RoR: Forum

Hmmm, it is an interesting law, but it strikes me as difficult to see to it in courts. It can easily get thwarted to support murder cases to the disadvantage of the victim.
There are too many variables that could define self-defense in your specific direction. For example, if you and some buddies turn up on a street at night and shoot down a man and then you get caught by the police and you can plead for self-defence with the help of your buddies (being the observers of the crime). It can be tricky, but also a sufficient at the same time.
Guess, we have to wait for actual scenes in court to see how it turns out to be in true life situations.

On the contrary, my old Kung Fu teacher always said that you have to strike first, if you want to survive in a real life situation. There is no chance in self-defence if you have to wait for your aggressor to make the first hit (in order to defennd yourself in a court hearing). The first blow will in most cases decide about victory or hospital.
So, I think that this might be a good thing in the end, just don't know how it will be implented.

Post 1

Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - 4:35pm

Yeah,

I would like to hear from any Americans - what they think about these new gun laws.

Are they ever abused as in the case of this new law in Florida?

I am all for taking the side of the victim against the criminal. I first heard about this on the radio news today and they said the argument for this measure by politicians is that it decreases the crime rate. I think that makes sense.

If the criminal knows he is taking his life in his hands - he will think twice before mugging or attacking someone in a public place!

Post 2

Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - 5:03pm

I'm personally all for any gun laws that protect our right to bear arms. I don't own a gun (yet - haven't decided whether this is something I want yet), but I'd be positively chilled at the idea of not being able to legally own one. It would forevermore change this country for me.

Jason

Post 3

Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - 7:17pm

The amazing part about this law to me is that its passage now implies that - before this - Floridians faced with assailants were legally required to flee!

Florida enacted its shall-issue carry-concealed-weapon (CCW) law in 1987. The state was actually the most prominent case of 'more guns, less crime' presented by John Lott. I just don't understand how for those 18 years, if someone legally carrying a firearm faced a deadly attacker, the permit-carrying victim would had to have turned tail and run instead of used their most effective defense. I can only hope a legal requirement to flee was generally not enforced before.

Post 4

Thursday, April 7, 2005 - 12:43am

I would imagine that for florida at least, that was treated on a case by case basis. Its a long way from NY where a person would get arrested after defending themselves. If they do have a law like that, considering their other laws I think its more like a last resort law, if you can flee, fine but if you're cornered or protecting someone else, you can shoot.

Post 5

Thursday, April 7, 2005 - 6:37am

I don't have much knowledge on actual cases and statistics regarding gun use and court rulings on self-defence, so perhaps one here has more factual basis. I'd also be interested, whether there are cases that turned out to be dead wrong (e.g. not a self-defence but actually a kiling) that got the mark of "self-defence".

Generally, I'd think that the right to a weapon is a good thing, as long as it is handled the right way.
For example, guns shouldn't be given to kids, who still have no sense of action and consequences (Columbine is a good example for this danger), but this should be enforce not by a state, but by their parents.

Post 6

Thursday, April 7, 2005 - 8:59pm

Hey, I handled my first rifle at 10. My dad was there and he taught me exacly to do, it should be completly up to the parents when or if a child is ready to handle a gun.

Post 7

Thursday, April 7, 2005 - 9:01pm

Yup - that's what raising a kid is all about.......self- responsibility.

Post 8

Friday, April 8, 2005 - 8:41am

Yep, and that's what is wrong in the world. Children no longer learn to be self-responsible, because most parents relie on the state to educate their children. Some blame it on the fact that they have to do 2 jobs and not having enough time for the children or that they are the sole guardian for the child and have no functional family.
But what made this possible, I ask? It is the fact that responsibility is a lost value.

Post 9

Friday, April 8, 2005 - 10:17am

I read this yeasterday, dude is funny as hell about it.

http://www.imao.us/archives/003003.html
(Edited by Clarence Hardy
on 4/08, 10:19am)

Post 10

Saturday, April 9, 2005 - 5:23am

I read this yeasterday, dude is funny as hell about it.

As funny as that is, it prompts me to post a link to the absolutely funniest piece on guns I have ever read:

http://slate.msn.com/id/103264/device/html30

Regarding the Florida law, I need to read it. The universal standard for bringing lethal force to bear comes from Mossad Ayoob: "There must be an immediate and otherwise unavoidable threat of death or great bodily harm to the innocent." "The innocent" can include you, or another innocent. But they better be truly innocent. You can't claim self-defence if you shoot someone who pulls a gun while you are robbing them, for example. Whether the standards of "immediate" and "otherwise unavoidable" exist is the call you have to make, and if you are forced to make it, whether or not you were correct is determined by 1) the first officer on the scene and if he has doubts, then 2) the DA or a grand jury, then if they have doubts, 3) a jury of your peers, hopefully, applying the "reasonable man" test.

I think that Ayoob's standard pretty much covers the issue for a civilized society, and he (an expert witness) says it will work in all 50 states. Some states have standards that are more lax, like in Georgia you can use lethal force to stop any "forcible felony." You would have to be a complete idiot to step into a grey area like that with your gun, though! And, many states have the "home is the castle" laws, and in some states, these extend to your automobile. Regardless of the nuances of the law, you would be ill advised to invoke lethal force unless the above standards are met.

I think that what the Florida law may have clarified is a scenario in which the issue of an "otherwise unavoidable" threat is defined. If you are in the middle of a vacant lot and are confronted with a gang banger with a gun who threatens you by saying, "now you're going to die, mister," fleeing (turning your back and running) might be more dangerous than shooting it out. It think the law evens the playing field so that the bad guys don't have any more advantage than they already do.

Post 11

Saturday, April 9, 2005 - 5:48am

I would imagine that for florida at least, that was treated on a case by case basis. Its a long way from NY where a person would get arrested after defending themselves.

This might be a good time to recall that when Bernard Goetz shot his assailants in self defense on the subway in New York City, he was acquitted on all counts of murder and assault and battery on the basis of self defense. However, he served 5 years in prison for the possession of an unlicensed, unregistered handgun without a permit to carry, all nearly impossible for an average person to get in New York City.

Post 12

Saturday, April 9, 2005 - 6:50am

Yes - and that is where 'jury nullification' should have come in hand....

Post 13

Monday, April 11, 2005 - 9:51pm

Things are looking up!

There's even a few people I wouldn't mind inviting to come visit over here in Florida...

Michael

Post 14

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 7:34am

Michael, I'm happy to be on your invite list. If I got the signals wrong and you only wanted me to come for a short visit, please me know before I put my house on the market.

You are invited to Chicago too, but only for a visit. Hope to see you very soon. *purrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr*

Post 15

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 10:23am

There's even a few people I wouldn't mind inviting to come visit over here in Florida...

Michael, posted on this thread that sounds a little spooky. You are not implying that there are some people here you want to get even with now that you have the right to shoot to kill in public? :-)

Post 16

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 11:42am

Marcus,

Yup.

But not to get even with. Just to get rid of...

Except Kitten. I want her to come so I can take permanent possession.

//;-)

Michael

Post 17

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 3:19pm

None here that I know of but we all know there are just some people that need to be shot.

Post 18

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 4:13am