Florida- shoot first law

[CKY_Alliance]

Anyone else hear about this...i saw it on another forum..apperntly floridians now have the right to use firearms in public places to defend themselves whenever they feel threatend.

I dont know much about it...im sure there are stipulations to it..just wondering what AO'ers thought about this law...(is it even real, or a big e-net houx?)

[Will Wood]

You plannig on shooting anyone?

Sure, it's probably a law. That won't mean anything in court though.

[wanna-b-ballin']

it is real.
its in my comcast news thing on my internet, and my teacher got from some other source, and told the class and there was a discussion.

[CKY_Alliance]

You plannig on shooting anyone?

Sure, it's probably a law. That won't mean anything in court though.

Na i dont live in florida...but me and my family do go to our condo for a week every year..ill just have to be careful not to piss anyone off.

[Kevmaster]

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

of course, the degree to which you are threatened will come in question in all investigations...but homicide is justafiable in some cases...

[Recon by Fire]

Some states have some pretty weird deadly force laws. Here in Texas once they approved our concealed carry laws I thought for sure our "generous" use of deadly force would become limited. The opposite happened! It is now easier to justify the use of deadly force. A case of justifiable use of deadly force involved a case of road rage, a guy got out of his vehicle and apporached another motorist and struck him in the head with his hand, the man then promptly shot him dead.

Still no shortage of stupid criminals though

[BigEvil]

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

of course, the degree to which you are threatened will come in question in all investigations...but homicide is justafiable in some cases...

There are lots of "gray areas" when it comes to these matters. If someone attacks you with a knife, shooting them with a gun is considered excessive force or something like that. You would be open to criminal charges, and believe it or not, a law suit from the guy who attacks you.

From what I breifly read about this new FL law, you are now ALLOWED to shoot when defending yourself, no matter how it is you are being attacked.

It is a common sense peice of ledgislation that is long over due. I hope NY and NJ follow Florida's lead, but being the Mecca of liberalism, I highly doubt it.

I love now how the anti gun movement in FL is handing out fliers to tourists exiting planes at the airports saying to beware of being shot.

[WingMan13]

I hope NY and NJ follow Florida's lead, but being the Mecca of liberalism, I highly doubt it.

You said it man...

[Vex]

If NJ is the Mecca of Liberalism, then California is the Holy Grail--now there's a state that needs a law like this.

[hardr0ck68]

i dont get it, were talking peoples lives here!

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. 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?

There allowing people to be trigger happy, and now you have an extra layer of fear to add on top of all the others our sociaty encourages. What a screw up law. If you shoot someone, there should be charges, and court dates; why? because you shouldent shoot any person without a reason that can stand up infornt of a jury!

common sence? if by common you mean lame, or unintellegent, or not very well thought, or gonna get some decent people killed(remember killed for real, no reset, respawn, next round, and or wipping) ; then yes it would appear so.

[bam wannabe]

as a native floridian, i only have one thing to say... im off to a pawn shop to get me a gun.

but in all seriousness, i dont even know if it went into full affect. ppl were talking about it in school a while back. but i havent heard anything else about it, or seen anything else on the news/t.v. about it. i personally hate the idea. enough people carried guns around my area when this law wasnt here. im not in the mood to piss off my neighbor and take a bullet

[Lohman446]

This law is awesome as designed, but will be abused by defense attorneys.

Basically, in many states (Michigan for certain, Florida before this law) you have a duty to retreat except in your home if that will difuse a situation before you can use deadly force. If you attack me and I have the ability to reasonably retreat rather than shoot you, I must retreat rather than meeting force with force. This law would allow me to stand my ground.

That being said I do not know if it lowers the threshold of the attack before you can fire. In Michigan that threshold is "imminent and reasonable danger of severe bodily harm, forcible sexual penetration, or death". I cannot shoot you if you do not pose a severe threat.

[Pacifist_Farmer]

I'm in favor of protecting myself and my loved ones, but giving all of the idiots out there the idea that they can carry a gun and shoot people who they find "threatening?"

I have the wonderful misfortune of living in Massachusetts, the idea of a law like this passing here, while absurd, is frightening. For example, the idea that the "entitled" drivers of this state will now pull a gun on me if I question their driving skills is ridiculous.

Laws like this need to be very closely tied to gun education initiatives, and responsibility training. Lord knows 90% of the people in this country arent responsible for anything, especially their own actions.


P.S. Playing the "Lets blame the liberals for everything we don't like game" just makes you sound stupid.

EDIT: I haven't read it yet, but I'm going to as soon as I'm done typing, does anyone know if there is any really substance to this law beyond "shoot first ask questions later"?

[Lohman446]

I highly doubt it is as simplistic threatening. I would guess the threat has to rise to a reasonable level of severe harm... though I do not know, the talk about this law is its doing away with the duty to retreat. I do not know if it lowered the level of threat needed before one could respond - I doubt it did.

Haha - Massachusets law at one point (and it may still) actually said you had a duty to retreat even your home if it was possible.

[Pacifist_Farmer]

Here comes the info.

From the ever trusted WP:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/25/AR2005042501553.html

A little bit from somebody else:

http://www.self-defender.net/law2.htm

And my personal favorite, a real break down of what the law says:

http://volokh.com/posts/1116516262.shtml