[maddog]

Originally Posted by John Carter

As it also says in the article linked, this is the way it already is in most parts of the US.

Pardon me. I misunderstood what you were saying. I thought that the statement "this is the way it is in most of the US" was referring to current common law on self-defense. If Florida law is already like the self-defense common law in the other states, there would be no need to enact a new self-defense law. Now I see: the article says that the bill's proponents say the new self-defense law is the same in most of the US already. I haven't done a survey of all US jurisdictions' self-defense law, BUT I do know that the new statute represents a departure from traditional self-defense law under common law precepts. A departure which, in the simplistic sound-byte world of the media can give the impression (as this article expressly states) that the new law "would allow people who feel threatened -- even on the street or at a baseball game -- to 'meet force with force' and defend themselves without fear of prosecution." In addition, the statement is not proof that other US jurisdictions already match this legislation--it's just what the proponents SAY is the case.

I stand by lunachick's assessment that the new statute -- as reported in the press -- implies that "you can kill anyone now - just say that you felt threatened or whatever and w[ere] simply doing what you had to do." This may be somewhat overstated, but the article certainly does suggest that people can be much freer in using deadly force without having to fear any consequences.

Originally Posted by John Carter

It still sounds like hysteria to me.

Fair enough. I don't think that it means we're going to see wholesale slaughter on the streets in Florida, but I do think it's going to contribute to a few tragedies that might not have happened otherwise. I also still think that these are useful questions:

Originally Posted by maddog

[I]f the extant law already says that it is permissible to meet deadly force with deadly force, and it already says it is permissible to meet force with force, what is the need for this law? Why would anyone promote it? What is its purpose? We don't presume that the Legislature is performing idle acts. Whose ox is going to be gored?

Originally Posted by John Carter

All this says is that some people who carry weapons misused them. It does not indicate, as you want to imply, that everyone who does so cannot be trusted.

I neither said nor implied that *everyone* who carries weapons cannot be trusted. I just think that when signals are sent that it's OK to use deadly force, and that former restrictions have been relaxed, it's easier to give in to the impulse to use a gun if you have one handy. It happens enough already. It would be a shame if the rate increased, even a little.

Originally Posted by John Carter

I don't know whether or not this legislation is redundant or not, as I do not know exactly what current Florida Law states. All I meant to point out was that Lunachick's post was at the very least over reacting. I cannot see how any reasonable person could possibly conclude that they can now kill anyone they want.

I took it as hyperbole, but hyperbole with a grain of truth in it.

Originally Posted by John Carter

But then again, I gather from your "gun nut" rhetoric earlier that you don't feel that anyone who has weapons is reasonable anyway.

You have concluded incorrectly. People with weapons certainly *can* be reasonable. Some people can be experienced enough to handle a crisis. But it's hard for lots of people -- hard for anyone, really -- to remain calm and reasonable in really scary or highly emotional situations. Things go wrong often enough as it is. I wish people had more, not fewer, incentives to AVOID resorting to deadly force. If you create conditions which are likely to make people feel psychologically freer to do something, I'd suspect they will do it more often.

#409