who believe in gun control. Your grandfather is exactly the reason it's so important for Americans to carry guns.

I'll tell you something else too ... if your grandfather ever chased a member of my family that way the first thing that would happen is that I would get a cell phone call, the second thing that would happen is they would drive to my house, and the third thing that would happen is your grandfather would get a shotgun blast smack in the middle of his chest.

[Lohman446]

. The guy who decided to follow me and teach me a lesson was the one who made a mistake. I ran that jerk into someones front lawn (I was trying to wrap him around a telephone pole) ...

Your grandfather is absolutely wrong. A mistake is one thing, but deliberately hunting someone down is WAAAAAAAY over the line. Who the hell does your grandfather think he is? Does he think he's better than everyone else? That's the problem with guys like your grandfather ... they think that the creator endowed them with special powers. Sorry to burst your bubble, but your grandfather is a flawed human being prone to mistakes just like the rest of us. It's too bad he has a small penis.

I just can't seem to make those two statements make sense together...

[tropical_fishy]

I think that as soon as this law is challenged in court the court will declare it unconstitutional. Either that or there will be a huge fight that overturns all precident. And we know how much the Supreme Court likes precident.

arnt you already allowed to defend yourself as necessary when you are threatened?

That's just the thing. Now someone trying to steal someone else's wallet or car or other material possession can be shot and KILLED for that crime, without even a slap on the wrist to the murderer. That isn't right, I don't care what anyone says. The statute currently in place in MOST places is that deadly force can only be used when a person is reasonably sure that deadly force will be used against him or some third person, or so the supreme court said in Katko v Briney. Even if there aren't any criminal trials, there's going to be so many wrongful death suits.... bleh.

Now you're going to get imbiciles with road rage shooting people as they drive down the freeway and trying to use this law to get off. Awesome.

You're going to get racist idiots shooting whoever they want and claiming they were carjacked. Definitely awesome.

I like how the general concensus is that this law is a Very Bad Idea, written by a conservative-- REPUBLICAN-- governor, and the liberals are still getting blamed for it. Contrary to popular belief, conservatives do stupid things too... this law is kinda proof of that.

[Lohman446]

That's just the thing. Now someone trying to steal someone else's wallet or car or other material possession can be shot and KILLED for that crime, without even a slap on the wrist to the murderer. That isn't right, I don't care what anyone says. The statute currently in place in MOST places is that deadly force can only be used when a person is reasonably sure that deadly force will be used against him or some third person, or so the supreme court said in Katko v Briney. Even if there aren't any criminal trials, there's going to be so many wrongful death suits.... bleh.
.

Have you read the law? I quoted part of it above. You still have to be threatened - a reasonable threat, of severe bodily harm. You can't just shoot because someone said something mean, or if you are not in peril. It just does away with the duty to attempt to retreat first - its not that much different than the laws in most places - aside from you do not have to attempt to retreat. Your doing the overreaction that everyone wants - its not what the law says.

[Lohman446]

Under current MI law, and the old Florida law (as I understand it), if met with a reasonable threat of severe bodily harm, death, or forcible sexual penetration (yeh, those are the three things I can jusitfy deadly for in MI at least, though shopkeeper and fleeing felon rules may also be applied and add more if I have a good lawyer) of myself or a third party I must, assuming I am capable of, take steps to difuse the situation before shooting. These steps are - and they are assuming I am able to

A) Flee- if retreating from the situation will remove the threat than I must do that.
B) Justifiable brandishment - if the simple showing of my weapon with threat will difuse the situation (not pointing) I must stop at that point.
C) Justifiable felonious assault - this is where I draw my gun, aim it, and give you the impression, through action or verbally, that I will shoot you. If the threat stops I must then stop, can't shoot.
D) At that point I can pull the trigger to stop the threat...

The Florida law simply does away with the duty to flee. I am not certain how there law was set up on the second two duties to begin with. I agree with the law, why should an aggressive person be able to drive you from a place you have a lawful right to be solely because the law does not support you standing your ground.

[tropical_fishy]

Have you read the law? I quoted part of it above. You still have to be threatened - a reasonable threat, of severe bodily harm. You can't just shoot because someone said something mean, or if you are not in peril. It just does away with the duty to attempt to retreat first - its not that much different than the laws in most places - aside from you do not have to attempt to retreat. Your doing the overreaction that everyone wants - its not what the law says.

I did read the law. But anyone can say ANYTHING is threatening. That doesn't mean it'll work, but it WILL function to clog up the system. It also, as I said, negates the idea of using deadly force only after you have been THREATENED with deadly force. Forgive me, but I think that was a pretty good idea to begin with. I'm not overreacting, I just don't think we need more nutcases armed with guns and bad information.

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

In every state except MA, a felony is a crime that carries MORE than one year in prison. Possession of drugs, rape, robbery, etc. So yes, a robbery could be considered a forcible felony.

[Lohman446]

I did read the law. But anyone can say ANYTHING is threatening. That doesn't mean it'll work, but it WILL function to clog up the system. It also, as I said, negates the idea of using deadly force only after you have been THREATENED with deadly force. Forgive me, but I think that was a pretty good idea to begin with. I'm not overreacting, I just don't think we need more nutcases armed with guns and bad information.

I agree a lot of people will have hte wrong info, but the law still only allows deadly force under a narrow band of "reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony". It is not a simple threat or say "I was threatened". It is the normal reasonable person test. The information, how they are presenting this as a "wild west" law is simply wrong. All it has changed is the duty to retreat, which sucked in teh first place.

[hardr0ck68]

Jaan: i was ready to defend my points, and argue with you about all of this, untill i realized your a simple child. Your post shows it, discussing the penis size of a dead war vet. Yeah good for you, you ran a jerk off the road, the guy was wrong. However if you havent noticed there are many dumb people on the road. When in a two ton SUV they think they are big shots who can do anything, but when confornted with a good old fist the turn into chicken crap.

You say that people should be allowed to act like idiots with complete immunity? I believe that is what has gotten this nation into problems in the first place. We say "hey what im doing is wrong, but not illegal (or a minor offense), so screw you, touch me and i will press charges". So now a decent person, who may have been wronged, must bite their pride and go home feeling the shame of not standing up for themselves. If they chose to deck the jerk, they could end up in jail or with civil suit; fear of standing up for yourself; yeah thats the American way.

If you ask me their is nothing more American that slugging an Idiot in a manner where both parties are on equal footing. Why? I dont know maybe i played to much cowboys and indians when i was young. But KILLING a person, because you pissed them off and felt threatened? If your a jerk you deserve to be, and therefor feel threatened! and you should not have the right to KILL someone, you understand dead right? just cause you wet your little panties!

Edit x2 I guess i did end up defending my paoint aginst you, oh well. Yeah my grandfather was flawed, like yours and you and me and everyone else. But what i like about his method is that people learned there is another REAL person behind the wheel of the car they cut off, a person who gets pissed because of it. I bet all those he encountered thought twice before acting like kerks on the road again.

[Echo419]

But then it will come into play, that u have to have a license to carry a fire arm with you in public... ?

[Lohman446]

In every state except MA, a felony is a crime that carries MORE than one year in prison. Possession of drugs, rape, robbery, etc. So yes, a robbery could be considered a forcible felony.

Forcible felony - robbing I'm going to go into the aggressive mugging theory, not sneaking around thief. I'm fine with the use of force against anyone threatening force to committ a crime.

[Lohman446]

But then it will come into play, that u have to have a license to carry a fire arm with you in public... ?

Yes, and Florida concealed weapons permits are pretty easy to get. The government has changed the law (and MI modeled it after Florida's law) to a shall issue. Basically as long as you have not done something that puts you on a list of disqualifiers they must issue you a liscense when you ask for one - you do have to jump through some hoops though (ie training class, fingerprinting, background check, retraining) not that I'm complaining about those hoops.

[trains are bad]

It's a good law. It is really misunderstood by a lot of people. It's nothing to be against unless you are into empowering criminals, which I am not.

Now someone trying to steal someone else's wallet or car or other material possession can be shot and KILLED for that crime, without even a slap on the wrist to the murderer. That isn't right, I don't care what anyone says.

No. If you don't know what you are talking about, please don't spread misinformation like that around.

[SlartyBartFast]

You still have to be threatened - a reasonable threat, of severe bodily harm.

The scariest part of that law is that you are misreading a very important part of your own quote.

he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so

The person doing the shooting only has the reasonably believe.

How many nuts are there out there that think their view of every one is out to get them and deserve to be shot is "reasonable"?

[Lohman446]

The scariest part of that law is that you are misreading a very important part of your own quote.

Which part? I beleive that you have a reasonable beleif of bodily harm if someone is trying to commit a forceable felony against you. I expect thats our disagreement, it will be interesting to see how juries decide "reasonable". The test is not my reason, it is a "reasonable" person test.