Feeling threatened? Shoot them.

[a_unique_person]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/04/05/deadly.force.ap/index.html

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.

Bush, who has championed tougher penalties for people convicted of using guns in crimes, said the bill is about self-defense and called it "a good, common sense, anti-crime issue."

...

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."

Reasonably believe it? Sonds more like Llap Goch to me.

 

[BPSCG]

Reasonably believe it? Sonds more like Llap Goch to me.

Note the article talks about allowing a person to "meet force with force." In other words, if you start hitting me over the head with a stick, I can hit you back without being prosecuted. I don't have to run away if I don't want to.

I haven't seen the bill, but I'll bet you five hundred Aussie dollars that it doesn't let you sneak up on someone who isn't even aware of your existence and beat him to a pulp because you think he's beaming microwaves at you. That's Llap Goch.

 

[CFLarsen]

Re: Re: Feeling threatened? Shoot them.

Note the article talks about allowing a person to "meet force with force." In other words, if you start hitting me over the head with a stick, I can hit you back without being prosecuted. I don't have to run away if I don't want to.

I haven't seen the bill, but I'll bet you five hundred Aussie dollars that it doesn't let you sneak up on someone who isn't even aware of your existence and beat him to a pulp because you think he's beaming microwaves at you. That's Llap Goch.

How will this be decided?

 

[Suddenly]

Re: Re: Feeling threatened? Shoot them.

Note the article talks about allowing a person to "meet force with force." In other words, if you start hitting me over the head with a stick, I can hit you back without being prosecuted. I don't have to run away if I don't want to.

I haven't seen the bill, but I'll bet you five hundred Aussie dollars that it doesn't let you sneak up on someone who isn't even aware of your existence and beat him to a pulp because you think he's beaming microwaves at you. That's Llap Goch.

Exactly. This is really a non-starter. From the link in the OP:

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."

In order to prove lethal self-defense in Florida absent this law, you have to prove that you held a reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary to protect yourself. That does not change.

What does change is that you know longer have to prove as part of that defense that you made every reasonable attempt to escape the danger, to run away. If you are threatened, you can defend yourself.

This is a common thing in the U.S. ... I don't know for sure but I'll go at least fifty Aussie dollars that at least one other state has a similar rule w/r/t self defense...

 

[Suddenly]

Re: Re: Re: Feeling threatened? Shoot them.

How will this be decided?

We have these things here called "Courts."

They hold proceedings called "trials" in which someone accused of a crime has the right to have the evidence heard by a group of people called a "jury" that then decides who is right.

This whole "trial" is governed by various statutes, rules and regulations known collectively as "the law."

 

[CFLarsen]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Feeling threatened? Shoot them.

We have these things here called "Courts."

They hold proceedings called "trials" in which someone accused of a crime has the right to have the evidence heard by a group of people called a "jury" that then decides who is right.

This whole "trial" is governed by various statutes, rules and regulations known collectively as "the law."

Wrong. They don't go to court at all:

A Bill giving Florida citizens the right to shoot and kill anyone who threatens them in public - without first having to try to escape - is set to be passed into law in a move that critics say could turn the Sunshine State into the Wild West.

Governor Jeb Bush has signalled his intention to sign into statute the 'Stand Your Ground Bill', which allows members of the public to "meet force with force, including deadly force and defend themselves without fear of prosecution".

...

Mr Baxley believes that if the public has the clear right to kill without any legal consequences, it will cause criminals to think twice.
Source

"Without fear of prosecution."

"Without any legal consequences."

 

[DaChew]

I guess it'll be up to the local district attorney whether a specific instance will be prosecuted. Not unlike any other case.

 

[CFLarsen]

I guess it'll be up to the local district attorney whether a specific instance will be prosecuted. Not unlike any other case.

"Without fear of prosecution."

"Without any legal consequences."

It doesn't get less ambiguous than that.

 

[Luke T.]

You are waiting at a light rail station with your 14 year old son and pregnant wife. It is around 9 p.m. and you and your family have just come from the baseball stadium after the game. It is just you and your son and your pregnant wife alone on the street.

A barechested man in a highly inebriated state approaches. He appears to be in excellent physical condition, but homeless. He steps into close quarters with your family and asks for money in a somewhat demanding voice. You decline. He refuses to go away. He turns to your 14 year old son and asks him if he has any money. Your son replies he does not. The homeless man snarls and slaps your son in the chest and tells your 14 year old son to get a job!

What do you do?

 

[BPSCG]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Feeling threatened? Shoot them.

Wrong. They don't go to court at all:

Wanna bet?

"Without fear of prosecution."

"Without any legal consequences."

If you think a sound bite from a politician is sufficient to conclude that you can "shoot first and ask questions later" in Florida, why don't you pay a trip to Disney World and subject that hypothesis to a test by shooting dead a New York tourist who cuts in front of you at the Pirates of the Caribbean ride?

 

[Cleon]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Feeling threatened? Shoot them.

Wrong. They don't go to court at all:



"Without fear of prosecution."

"Without any legal consequences."

Claus, no offense dude, but I don't think you really know how the court system works here.

"Without fear of prosecution" and "without any legal consequences" means that self-defense becomes a legitimate defense in court.

If a prosecutor sees a case of self-defense, he can't prosecute; if he does, he will have to prove, in court, that the actions weren't in self-defense.

This isn't a "get out of court free" card. This means if someone takes a swing or shot at you, you can defend yourself and not find yourself in prison.

 

[DaChew]

"Without fear of prosecution."

"Without any legal consequences."

It doesn't get less ambiguous than that.

Police gather information on the incident. They hand the information over to the District Attorney. The District Attorney decides whether he has a case on which you can be prosecuted. You have not yet been prosecuted. There have not been any legal consequences to you.

 

[DaChew]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Feeling threatened? Shoot them.

Claus, no offense dude, but I don't think you really know how the court system works here.

"Without fear of prosecution" and "without any legal consequences" means that self-defense becomes a legitimate defense in court.

If a prosecutor sees a case of self-defense, he can't prosecute; if he does, he will have to prove, in court, that the actions weren't in self-defense.

This isn't a "get out of court free" card. This means if someone takes a swing or shot at you, you can defend yourself and not find yourself in prison.

Cleon, I'm going to need you to stop posting faster than me.

And with more clarity.

 

[CFLarsen]

Guys,

I am quoting the governor of Florida and the honorable Mr. Dennis K. Baxter, House of Representatives, Florida. They have (presumably) read the law. None of us has. Surely, you don't suggest that these fine gentlemen would be lying to us....?

However, I discovered why Mr. Baxley supports this bill: Increased business.

He's a Funeral Director.

 

[richardm]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Feeling threatened? Shoot them.

If a prosecutor sees a case of self-defense, he can't prosecute; if he does, he will have to prove, in court, that the actions weren't in self-defense.

This isn't a "get out of court free" card. This means if someone takes a swing or shot at you, you can defend yourself and not find yourself in prison.

Well, prosecution is the process of dragging someone through court. So if you find yourself in court with people trying to prove you guilty of murder/manslaughter/assault/whatever, then you're being prosecuted.

Which doesn't really jive with the "Without fear of prosecution" part.

 

[LW]

I am quoting the governor of Florida and the honorable Mr. Dennis K. Baxter, House of Representatives, Florida. They have (presumably) read the law. None of us has. Surely, you don't suggest that these fine gentlemen would be lying to us....?

Occam's razor time (with all obligatory false dichtomies thrown in):

1) The legislative body really wants to give a virtual carte blanche of killing anyone you want in the name of self-defense.

2) Some politicians want to score cheap points in popularity contest.

I know where my guess is.

 

[Cleon]

Guys,

I am quoting the governor of Florida and the honorable Mr. Dennis K. Baxter, House of Representatives, Florida. They have (presumably) read the law. None of us has. Surely, you don't suggest that these fine gentlemen would be lying to us....?

On the contrary. I'm suggesting they're using shorthand to describe a system the majority of USAnians are fairly familiar with, but non-USAnians might not be.

 

[Cleon]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Feeling threatened? Shoot them.

Well, prosecution is the process of dragging someone through court. So if you find yourself in court with people trying to prove you guilty of murder/manslaughter/assault/whatever, then you're being prosecuted.

...At which point, if you can establish self-defense under this law, you, the judge, and the jury can tell the prosecutor to $%^& off.

 

[Kerberos]

On the contrary. I'm suggesting they're using shorthand to describe a system the majority of USAnians are fairly familiar with, but non-USAnians might not be.

As a non-American I didn't have any trouble understanding what was meant.

 

[a_unique_person]

Occam's razor time (with all obligatory false dichtomies thrown in):

1) The legislative body really wants to give a virtual carte blanche of killing anyone you want in the name of self-defense.

2) Some politicians want to score cheap points in popularity contest.

I know where my guess is.

All well and good, except it's not just a platitude, it's now a law.