[turtle777]

WTF ?

A US gun control group is placing adverts in British newspapers this weekend to highlight new laws allowing gun owners to shoot anyone they feel is threatening their safety.

http://www.itn.co.uk/news/63537.html

The US is more and more losing its collective mind. And Florida is first.

-t

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by turtle777

WTF ?



http://www.itn.co.uk/news/63537.html

The US is more and more losing its collective mind. And Florida is first.

-t

Acually I do agree. Prisons are full and there is a dire need to control crime! The wicked shall never be at rest until the blood bath is full and overflowing on the future generations of would-be criminal evildoers. The Heart of Life shall beat with a "bang!" I say!

Let there be no doubt by eliminating the source of doubt itself!

Kill everyone!

[residentEvil]

Actually, in Detroit, it has been legal for a while. This year was the most in history with those types of shootings...that includes trespassing, threatening, robbery, etc. The cases do go to court but courts usually find in their favor. Free Press i believe just had an article on a woman who killed 2 in her parking lot of the bar she owns.

[turtle777]

This is farkin' insane.

-t

[residentEvil]

Here is the article; you can kill someone and they call it "Justified Homicide"

http://www.freep.com/news/locway/jus...e_20050926.htm

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by turtle777

This is farkin' insane.

-t

Nooooooooooooo!

This is great!

[AKcrab]

This has been the case in Alaska. A recent event had a preacher shooting two folks who broke into his church. Neither were armed, both were shot as they were running away, one in the back. The bloke shot in the back died, Preacher got off scott free.

[Doofy]

I fully agree with being able to do whatever you want (including putting their head on a spike in the middle of your front lawn) to someone who's on your property and shouldn't be... ...but shooting folks who you feel are "threatening" in a public, communal place? That's insane.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by residentEvil

Actually, in Detroit, it has been legal for a while. This year was the most in history with those types of shootings...that includes trespassing, threatening, robbery, etc. The cases do go to court but courts usually find in their favor. Free Press i believe just had an article on a woman who killed 2 in her parking lot of the bar she owns.

Actually, in Detroit, it has NOT been legal for a while. Just because a few have been adjucated as justifiable homicide does not mean it is legal for people to go around indiscrminiately shooting others when they feel threatened. The MI legislature is working on a bill to make it clearer as to when justifiable homicide is permissible, but that's a lot different than making it legal to shoot someone just because you feel threatened. If you had read the rest of the article, it also stated that Detroit's rate of justifiable homicide is in line with the rest of the nation.

[SimeyTheLimey]

A US gun control group is placing adverts in British newspapers this weekend to highlight new laws allowing gun owners to shoot anyone they feel is threatening their safety.

That's a huge misstatement of the law. A more accurate statement would be to say that in Florida (as in most states) if you are sufficiently threated to use deadly force, and if a jury agrees with you that you were in fact sufficiently threatened that they think your use of force in self-defense was reasonable, then the jury can aquit you rather than convict you of murder. That's rather a long way from saying that people have a license to shoot anyone they feel is threatening their safety.

[TETENAL]

So before when you killed someone in self-defense you were going to jail in Florida?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

So before when you killed someone in self-defense you were going to jail in Florida?

That's not a good way to phrase the question because you are assuming the definition. The issue is what set of factual circumstances lead to a successful defense of self-defense. If you fall short, then the defense fails, and you haven't killed in self-defense and you can be convicted. If you successfully raise the defense, then you are aquitted.

I'm not an expert on Florida law, but the general issue that varies from state to state is whether there is a duty to retreat when threatened. Most states say that there is not, but some say that there is a duty to retreat. Some of those minority of states say that there is any kind of duty to retreat, say that there isn't a duty to retreat in your own home. My understanding is that the Florida statute simply clarifies that Florida is in the majority with no duty to retreat under any circumstances.

Another variation is what degree of subjective certainty (measured objectively against a "reasonable person" standard) is deemed sufficient to trigger the right to self defense. Generally speaking, a subjective feeling of being threatened is not enough, your subjective feeling will be measured by what the jury feels a reasonable (i.e. average) person would have thought at the time and in similar circumstances. In other words, if you simply have an active imagination and think that people are a threat to you that a normal average person would not think are a threat to you, then you can't kill someone and then successfully raise a defense of self-defense.

Some states (and Florida has apparently joined them) have codified that certain circumstances presumptively are self-defense unless proven otherwise. Common examples are home invasions (especially at night) or where an aggressor is armed with a deadly weapon. But this is still just a presumption. Presumptions can be rebutted.

Of course, there is another whole issue here in that generally, if the circumstances that make a defense of self-defense is really apparent, then the probability is that the prosecutor won't even bring charges. But that isn't something that the law directly controls. It's more indirect. The law says what would be a successful defense, and prosecutors pick up the cue.


**************************

Edit: the above was based on general knowledge of American law. Despite that, it appears to be a pretty accurate description of the proposed Florida statute. Here is the text. The fact that I was able to predict the text by my knowledge of the general landscape of the law in this area should suggest that no matter what the activists are saying, in fact this isn't much of a departure. The law is certainly not as radical as they are pretending.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Florida statute simply clarifies that Florida is in the majority with no duty to retreat under any circumstances.

There's no "duty to retreat"? What does that mean?

Let's say we have a guy with a knife who says "I gonna kill you to take your money." I would be allowed to shoot this guy in self-defense obviously. Now I pull my weapon and the guy says "No thanks. I don't wanna do it any more." and puts away his knife or throws it into the river. Now there's no duty to retread? I can still shoot him? Can I shoot him in the back when he runs away? Can I have a car chase and shoot him? What if he escapes and I see him a week later in the park?

[Maflynn]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

There's no "duty to retreat"? What does that mean?

Duty to retreat means, if you can retreat (run away) instead of using deadly force, then you have to. In Massachusetts we cannot use deadly force and we have a duty to retreat.

Imho it seems in most metropolitan areas there's little reason to own a gun, quite the opposite, the number of accidental deaths is incredably high.

Just my $.02

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

There's no "duty to retreat"? What does that mean?

Let's say we have a guy with a knife who says "I gonna kill you to take your money." I would be allowed to shoot this guy in self-defense obviously. Now I pull my weapon and the guy says "No thanks. I don't wanna do it any more." and puts away his knife or throws it into the river. Now there's no duty to retread? I can still shoot him? Can I shoot him in the back when he runs away? Can I have a car chase and shoot him? What if he escapes and I see him a week later in the park?

Basically, the duty to retreat says that if you are threatened, and you defend yourself using force and you are charged with a crime for using that force (e.g. murder, manslaughter, battery, etc), you can't claim the legal defense of self-defense if you didn't attempt to run away before using force.

Most states regard the duty to retreat as an unreasonable demand and will grant the self-defense legal defense in most circumstances (obviously, this is a case-by-case thing). Even the minority of states that have a duty to retreat usually don't apply it if the person is in his own home (though some would). In no state is a duty to retreat an absolute ban on the use of force in self-defense. It's just an additional step that the law requires if circumstances allow that the law imposes before it will allow you to claim the defense of self-defense.

Also: in most states, "self-defense" can include the defense of others around you.

Your examples above aren't good illustrations for the duty to retreat. In the first one, if retreat is impossible, no state will require it (at least, not to my knowledge). In the second case, you generally cannot use the defense of self-defense if the attacker has already abandoned his attack. You have to actually be in danger to claim a self-defense defense. If you chase and shoot him, it isn't self-defense.

However, that's complicated by the fact that most states will allow some use of force to apprehend a fleeing person who has committed a felony offense in the presence of the citizen who uses force to apprehend him. You generally can't use deadly force, but you may be able to if the fleeing felon is armed and dangerous. The idea there is a bit different. It is that citizens have a limited power to enforce the law for the protection of society as a whole, kind of like the police officer's privilege to use force, but more limited. So in that situation, you wouldn't be using a defense of self-defense, you would be raising another defense entirely to a prosecution. It works in a similar way, in that you would still be vulnerable to prosecution and would still have to raise the defense as an affirmative defense, which means if you lose, you go to jail. But the rationale is different.

All of the above is a state law issue where the states vary quite a bit. These are broad brush strokes.

[Sky Captain]

Florida realizes that the police force is incapable/too incompetant to protect it's citizenry.
It's time for the citizens to take back the streets.
Dead criminals don't become repeat offenders.

[IFLY2HIGH]

Make sure no one is around, just shoot the guy, beat yourself up a little to get some black and blues, and just tell the police that you were trying to get away and to no avail you had to kill him to save your life. Who they gona ask? The dead guy sure can't defend himself now.

Shoot and make up a story later...

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

Florida realizes that the police force is incapable/too incompetant to protect it's citizenry.
It's time for the citizens to take back the streets.
Dead criminals don't become repeat offenders.

Who allowed the force to become "incapable/incompetent?" The citizens. I find it humorous when people don't realize they're responsible for the actions of their government, which is basically what's happening in this country today.

[Spliffdaddy]

The police force doesn't have any obligation to protect your life. In most cases, they would be too late to make any difference. Our founding fathers understood this to be true - so they made sure the citizens would have a right to bear arms.

Just don't threaten anybody - and you'll greatly reduce your chance of getting shot. Seems reasonable to me.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Basically, the duty to retreat says that if you are threatened, and you defend yourself using force and you are charged with a crime for using that force (e.g. murder, manslaughter, battery, etc), you can't claim the legal defense of self-defense if you didn't attempt to run away before using force.

That sounds unreasonable. What if you can't run away – like when you're trapped in a dead end street?

Reasonable is to allow in self-defense any force that is strong enough to prevent the attack but as low as possible (plus there is I think a margin of escalation allowed in Germany since the defender can't possible determine exactly the lowest possible force to prevent the attack in the second he is attacked. I think that's a reasonable as well).

In German media it was said that the new law in Florida allows you to pull your weapon if you are arguing over a parking lot. That is most definitely unreasonable force. If someone takes your parking lot before you, there is no self-defense at all that you can can clame. Pulling your weapon is totally out of proportion.

[pooka]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Pulling your weapon is totally out of proportion.

You've obviously never tried to find parking at Walmart.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

That sounds unreasonable. What if you can't run away – like when you're trapped in a dead end street?

I already answered that. In the minority of states that have the duty to retreat at all, they would all say that if you can't retreat, you don't have to try to retreat.

Most states, however, wouldn't subject you to second-guessing about whether or not there was an avenue of escape. They would simply judge whether or not you had a reasonable fear of violence such that you can claim self-defense.

In German media it was said that the new law in Florida allows you to pull your weapon if you are arguing over a parking lot.

I don't believe that the Florida law would allow you to brandish a deadly weapon over an argument over a parking lot. That would put the other person in fear of his life, and probably make you guilty of assault (this is a guess, I am not a Florida lawyer, but I am probably right on this). It would certainly trigger the other person's right to self-defense. Your press in Germany is misreporting the issue.

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

This must be a joke. Even Texas isn't this idiotic.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by pooka

You've obviously never tried to find parking at Walmart.

-t

[Cubeoid]

Personally, I'd rather shot somebody with music...like the man yellowman would say. Gwaan!

[kd]

I've been observing U.S. gun control politics for over 20 years, from the perspective of a non-American non-gun-owner. In that time I've read thousands -- literally thousands -- of arguments on the subject of gun ownership. One of the conclusions I've drawn is that U.S. gun control groups are prone to hysteria and the promulgation of propaganda; if you lend them any credence, you'll be misled more often than not.

Why is this so? My guess is that it's the same phenomenon you'll observe with the drug-control groups: in a strictly rational argument on the merits, they'd be on the losing side. So they go with the only thing that'll work for them, fear-mongering.

If you see an alarming press release on the subject, don't swallow it hook, line and sinker.

[SimeyTheLimey]

The point is also that this statute is not a gun law. Guns aren't the only way to use deadly force in self-defense. This statute (and the law generally) applies to any form of self-defense. It's not even specific to armed self-defense. These same issues arise in countries everywhere, no matter how strict their gun laws.

There is an interesting tie in here. I wonder if the group running these ads in the UK realize that there has been quite a debate in the UK in recent years about the use of self-defense by homeowners during home invasions? Of course, the relevancy here is being obscrued by the awful misrepresentation of what the Florida statute actually says and does. It's hard to intelligently debate an issue when the issue is as grossly distorted as this seems to have been.

[Sky Captain]

Ahhh, that's right. I forgot about your right to be a victim in England.
Part of the social provisions programme to the needy.
Let them come in and take what the need/want by force and to hell with the property owner.
That's just what the left wants here in America.


And Brazil exceeds America in gun violence. Where the citizens fear the police more than the criminals.

[Spliffdaddy]

Did you know?

Guns are used 2 million times each year in the USA to defend against criminal activity.

Many more lives are saved by guns - than taken by guns.

[Sky Captain]

What we need are regulations to protect the citizenry!
I know, let's pass laws that prohibit murder, rape, stealing/damaging property and assault!
Then we can collect a force of trained citizens to enforce these laws.
That will end crime.


Why haven't our leaders thought of this?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

What we need are regulations to protect the citizenry!
I know, let's pass laws that prohibit murder, rape, stealing/damaging property and assault!
Then we can collect a force of trained citizens to enforce these laws.
That will end crime.


Why haven't our leaders thought of this?

We have; they're called police officers. Our society has now reached the point, however, where we don't think they're as necessary as they used to be, as it's more important for us to buy $150 sneakers, endorsed by some "superstar," and made in a sweat shop in China, than it is to spend a small portion of that money on police patrols and other effective law-enforcement tools.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Did you know?

Guns are used 2 million times each year in the USA to defend against criminal activity.

Many more lives are saved by guns - than taken by guns.

NRA member? There's no way to verify those numbers. That would mean, on average, 110 times per day, in each state, someone is using a weapon to defend themselves.

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Many more lives are saved by guns - than taken by guns.

Give me a ****ing break

[Sky Captain]

More people are killed by drunk drivers.
But there's no warnings in papers in England now is there?

The police are completely incapable of protecting the average citizen.
Just 2 weeks ago a REPEAT OFFENDER(read posterboy of the leftist penal system) carjacked a woman, crashed the car into a cementtruck. Then shot her just for fun.
A COMPLETE STRANGER passing by saw the incident, went to assist, saw him shoot her, chased him when he fled(as encouraged by the leftist penal system) and gunned him down.(justice is served)
This happened about 20 miles from where I live.


Just so you don't say my story is ********:

Scratch 1 scumbag.

[BRussell]

I'd like to know what purpose this law serves, other than to get some politicians extra money from the gun lobby. What law-abiding citizen is in prison now for legitimately defending themselves? My understanding is: none, not a single person. This law has no legitimate purpose.

But I can see how it will be used: Bad guys with good lawyers will try to use it to get off on homicide charges. "Your honor, my client (the drug dealer) was in fear of his life, and that's why he shot and killed his competitor drug dealer on the street, and a few other innocent bystanders." And that's why police and prosecutors are against this. It helps no law-abiding citizens, and will only be a pain in the ass for prosecutors trying to get bad guys.

[Sky Captain]

If said drug dealer has a prior felony, he's in violation.

It's for citizens who carry.
Case in point, the incident that happened in Georgia I posted earlier.


I just watched an episode of Cops where a "routine" traffic stop almost got an officer killed.
No guns involved.
A felon carrying drugs was stopped. After the officer (120 pound female) tried to arrest the repeast offender(175 pound male), he beats her nearly to death. Bare hands. Tells her he can't go back to prison.
The problem is the criminals.
If we only had laws that prohibited criminals from assaulting public servants, this would have never happened.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I'd like to know what purpose this law serves, other than to get some politicians extra money from the gun lobby. What law-abiding citizen is in prison now for legitimately defending themselves? My understanding is: none, not a single person. This law has no legitimate purpose.

It aligns the law with what I think most citizens regard as the way the law should be. Try telling the average person that if they are mugged or their houses are invaded and they defend themselves, but that if they didn't attempt to run away first, then they (not the mugger or the burglar) is the real criminal and will see the most severe penalty. Most people would respond that that is crazy. Most people have some sense that if a criminal victimizes a person, that the victim has the right to defend himself, and ought not to be required to run away and leave the criminal to help himself to the victim's house or possessions.

This is basically statutory law changing judge-made common law that has become separated from the popular will. It's how our democratic system works. It's the response of the elected representatives of the people to a trend in the law that they did not choose. It's also, of course, aligning Florida with the way the law already is in the majority of states.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

It aligns the law with what I think most citizens regard as the way the law should be. Try telling the average person that if they are mugged or their houses are invaded and they defend themselves, but that if they didn't attempt to run away first, then they (not the mugger or the burglar) is the real criminal and will see the most severe penalty. Most people would respond that that is crazy. Most people have some sense that if a criminal victimizes a person, that the victim has the right to defend himself, and ought not to be required to run away and leave the criminal to help himself to the victim's house or possessions.

This is basically statutory law changing judge-made common law that has become separated from the popular will. It's how our democratic system works. It's the response of the elected representatives of the people to a trend in the law that they did not choose. It's also, of course, aligning Florida with the way the law already is in the majority of states.

I think most people would say that it's reasonable to avoid a fight, not to mention to avoid killing someone, if possible. It's probably true that that critics are making overblown statements about what will happen under this new law, but the supporters should admit that the law addresses a completely non-existent problem. The authors of the law admit that not a single person they know of has been convicted of homicide in a case that would apply under this new law.

And I think there is a legitimate concern that this could create some new problems. My understanding is that this law concerns places outside the home too - any place you're "legally allowed to be." Retreating when you're in your home does seem silly. But if you're on the street? That seems very different to me.

[Mark Larr]

So I guess I was out of line in using my handgun to defend my family's lives this past summer?

He dropped in from the attic of the rented condo and I put a full magazine in him.

Turned out he had RAPED three women and the police couldn't figure out how he was getting in the condos.


I guarantee he'll never hurt another innocent again.

[placebo1969]

Originally Posted by Mark Larr

So I guess I was out of line in using my handgun to defend my family's lives this past summer?

He dropped in from the attic of the rented condo and I put a full magazine in him.

Turned out he had RAPED three women and the police couldn't figure out how he was getting in the condos.


I guarantee he'll never hurt another innocent again.

Where was that? Ironically, they were talking about stopping crimes this morning on the radio. Glad to hear your family is okay.

[olePigeon]

I'm waiting for the inevitable commedy sketch that has a 90-year-old woman with a Desert Eagle, shooting "punk kids" off her portch.

[Mark Larr]

It was in Destin Florida, Placebo.

It's getting crazy here in Georgia with fuel becoming scarece and expensive.

I actually am carrying a handgun with me when I fuel my truck since it's $60 to fill it.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

That's a huge misstatement of the law. A more accurate statement would be to say that in Florida (as in most states) if you are sufficiently threated to use deadly force, and if a jury agrees with you that you were in fact sufficiently threatened that they think your use of force in self-defense was reasonable, then the jury can aquit you rather than convict you of murder. That's rather a long way from saying that people have a license to shoot anyone they feel is threatening their safety.

I completely agree with having the right to defend oneself, but how is "sufficiently threatened" defined? Sounds rather subjective to me.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

I completely agree with having the right to defend oneself, but how is "sufficiently threatened" defined? Sounds rather subjective to me.

It's ultimately a decision for the jury, but they are instructed to decide it compared to the reasonable person standard, which is considered objective. Basically, they decide whether a hypothetical ordinary person under the same circumstances would think that the threat was sufficiently real to justify violence in self-defense.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Mark Larr

It was in Destin Florida, Placebo.

It's getting crazy here in Georgia with fuel becoming scarece and expensive.

I actually am carrying a handgun with me when I fuel my truck since it's $60 to fill it.

You are joking, aren't you, about carrying a gun over $60 in fuel?

[OldManMac]

It gets better:

Guns May Have A Place At Work

October 3, 2005 10:06 p.m. EST

Danielle George - All Headline News Staff Reporter
Tallahassee, Florida (AHN) - Florida businesses could soon face criminal charges if they try to stop employees from bringing guns to work in their cars.
The National Rifle Association and two state lawmakers have filed bills to allow workers to have guns at work, as long as the weapons remain locked in their vehicles.
According to the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, about 353,000 people in Florida have concealed-weapons permits.
That figure does not include people who don't need to obtain the licenses, such as police and military personnel.
Supporters say they are confident they will get the law passed during next year's legislative session, which begins in March. The NRA is among the most powerful groups in Florida politics, contributing $330,000 to the Republican Party since 1996.

[Sky Captain]

I carry a gun to work sometimes.(Sig Sauer P226)
I keep it in a lockbox on the flightdeck.(cockpit)

And with the price of fuel I'm also keeping it on me now.

And just what is an acceptable limit?
If you want to be a victim, just throw your wallet at every suspicious person you see.
That'll keep you out of harms way.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Your press in Germany is misreporting the issue.

Do you agree that the Süddeutsche is a reputable newspaper?

http://www.sueddeutsche.de/,tt3m2/ku...kel/804/61743/

It reports today that in Florida you can now be legally shot for ringing the bell on a house.

[Mark Larr]

Originally Posted by KarlG

You are joking, aren't you, about carrying a gun over $60 in fuel?

Are you willing to lose your life while trying to fuel your vehicle?

I'm not.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Mark Larr

Are you willing to lose your life while trying to fuel your vehicle?

I'm not.

You live in a horror-state.