Feeling threatened? Shoot them.
- Thread starter a_unique_person
- Start date
-
- Tags
- shoot threatened
richardm
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2001
- Messages
- 9,248
Cleon said:
Okay... so really he means without fear of successful prosecution. Fair enough in that case, I suppose, although I was rather of the impression that in a state where you're allowed to carry guns then self-defence was already an acceptable defence in court.
These are from the House version of the Bill:
Original Filed Version:
Committee Substitute 1:
Committee substitute 2:
Same as substitute 2 except replace “s. 943.10†in paragraph (1) with “s. 943.10(14)â€
Best to use the actual document for legal analysis than interpretation of either media or politicos.
Edited to add the link:
Here it is
Original Filed Version:
Committee Substitute 1:
Committee substitute 2:
Same as substitute 2 except replace “s. 943.10†in paragraph (1) with “s. 943.10(14)â€
Best to use the actual document for legal analysis than interpretation of either media or politicos.
Edited to add the link:
Here it is
corplinx
JREF Kid
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 8,952
Most states already have these laws. Simply put, you are can respond with equivalent force legally.
If someone corners you and assaults you with hands and fists, you can assault them with in turn.
However, it is still illegal in states that have these laws to respond with lethal force unless your life is in peril.
I'll forgive the ignorance some have shown on this thread. Laws of various US states regarding reasonable force aren't exactly common knowledge in australia and denmark.
If someone corners you and assaults you with hands and fists, you can assault them with in turn.
However, it is still illegal in states that have these laws to respond with lethal force unless your life is in peril.
I'll forgive the ignorance some have shown on this thread. Laws of various US states regarding reasonable force aren't exactly common knowledge in australia and denmark.
Rob Lister
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2004
- Messages
- 8,504
Kerberos said:
Was it your understanding that the only thing the law really changes is the requirement of the potential victim to retreat in the face of a threat?
Some, even many, states have that obligation codified in the law. The degree of that obligation differs from state-to-state.
The downside of this new law makes it likely that more people will, in the short term, get injured or killed; both victim and criminal. The upside is that in the long run it is likely (or at least that is the hope) that less people will be injured or killed because it will discourage crime in general. Another upside is that it codifies in law what shouldn't even have to be codified: the right to defend yourself, without having to rely on the ever-absent law-enforcement officer, against aggression.
a_unique_person said:
Huh. I thought that the time when the word of the ruler was immediately a law ended already back in the 18th century. Of course, I don't really know anything about the American legal conventions, but I strongly suspect that the words that a governor uses to describe a bill aren't actually considered to be a law.
In case my point isn't already clear enough, let me put it in different words: I find it easier to believe that "the governor of Florida and the honorable Mr. Dennis K. Baxter, House of Representatives, Florida" are not quoting the law text exactly (or that they are not quoted exactly) than that claiming that someone threatened you gives an automatic immunity from any legal consequences.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
does that mean they cannot be prosecuted?
The three states with which I am familiar do not have it codified into law.
They all basically say that a successful legal defense using the concept of self-defense comprises these items:
1. A reasonable fear of grave bodily harm or death to yourself or to others
AND
2. The use of only enough force reasonably construed to be necessary to remove the threat
This does not codify an obligation to retreat if possible, but a prosecutor could conceivably argue it when discussing item #2 by saying that the threat could be removed via retreat.
In my admittedly non-lawyer-but-extensive-dealings-with-it-anyway way, I believe that most states' self defense law are pretty similar to what I've outlined above.
Tony said:
The scenario I wrote above actually happened to me a couple years ago when my wife was pregnant with our twins.
When the homeless man smacked my son in the chest, I took a step toward him. If he had made another single, solitary aggressive move, twitch, or statement, I would have killed him instantly on the spot. I guess the look in my eye said as much since he immediately apologized and ran across the street.
Suddenly
No Punting
a_unique_person said:
Except that the law is the law... not the platitude. The politicians do what politicians do, babble and make bold statements with little connection to reality.
As a purely theoretical matter, if you are in danger for your life and use deadly force to protect yourself without having first retreated, then you should have no fear of prosecution, because you are technically innocent. In the big rock candy mountain ivory tower world where these politicans are speaking from the local police and DA will not prosecute because you are innocent, so no worries...
Meanwhile, in the real world where these things must be applied, you should really worry, especially if there is little objective evidence to back up your claim being in mortal danger and/or you are not on particular good terms with the local authorities as you still can be tried, and if so must still produce evidence to support your claim of self defense and it will be left to the jury... the only difference the law makes is that you no longer have to prove anything.
The law in Florida isn't even unique. A handful of states have had these laws for years as is mentioned in the article linked to in the OP...
Not as I read it, but I'm not a lawyer.
The meaning becomes clear to me upon reading the following two sub-paragraphs which quite clearly indicate that the consequences of prosecution are ameliorated by the courts upon a successful defense based upon this statute.
Suddenly
No Punting
a_unique_person said:
Not really, unless there is somehow a finding from a court of law that this person acted within the sections of the code nominated, which would include the "reasonable danger test" and so forth.
The only unique thing this code does is raise the stakes for the state if they lose a self defense case as then the state must refund attorney's fees, pay other damages and so forth.
The stupid thing about this is that it will promote the development of sham self-defense claims by anyone charged with a murder or assault as in the end it will create significant "plea equity."
I don't want to imagine the hit on attorney's fees if the state were to lose a death penalty case based on a self defense finding... so the state will be more likely to plea these cases out... more criminals on the street, which means more shootings and....
Kerberos said:
Someone who is highly intoxicated who approaches complete strangers and physically accosts them falls in the "insane and dangerous" category when my family is involved. His behavior indicated he was capable of doing anything. I was not going to take any chances.
I am a non-violent person. I've been in many violent situations and surroundings and have even been physically attacked without lifting a finger to defend myself even though it would have been simple to put a serious hurt on my attacker.
This was a different situation. A completely unpredictable madman in the presence of my pregnant wife and my young son. With no help in sight.
My attitude on violence is that I will not get violent unless I plan on going all the way. And because of that, I will not get violent unless I think there is extreme danger to my family.
I have a very long fuse. But when that fuse burns down, there will be fireworks.
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
Re: Re: Re: Feeling threatened? Shoot them.
Er, why should you care?
You often stated that you would kill anyone on a comercial aircraft who you saw with a gun. So why do you quibble now about this proposed Florida law if you have already decided that you are a flawless judge of character and intent?
CFLarsen said:
Er, why should you care?
You often stated that you would kill anyone on a comercial aircraft who you saw with a gun. So why do you quibble now about this proposed Florida law if you have already decided that you are a flawless judge of character and intent?
Post Script:
I was not going to give the madman money so that his behavior would be encouraged or so that he could make himself more insane with whatever his drug of choice was, and thereby make him an even greater threat to his next victims.
There were no police or cars in sight. In hindsight, I maybe should have sought out the authorities to find the man after he left us.
I was not going to give the madman money so that his behavior would be encouraged or so that he could make himself more insane with whatever his drug of choice was, and thereby make him an even greater threat to his next victims.
There were no police or cars in sight. In hindsight, I maybe should have sought out the authorities to find the man after he left us.