Good, common sense, anti-crime issue!

[Petra]

TALLAHASSEE, Florida (AP) -- Gov. Jeb Bush said Tuesday he intends to sign a bill that 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.

The measure, the top priority of the National Rifle Association in Florida this year, passed the House 94-20 on Tuesday. It had already passed the Senate.

The bill says a person 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."

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/04/05....ap/index.html


Wow. I guess you can kill anyone now - just say that you felt threatened or whatever and was simply doing what you had to do.

[copiae]

An eye for an eye, as the good Lord said.

[Crumb]

meet force with force

I am assuming this doesn't mean you can meet insults or obscene gestures with force, but that you can meet force with force. Isn't this the way it is anyway?

[Godless Dave]

Media hype aside, what the law really says is that you get to use deadly force if you are threatened with deadly force. If someone pulls a gun on you you can shoot them without trying to run away first. Makes perfect sense to me. I'm not a fan or member of the NRA and I loathe Jeb Bush with every fiber of my being, but I would support this law if I lived in Florida.

I'm not sure if my state has similar legislation, but in practice prosecutors don't bring charges against someone who shoots in self defense.

[John Carter]

Originally Posted by lunachick

Wow. I guess you can kill anyone now - just say that you felt threatened or whatever and was simply doing what you had to do.

No, not really. That is a completely unjustified characterization of this legislation. As it also says in the article linked, this is the way it already is in most parts of the US.

[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.

And therefore wholly unnecessary. Except to give the impression, as lunachick says, that "you can kill anyone now - just say that you felt threatened or whatever and w[ere] simply doing what you had to do." That it was the brain-child of the NRA should tell you something. To the extent it's at all different from existing law, it makes life MORE dangerous, not safer. The common law concerning self-defence is that, IF you can retreat safely, you should do so. You are allowed to stand your ground IF you cannot safely disengage. You are not allowed to escalate force. You cannot meet non-deadly force with deadly force. Courts and juries already handle these questions all the time, day in and day out. This statute is completely unnecessary; it is simply political pandering which will be taken as a license by gun-nuts.

#402

[LiveToRide]

Originally Posted by maddog

And therefore wholly unnecessary. Except to give the impression, as lunachick says, that "you can kill anyone now - just say that you felt threatened or whatever and w[ere] simply doing what you had to do." That it was the brain-child of the NRA should tell you something. To the extent it's at all different from existing law, it makes life MORE dangerous, not safer. The common law concerning self-defence is that, IF you can retreat safely, you should do so. You are allowed to stand your ground IF you cannot safely disengage. You are not allowed to escalate force. You cannot meet non-deadly force with deadly force. Courts and juries already handle these questions all the time, day in and day out. This statute is completely unnecessary; it is simply political pandering which will be taken as a license by gun-nuts.

#402

Hey maddog, could you give me your definition of "gun nut" please?
Here's how I see it: If someone were to approach me in a threatening manner, and I was alone, I'd do what I had to to get away. Every situation would be different: Am I being approached by a person with a gun, a knife, a club, their fists, and I would react differently to each.

I do NOT think that this law makes "life MORE dangerous." Think about it...your common street thug has to think twice about who to approach and harass because he has no idea who is carrying a weapon or how they will react.

I don't think your argument for how courts and juries handle things is satisfactory. Courts and juries have been doing a miserable job keeping violent offenders where they belong. If more responsible people carried weapons, there would be less violent crime. Give the common thug something to think about. Is this seemingly "good" potential victim packing? The fact that it's a possibility should give them pause.

[Bullet]

Originally Posted by maddog

And therefore wholly unnecessary. Except to give the impression, as lunachick says, that "you can kill anyone now - just say that you felt threatened or whatever and w[ere] simply doing what you had to do." That it was the brain-child of the NRA should tell you something. To the extent it's at all different from existing law, it makes life MORE dangerous, not safer. The common law concerning self-defence is that, IF you can retreat safely, you should do so. You are allowed to stand your ground IF you cannot safely disengage. You are not allowed to escalate force. You cannot meet non-deadly force with deadly force. Courts and juries already handle these questions all the time, day in and day out. This statute is completely unnecessary; it is simply political pandering which will be taken as a license by gun-nuts.

#402

This law may be repetitive, or unnecessary, but so are gun laws. Laws are only followed by law abiding people, criminals will always break the law, that's why they are called criminals. This new law may bring attention to the people on both sides of the law to enlighten them, make them think.

[maddog]

Originally Posted by LiveToRide

. . .
I don't think your argument for how courts and juries handle things is satisfactory. Courts and juries have been doing a miserable job keeping violent offenders where they belong.

That's debatable. The U.S. has more people incarcerated than any other Western industrialized nation. Sentences are getting ever longer and more draconian; almost all states have recidivist offender statutes, and many also have a "three strikes" scheme in place.

The Legislature, not the court or the jury, fixes what the sentence should be for any particular crime. The jury's task is to give a verdict on the evidence. A huge percentage of criminal charges are resolved before trial, so whatever happens in those instances is largely the responsibility of the prosecutor, in the exercise of executive discretion. Of those case that do go to trial, an overwhelming majority result in conviction. The court imposes sentence, but within the range specified by the legislative branch. Otherwise, the administration of the sentence is up to the corrections department, an arm of the executive branch.

In any case, the point I was making in referring to the courts and juries wasn't about making sure violent criminals stay in jail. My point concerned the courts' and juries' already-existing familiarity with issues of self-defense -- i.e., when a citizen is on trial for responding with force, what force is the citizen entitled to use in a confrontation? Mechanisms are already in place (e.g., jury instructions) to allow the trier of fact to determine when someone SHOULDN'T be adjudged a criminal, because they acted in self-defense. The new statute muddies the waters somewhat, however, by altering the traditional common law understanding of self-defense conduct.

Originally Posted by LiveToRide

Hey maddog, could you give me your definition of "gun nut" please?

Well, I was being a little facetious/hyperbolic. Nonetheless, I find this kind of expression alarming:

Originally Posted by LiveToRide

If more responsible people carried weapons, there would be less violent crime. Give the common thug something to think about. Is this seemingly "good" potential victim packing? The fact that it's a possibility should give them pause.

Maybe it *should* but in my experience, it doesn't. When people are "packing," they tend to USE those guns. Statutes like this one make people feel more "justified" in resorting to the guns they're carrying. I've seen it so many, many, many times, that guns are used impulsively, with deadly consequences, and often tragic results for the citizen-user, who then must face a criminal trial.

#406

[John Carter]

Originally Posted by maddog

And therefore wholly unnecessary. Except to give the impression, as lunachick says, that "you can kill anyone now - just say that you felt threatened or whatever and w[ere] simply doing what you had to do." That it was the brain-child of the NRA should tell you something.

It still sounds like hysteria to me. Also, resorting to ad hominem fallacies does not help you convince me that you have a solid argument.

Maybe it *should* but in my experience, it doesn't. When people are "packing," they tend to USE those guns. Statutes like this one make people feel more "justified" in resorting to the guns they're carrying. I've seen it so many, many, many times, that guns are used impulsively, with deadly consequences, and often tragic results for the citizen-user, who then must face a criminal trial.

In your experience? How much experience do you have with people who habitually carry weapons? In my own experience, I know nobody who does so that has used a weapon impulsively. So we have two opposing sets of anecdotal evidence, together with a slippery slope fallacy.

[maddog]

Originally Posted by John Carter

It still sounds like hysteria to me. Also, resorting to ad hominem fallacies does not help you convince me that you have a solid argument.

Well, it just seems to me that if 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 JohnCarter

In your experience? How much experience do you have with people who habitually carry weapons? In my own experience, I know nobody who does so that has used a weapon impulsively. So we have two opposing sets of anecdotal evidence, together with a slippery slope fallacy.

I've seen things like this a lot in 25 years of reviewing criminal (and civil) appeals (and, in the course of research, reading hundreds, if not thousands of other cases). The testimony of the people who just "lost it" and reacted is quite common -- "it happened so fast" "I did it without thinking" "I don't remember what I did, I was so scared/angry" etc. And you don't have to carry weapons "habitually" to have bad things happen.

#408

[John Carter]

Originally Posted by maddog

Well, it just seems to me that if 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?

According to the article linked to in the OP, this is not the way it already is in Florida. That was my oiriginal point; according to the information given, this only brings Florida in line with most of the rest of the US.

[quote]

Originally Posted by JohnCarter

I've seen things like this a lot in 25 years of reviewing criminal (and civil) appeals (and, in the course of research, reading hundreds, if not thousands of other cases). The testimony of the people who just "lost it" and reacted is quite common -- "it happened so fast" "I did it without thinking" "I don't remember what I did, I was so scared/angry" etc. And you don't have to carry weapons "habitually" to have bad things happen.

#408

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

[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