MIAMI (AFP) - Florida's legislature has approved a bill that would give residents the right to open fire against anyone they perceive as a threat in public, instead of having to try to avoid a conflict as under prevailing law.

 

 

Outraged opponents say the law will encourage Floridians to open fire first and ask questions later, fostering a sort of statewide Wild West shootout mentality. Supporters argue that criminals will think twice if they believe they are likely to be promptly shot when they assault someone.

 

Republican Governor Jeb Bush, who has said he plans to sign the bill, says it is "a good, commonsense, anti-crime issue."

 

Current state law allows residents to "shoot to kill if their property, such as their home or car, is invaded by an unknown assailant."

 

But it also states that if a resident is confronted or threatened in a public place, he or she must first try to avoid the confrontation or flee before taking any violent step in self defense against an assailant.

 

The bill, supported by the influential National Rifle Association, was approved by both houses of the Republican-run legislature on Tuesday.

 

Source

stop

 

wait. Actually it's kinda funny. Proceed.

You guys looking at me funny?

 

:killthemall

You guys looking at me funny?

 

:killthemall

732126[/snapback]

You better watch yourself, Im feeling intimidated and nervous.

anyone they perceive as a threat in public

 

Hmm...Marlins want public funds...they are linked to the public...Nate Bump plays for the Marlins...he did a bad job and lost the game...he is a threat to the public...now Im allowed to kill Nate Bump. :mischief

FL law mentions "lethal" threat.

 

Complainers whined that concealed carry (just under 2 decades ago) would cause a wild west blood in the streets scenario too.

 

That didn't happen. Permit holders tended to be quite responsible. FDLE collects data on revoked permits, the numbers have been miniscule.

 

This law will only protect you if you have the weapon legally anyway. The "on the street" aspect will only cover those who have a carry permit already - those people have already proven responsible in the past.

 

As a practical matter, the "in a car" scenario will only cover permit holders too in the vast majority of cases. Non-permit holders CAN'T have a gun in their car unless according to FL law it is "securely encased". The ability to put a "securely encased" weapon into play quickly in an emergency is questionable at best.

 

Further, a shooting was permitted previously to protect other innocent life or to stop a "forcible felony" that was in progress. i.e. shooting a rapist in the progress of a rape, an armed robber getting ready to pop the clerk at 7-11, et was always legal. What was a bummer, is the people who shot in these 100% valid cases were frequently subject to civil lawsuits later on.

 

The most significant IMO, and most ignored so far, aspect of this new law is the granting of immunity from civil lawsuits if a shooting is legit. MANY MANY people were financially ruined in the past by civil lawsuits brought by armed robbers/burglars who got shot in a 100% legal shooting.

FL law mentions "lethal" threat.

 

Complainers whined that concealed carry (just under 2 decades ago) would cause a wild west blood in the streets scenario too.

 

That didn't happen. Permit holders tended to be quite responsible. FDLE collects data on revoked permits, the numbers have been miniscule.

 

This law will only protect you if you have the weapon legally anyway. The "on the street" aspect will only cover those who have a carry permit already - those people have already proven responsible in the past.

 

As a practical matter, the "in a car" scenario will only cover permit holders too in the vast majority of cases. Non-permit holders CAN'T have a gun in their car unless according to FL law it is "securely encased". The ability to put a "securely encased" weapon into play quickly in an emergency is questionable at best.

 

Further, a shooting was permitted previously to protect other innocent life or to stop a "forcible felony" that was in progress. i.e. shooting a rapist in the progress of a rape, an armed robber getting ready to pop the clerk at 7-11, et was always legal. What was a bummer, is the people who shot in these 100% valid cases were frequently subject to civil lawsuits later on.

 

The most significant IMO, and most ignored so far, aspect of this new law is the granting of immunity from civil lawsuits if a shooting is legit. MANY MANY people were financially ruined in the past by civil lawsuits brought by armed robbers/burglars who got shot in a 100% legal shooting.

732308[/snapback]

you've mentioned before that you carry a piece...do you mind if i ask you if you've ever been in a situation where you might have needed to use it? have you ever used it?

I can see this backfiring already...

you've mentioned before that you carry a piece...do you mind if i ask you if you've ever been in a situation where you might have needed to use it? have you ever used it?

 

I never said that.

I can see this backfiring already...

732322[/snapback]

BAsed on what?

you've mentioned before that you carry a piece...do you mind if i ask you if you've ever been in a situation where you might have needed to use it? have you ever used it?

 

I never said that.

732326[/snapback]

god.

 

okay.

 

hypothetically, if you carried a piece...

I can see this backfiring already...

732322[/snapback]

It has been very successful in other states which have adopted similar laws (Texas, Utah, Arizona, etc.) and there is absolutely no reason at all to think it won't be successful in Florida as well.

My roommate has a rifle in his room that he uses for protection. We have a good friend of ours that comes over to use our washer and dryer because he is cheap. One night, my other roommate knew he was coming over and left the door unlocked for him. Well the gun carrying roommate didnt know and heard noises downstairs. He grabbed his rifle and pointed it at our buddy. He said he was pretty close to pulling the trigger without asking who it was first. I believe him. He is from Texas.

 

 

Other incedent that happend. Some of my roommates got wasted one night and forgot to close the front door when they went out. I and my Texas roommate were home and in our individual rooms. A guy came in and was walking around our house. Both of us were studying with our doors locked. All of a sudden I hear someone jiggling at my door. I immediatley think its my drunk roommate and call out his name. Then I hear someone running down the stairs. I chased him but he got away on his bike. Who knows how else this could have ended. I can only imagine if Texas guy wasnt home too and the thief got into his room.

 

 

Im sure there are plenty of stories to go to the otherside too. But Ive always been skeptical as to how effective having a gun really is. Most criminals dont like confrontations and prefer anonymity. For that reason, a loud security system would be awfully effective.

 

As far as street confrontations, Id like to know how many violent crimes that take place on the street are against non low income people. When I worked at Chicago's DA last year, about 95% of the crime took place in tougher neighborhoods. Almost all the murders and rapes in Chicago took place outside of the "middle class" neighborhoods. Id like to see stats on how many middle to upper middle class people have thwarted crimes each year by having a gun.

 

Now Im not saying that the low income individuals are somehow necessary victims. Im saying lower income and lower middle class people are the ones who pretty much want guns gone and out of their neighborhoods and they are the ones that are affected the most by crime. The middle and upper middle class people are the ones living in fear when they really dont need to but are the ones insisting guns on the south side of Chicago should not be regulated.

 

But I dont really care. I think the most important thing is to get assault rifles out of the hands of gang bangers. Im pretty sure the NRA doesnt want that to happen.

I can see this backfiring already...

732322[/snapback]

BAsed on what?

732328[/snapback]

Common sense.

Well, if its proven to be a lethal threat, there shouldn't be any punishment for protecting yourself.

I fear people will just let their paranoia over take them and shoot at non threats that just happen to be in their direction.

i'm sure if you have a permit to carry a gun and you feel threaten, wether this law passes or not, you will most likely use your weapon to deffend yourself. what this law does is protecting the person that makes the correct judgement.

-Hun do you hear that?

-Yeah... I better go check it out....

*bam, boom, plop*

-DADDIE NOOOO! THATS MY BOYFRIEND!

-Ooops

Now a husband can kill his wife, claim he thought someone was breaking in, and get away with it. Whereas before, he was obligated to make sure it wasnt his wife first. I always knew Jeb Bush supported Michael Schiavo!

Now a husband can kill his wife, claim he thought someone was breaking in, and get away with it. Whereas before, he was obligated to make sure it wasnt his wife first. I always knew Jeb Bush supported Michael Schiavo!

732520[/snapback]

The "lethal threat" NEVER had to be certified real. This doesn't change that.

 

If you wanted to kill you wife previously, just say that hairbrush looked like a gun and you "feared for your life". Cops use this excuse all the time to escape prosecution for blowing away someone "armed" with a comb, wallet, etc - it has always worked.

Now a husband can kill his wife, claim he thought someone was breaking in, and get away with it. Whereas before, he was obligated to make sure it wasnt his wife first. I always knew Jeb Bush supported Michael Schiavo!

732520[/snapback]

The "lethal threat" NEVER had to be certified real. This doesn't change that.

 

If you wanted to kill you wife previously, just say that hairbrush looked like a gun and you "feared for your life". Cops use this excuse all the time to escape prosecution for blowing away someone "armed" with a comb, wallet, etc - it has always worked.

732604[/snapback]

 

I don't think many juries would buy a husband saying "I thought the comb she pointed at me was a gun." You might buy it, but thats your prerogative.

 

Perhaps their are double standards with cops, then again cops deal with criminals on a day in day out basis, and criminals tend to have guns, so they have reason to be a little trigger happy at times. Husbands are not usually dealing with gun toting wives that want to kill them.

 

Now people could say "I heard them walking around in the kitchen, and it was all dark, they were rummaging around in the knife drawer, I thought they were going to use it on me." I think that would cast more doubt then "The teeth of the comb looked like a trigger!"

But I dont really care. I think the most important thing is to get assault rifles out of the hands of gang bangers.

 

You prefer they use shotguns instead I guess?

 

Rifle - one bullet per trigger pull

 

Shotgun - a dozen or so .30cal projectiles per trigger pull

 

Yea, that's the ticket. :blink:

But I dont really care. I think the most important thing is to get assault rifles out of the hands of gang bangers.

 

Rifle - one bullet per trigger pull

732610[/snapback]

 

"Stay on target.... stay on tagret...."

 

Also why don't you study the M16A2, 3 shots for 1 pull of the trigger. AK-47s also tend to spray all over on just one pull.

 

Maybe that was the gun Clinton had the troops use to "go against court orders" with right? :lol

But I dont really care. I think the most important thing is to get assault rifles out of the hands of gang bangers.

 

You prefer they use shotguns instead I guess?

 

Rifle - one bullet per trigger pull

 

Shotgun - a dozen or so .30cal projectiles per trigger pull

 

Yea, that's the ticket. :blink:

732610[/snapback]

Because we all know that shotguns have a long range compared to rifles.

 

:plain

But I dont really care. I think the most important thing is to get assault rifles out of the hands of gang bangers.

 

You prefer they use shotguns instead I guess?

 

Rifle - one bullet per trigger pull

 

Shotgun - a dozen or so .30cal projectiles per trigger pull

 

Yea, that's the ticket. :blink:

732610[/snapback]

Because we all know that shotguns have a long range compared to rifles.

 

:plain

732675[/snapback]

 

shotgun have whateve range you need to kill someone, unless you want to go on a stake out and kill people from a distance.