Shoot First?!?


PDA






Kermit911
October 3, 2005, 10:17 AM
Is this True?

If you enjoyed reading about "Shoot First?!?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
AirForceShooter
October 3, 2005, 10:31 AM
yes it's true to a degree.
As of October 1, we here in Florida no longer have to "retreat" from a place we have a right to be at.

Oh and if you do shoot the bad guy or his family can't sue after.

AFS

hillbilly
October 3, 2005, 10:47 AM
Arkansas already, sort of, has this as law.

In the Arkansas statute, there is a "duty to retreat" statement, but it is also qualified by the phrase "with absolute safety."

In Arkansas, in a public place, you have a duty to retreat from a threat, but only if you can do so with "absolute safety," whatever the heck "absolute safety" means.

Basically, there's no such thing as an "absolutely safe" retreat from a person who is trying to harm or kill you. At least any competent attorney could argue it that way.

Unless, let's say, you are in an amored personnel carrier, the attacker is armed with a rubber hose, and you can merely back up at 20 mph.

But even though Arkansas has a "duty to retreat" law, we've also got the "with absolute safety" qualifier in the law, which really murks things up.

hillbilly

AhmuqGB
October 3, 2005, 11:07 AM
I love the spin on that!! Let's ignore the fact that Florida residents were getting car jacked, robbed, and assaulted at gun point(by criminals). I went to the web site and got a good laugh. They make it sound like Florida is becomnig the wild west...come to think of it people back then WERE much more polite.(contrary to hollywoods depictions.)

benEzra
October 3, 2005, 11:07 AM
No, it's not. It does not authorize "nervous or frightened residents to shoot you." It only clarifies that if you try to rob or rape a Florida resident in a dark alley, she no longer has to try to outrun you before she can shoot you, and if she does shoot a rapist, the rapist can't sue her afterward.

The only people who should have anything to worry about are criminals.

This ad was paid for by the Brady campaign, IIRC, in an attempt to hurt the state of Florida for crossing them. Take it with a grain of salt, considering the source.

boofus
October 3, 2005, 11:10 AM
Whuppeee. We've never had to retreat in Texas. In fact here you can blow them away if they take your property without threatening your life. The crime rate of TX cities is still lower than gun-free utopias like New York or Chicago or Washington DC.

Gun grabbers screaming 'WOLF!' yet again.

Cacique500
October 3, 2005, 11:17 AM
At least they didn't try to hide their tracks...

Domain ID: D107344969-LROR
Domain Name:SHOOTFIRSTLAW.ORG
Created On:01-Sep-2005 18:54:24 UTC
Expiration Date:01-Sep-2006 18:54:24 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:Register.com Inc. (R71-LROR)
Status:TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Registrant ID:C47094772-RCOM
Registrant Name:Keith Hall
Registrant Organization:Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
Registrant Street1:1225 Eye Street, NW Suite 1100
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Washington
Registrant State/Province: DC
Registrant Postal Code:20005
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.2028980792
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:+1.2026824462
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email:webmaster@bcpgv.com

Graystar
October 3, 2005, 11:55 AM
Is this True?It is an absolute lie.

No law authorizes nervous or frightened residents to use deadly force.

Every person in the world has the right to use deadly force to defend his own life from imminent danger. This does not have to be authorized, and every state has laws recognizing this right.

However, in the last century some states have stipulated that a person must retreat from such a situation if they can do so safely. This created a conundrum for people being attacked. If you take time to search for a safe escape, your victimization could be much worse (hurt or killed.) If you fight back and a jury later decides that you had a safe escape route, you could go to jail and then could be sued by your attacker.

Florida had such a retreat rule, and the new law gets rid of this nonsense. It recognizes with absolute clarity that the life of the victim should in no way be placed in any greater risk for the well-being of the attacker. It also protects a victim from being sued by an attacker, should the shooting be ruled justified.

The law doesn’t create any special right to shoot anyone you want. If you’re wrong you’re still going to jail. It simply eliminates bleeding-heart nonsense and fully restores your right to defend your life.

gunner03
October 3, 2005, 12:10 PM
Every one keeps saying FL residents,dose this mean I still have to retreat if I'm visiting???

Zundfolge
October 3, 2005, 12:48 PM
I love this campaign by Brady.

Absolutely EVERY fence sitter I've shown it to has had the same reaction; They think Brady is a bunch of crazy reactionary nutjobs.

Brady keeps this crap up and they will so margainlize themselves that they won't ever be able to climb back to the place they once held in the public's eye.

Lennyjoe
October 3, 2005, 01:48 PM
Rumor has it they were handing them out at the airports in Fla. Not suprised though being it the Brady folks.

skidmark
October 3, 2005, 02:27 PM
Every one keeps saying FL residents,dose this mean I still have to retreat if I'm visiting???

Generally speaking, you are a "resident" if you need to shoot somebody while visiting, but are not if you want to vote while visiting.

But I'm only a private in the War on Poverty. :neener:

stay safe.

skidmark

Gump
October 3, 2005, 02:39 PM
Rumor has it they were handing them out at the airports in Fla. Not suprised though being it the Brady folks.


Attacking innocent people Potentially deadly pamphlets? I mean those things could give you a nasty paper cut, which if left untreated could eventually lead to death. Sounds like a situation that would warrant a serious response :D

dasmi
October 3, 2005, 02:43 PM
Registrant Organization:Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
You had to do a whois for that? The brady logo is right on the poster.

obiwan1
October 3, 2005, 02:52 PM
It's been 2.5 days and I haven't tripped over a body yet! :what: I haven't even seen any blood stains :what: How can it be?????????

scout26
October 3, 2005, 03:14 PM
The law doesn’t create any special right to shoot anyone you want.

Darn !!! And I had my bags packed to move to Fl just for this reason :rolleyes: ......Time to un-pack.


It's been 2.5 days and I haven't tripped over a body yet! I haven't even seen any blood stains How can it be?????????

Obiwan, you need to look under all those Assualt Weapons that have flooded the streets over the course of the last year.... :neener:

wdlsguy
October 3, 2005, 03:25 PM
We've never had to retreat in Texas.

boofus,

Please see Texas Penal Code § 9.32(a)(2) and (b).

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.002.00.000009.00.htm#9.32.00

Andrew Rothman
October 3, 2005, 03:38 PM
Rumor has it they were handing them out at the airports in Fla. Not suprised though being it the Brady folks.

I'd sooner join the Hare Krishnas than the Brady Campaign.

scout26
October 3, 2005, 08:40 PM
Andrew,

I'd sooner join the Hare Krishnas than the Brady Campaign.

AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH !!!!!!!!

That's a really bad visual........ Must......clear.......mind.......

:neener:

:neener:

:neener:

goalie
October 3, 2005, 09:30 PM
This is good for us. Even rabidly anti-gun FL congresspersons will be pissed off at anti-gun groups that negatively impact the tourism revenue of their state.

Standing Wolf
October 3, 2005, 09:34 PM
The only people who should have anything to worry about are criminals.

The day the criminals start to fear us more than we fear them will be the day the tide has turned.

boofus
October 4, 2005, 12:16 AM
Please see Texas Penal Code § 9.32(a)(2) and (b).

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/stat....00.htm#9.32.00



Yah the last section says you do not have to retreat if the criminal is intruding in your habitation module, just like the Florida law.

joab
October 4, 2005, 12:26 AM
the last section says you do not have to retreat if the criminal is intruding in your habitation module, just like the Florida law.Habitation module? That don't sound like Texas talk.
The Florida law extend our right to meet force with force to outside our Habitation Module.

Every one keeps saying FL residents,dose this mean I still have to retreat if I'm visitingDepend on where you're visiting from.

Turtle Club
October 4, 2005, 12:36 AM
Jeb, for President ! Yay for "force=force" ! That's what Ohio needs.

AndrewB
October 4, 2005, 12:42 AM
In fact here you can blow them away if they take your property without threatening your life. The crime rate of TX cities is still lower than gun-free utopias like New York or Chicago or Washington DC.

Its OK though because we have trigger-happy cops to protect us. :rolleyes:

You can add Baltimore to that list of crime-ridden utopias where its illegal for residents to protect themselves. NY is probably the best of those three, but only because of the gestapo police tactics employed there.

Im just glad my parents live in FL so while I am chilling by the ocean one month out of the year I can carry my pistol and protect myself. Thats when I really need it after all, not when I coming home late from work to my downtown Baltimore apartment with crackheads berating me because I don't have any change. Its a messed-up world when a 6' 1", 190 lb man is afraid of a 120 lb crackhead because its easier for him to carry a gun illegally than it is for me carry one legally (nearly impossible to in MD).

Graystar
October 4, 2005, 01:25 AM
The crime rate of TX cities is still lower than gun-free utopias like New York I don't know what crime rates you're looking at, but the FBI's UCR say that Dallas and Houston both have a higher crime rate than New York City, and Texas as a whole has a higher crime rate than NYS.

mbs357
October 4, 2005, 08:09 AM
I'm going to assume that NC has 'duty to retreat' on the streets, but I'm sure I'm allowed to stand my ground in my home.
Is this correct?

Btw, Congrats, Floridians!

Turtle Club
October 4, 2005, 09:33 AM
The use of lethal force laws in Ohio SUCK. Here you or your family has to be in eminent danger of the attacker causing serious bodily harm (per Ohio revised Code) before the use of lethal force ie self defence can be claimed. Even in your own home!

MikeIsaj
October 4, 2005, 09:46 AM
The use of lethal force laws in Ohio SUCK. Here you or your family has to be in eminent danger of the attacker causing serious bodily harm (per Ohio revised Code) before the use of lethal force ie self defence can be claimed.This is in line with what most state law says. It's not unreasonable to require a threat of serious injury to justify deadly force. Where would you draw the line?

And lethal force and self defense is not the same thing. Lethal force is an extreme level of self defense, pretty much at the top of the ladder. Presence, posture, avoidance, verbal warning and less than lethal combat are also self defense techniques that should be used in less extreme situations.

MuzzleBlast
October 4, 2005, 02:40 PM
This is a smear campaign. The state of Florida should sue for libel.

axmurderer
October 4, 2005, 02:51 PM
I'm glad Florida passed the "no retreat" law. From what I can find in Mississippi code, there is no obligation to retreat before defending one's self.
http://www.mscode.com/free/statutes/97/003/0015.htm

Of course, the anti-gun nuts will do their best to make this seem like a bad thing.

:mad:

patent
October 5, 2005, 04:25 PM
From the gungrabber flyer:

A new law in the Sunshine State authorizes nervious or frightened residents to use deadly force.

From a THR post:

Rumor has it they were handing them out at the airports in Fla.
If I were to meet one of those fine folks in the airport, I think I’d tell them that their handing me the flyer makes me “nervous and frightened.”

patent

Rezin
October 5, 2005, 04:27 PM
Think it's cause FLA looks like a pistol? ;)

JohnKSa
October 5, 2005, 07:49 PM
Couple of clarifications on TX law.

You don't have to retreat if you're in your home. You don't have to retreat outside of your home if "a reasonable person" in your place wouldn't retreat.

You can use deadly force to protect property, but the restrictions are significant. It's not ANYWHERE near as simple as a statement like "you can shoot them for taking property" implies.

And last of all, the fact that deadly force is legally justified offers no protection against civil liability.

cxm
October 5, 2005, 08:29 PM
Actually not accurate...

Texas law requires you to retreat (other than in your home) if you can do so with safety...

Someone gave you bad info...

V/r

chuck

Whuppeee. We've never had to retreat in Texas. In fact here you can blow them away if they take your property without threatening your life. The crime rate of TX cities is still lower than gun-free utopias like New York or Chicago or Washington DC.

If you enjoyed reading about "Shoot First?!?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!