Florida- shoot first law

[SlartyBartFast]

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

Don't they? What's the Floridian definition of "forcible felony"?

If I "reasonably" beleive you are going to commit one, I can shoot you dead with no repercussion.

This takes the following retarded (but true) situation:

a homeowner "reasonably" believed that he was in danger from two college students who were looking for a party and went to the wrong house. So, while they were walking away from the house down the driveway, the homeowner came back out and shot them dead (in the back).

And moves the same justification out onto the streets...

[SlartyBartFast]

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.

It's the reasonable belief that's scary.

How many mundane arguments and disagreements can end with one person dead because one participant reaches into his pocket and the other "reasonbly believes" that the other is about to pull a weapon?

If laws like this are goig to pass, they should come with stringent rules to enforce propper behaviour. People carrying weapons in public for self defense should follow the exact same training as police officers for the same scenarios, and be held to the same standards as police officers.

[SlartyBartFast]

... it was passed to make it easier for people to shoot *him*.

You are a complete and absolute jerk. A sorry excuse for a human being.

The grandfather does one small offense that is wrong. Being a vigilante for a minor offense and commmiting battery to enforce his views.

Your a bigger jerk because you want to enforce your views (which can be just as mistaken and misguided) by enforcing them with justified murder.

You still haven't answered my question about Columbine in the other thread....

[tropical_fishy]

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

Honey, the definition of a felony in any state, except MA, as I said before, is ANY crime that carries mroe than ONE YEAR of jail time.

Please don't spread misinformation around.

[Pacifist_Farmer]

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.


Unfortunately that appears to be the long and short of it.

a homeowner "reasonably" believed that he was in danger from two college students who were looking for a party and went to the wrong house. So, while they were walking away from the house down the driveway, the homeowner came back out and shot them dead (in the back).

While I think maybe SlartyBartFast should try reading a whole thread then posting his opinions, instead of repeat posting, this quote from his post kinda highlights the problem with the bill.

By the text of the bill, this scenario seems legal. Whats missing from the scenario is the fact that those college students needed to enter the home, and the homeowner/etc. needs to presume unlawful acts. The arguement could be made in this case that since the college students mistakenly entered and left upon realizing their error, the homeowner should be obligated to call the police or confront the pair before opening fire.

While common sense says this, I'm not sure the bill does.

[Lohman446]

Don't confuse the castle doctrine with this law. The castle doctrine basically says, if you are in my house and not retreating I can shoot you and it is very common law. Yes, it is also part of this law, but not the part in question. The part in question is the doing away with the duty to retreat in any place you have a legal right to be.

This says that if there is a reasonable threat.

This does not mean I can say "I beleived" It must be a reasonable beleif to a jury. There is a massive difference, at least in legal terms

If you look at me funny and I shoot you, even if I beleived a threat, is a jury going to agree that it was a reasonable beleif? No

What if you are much bigger than me and advance in a menacing manner. Is there a reasonable threat of severe bodily harm? Maybe

What if you have a knife - is htere a reasonable threat? More likely

The area you have a problem with "reasonable beleif" is the balance of this law, your actions and beleifs that lead to that action must be found reasonable by a jury.

[SlartyBartFast]

While I think maybe SlartyBartFast should try reading a whole thread then posting his opinions, instead of repeat posting,

Slander and insult?

What did I miss smart guy?

[ShooterJM]

I just can't stop laughing when I think of somebody's grandpa chasing me down and demanding a fight or an apology. :rofl: But seriously, if you go around chasing people and demanding fights enough because of some perceived infraction, you should probably get beaten within an inch of your life. Getting shot for it? Eh, well, shoulda learned to control your impulses earlier in life.

[Maksimus54]

OK, this has become an absurd argument. As others have posted the only thing this changed was that you don't have to retreat when threatened. Thats it, it doesn't change the threat system or anything. As to who posted about being mugged, most muggings aren't peaceful, and are begun with violent threats or actions. To shoot a mugger is doing society a favcr and removing a dangerous unproductful part of society. As for your grandfather chasing people down and demanding an apology, that is just dangerous, especially if he had you in the car. With todays roadrage it wouldn't have taken much for a nutcase to gun him and you down, and for what, an apology over a percieved traffic violation? So anyways, this ruling has very little affect on anything, you guys need to chill and realize its not permitting people to run around and shoot anyone they want. It is to protect the people that have come into the unfortunate need of using a firearm they posses. This doesn't change who has a gun or whom they can shoot. It only states they do not have to retreat before they can draw their weapons.

[TheDuelist]

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.

Just for clarification this law was written by a state legislator who was involved in an incident that prompted her to write the law. It was signed by a Republican governor.

[trains are bad]

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.

This is still wrong, and I can't see where you were going with your retort. Shooting someone that is stealing your property is still illegal and you can only use deadly force to defend your life and limb. The above quote is simply wrong as written. Nothing about the terms of engagement has changed.

[Lohman446]

But sound bites like "wild west" and "shooting gallery" and don't "anger anyone or make threatening gestures" all make it sound like this law has changed things. The reason you can engage someone has not changed - they have just taken away the need to retreat. This said, it prevents a thug from forcing you away from a place you have a legal right to be with a threat - the old law required a reasonable effort to retreat.

Unfortunately, clearly explaining it, and making an effort to understand it, does not come off with as good a reaction for those that oppose it. Remember the uproar over the "shall issue" law change - I don't see the shooting gallery that erupted from it that this same type of person told us would.

[tropical_fishy]

This is still wrong, and I can't see where you were going with your retort. Shooting someone that is stealing your property is still illegal and you can only use deadly force to defend your life and limb. The above quote is simply wrong as written. Nothing about the terms of engagement has changed.

Under this law that's NOT true. You can shoot to kill if someone is committing a forcible felony, and you FEEL threatened. I can feel threatened if someone comes after me with a swiss army knife on my property. Should I be allowed to shoot and kill them? Shoot TO kill them? I'd say no, but if you think so... remind me not to break into your house .

[Target Practice]

Good.

[Pacifist_Farmer]

Slander and insult?

What did I miss smart guy?

none intended

just made in jest to the 3 or 4 posts you had in a row, frowned upon on other internet message boards

then again AO isn't "other" message boards, it has a character all its own.