(FL) Law would expand the right to shoot

Status
Not open for further replies.

Drizzt

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
2,647
Location
Moscow on the Colorado, TX
Law would expand the right to shoot

Legislation that protects homeowners from prosecution when they shoot an intruder would expand the protection to people who shoot in self-defense anywhere else.

BY MARY ELLEN KLAS
[email protected]

TALLAHASSEE - A homeowner kills an intruder who enters his bedroom in the dark of night. A driver fires a shot at a would-be carjacker who smashes his window at a red light. A couple, taking a stroll in the moonlight, shoots and kills a gun-toting drunk who threatens their lives.

Using deadly force in self-defense in these and other circumstances would be a protected right under a bill that is gaining momentum in the Florida Legislature.

The proposals, unanimously approved by two House and Senate committees Wednesday, would expand the common law doctrine of ''your home is your castle'' -- which now gives people the right to use force against a home intruder -- by allowing them to shoot to kill and face no fear of prosecution.

OUTSIDE THE HOME

But beyond the common-law protections, the measures also give immunity outside of the home: to anyone who shoots a carjacker or an attacker when the shooter ``is attacked any other place where he or she has a right to be.''

The caveat: The shooter must reasonably believe he must act in self-defense to ``prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.''

`VIGILANTE JUSTICE'

However, warned Rep. Jack Seiler, a Wilton Manors Democrat and lawyer, these new broad provisions will spawn ``pure vigilante justice.''

''This goes way beyond protecting your home and your family,'' said Seiler, who tried but failed to remove the protections for using deadly force outside of a homeowner's property. ``We're going to extend this right to people in the street.''

The bills were initiated by the Florida Chapter of the National Rifle Association and easily passed the House Judiciary Committee Wednesday morning and the Senate Criminal Justice Committee Wednesday afternoon.

WIDE SUPPORT

Support is so widespread for enshrining the ''castle doctrine'' into state law that the measure has 62 co-sponsors in the House and 28 in the Senate.

Seiler and Rep. Dan Gelber, a Miami Beach Democrat who is also a lawyer, said it makes sense to give homeowners the right to use deadly force against a home intruder. But, they warned, the other provisions could strip prosecutors of their ability to go after gang members in shootouts and innocent people could become targets.

For example: A deer hunter sitting on a tree hears a shot in his direction and thinks another hunter is aiming at him. In a fit of rage, ''he blows the other hunter away and is immune from criminal prosecution,'' Seiler said.

Jenny Brill, an assistant state attorney for Miami-Dade County, said the law could lead to chaos and confusion.

''You've always had the right to defend yourself if you believed you'd be subject to bodily harm,'' Brill said. ``But, in the past, you had a duty to retreat because of the high priority we give to life. By taking away the duty to retreat, we're left with fistfights in the street, which will escalate into armed fights and we'll have a lot of dead bodies.''

Brill said Florida is a state that ''has been very vigilant in preserving and valuing human life'' but the legislation ``flies in the face of that value. This really encourages people to shoot first and ask questions later.''

Marion Hammer, lobbyist for the NRA and its Florida chapter, United Sportsmen of Florida, accused Seiler of attempting to ''gut the bill'' when he proposed taking out the expanded protections.

''Law-abiding people who are in places they have the legal right to be should not be told, if they are attacked, they have to turn around and run,'' Hammer said. The bill allows people ``to meet force with force.''

LAW ENFORCERS

The Florida Sheriff's Association, the Police Chief's Association and the Police Benevolent Association have supported the bill but the Florida Prosecuting Attorney's Association hasn't taken a position.

``There's no such thing as a perfect piece of legislation,'' said Buddy Jacobs, general counsel of the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association.

Brill questions whether there is a need for a bill at all. With the exception of the section that expands immunity to people who shoot others away from their home and claim self-defense, ''this bill doesn't add anything that the law doesn't already protect,'' she said.

Gelber said sponsors of the bill told him late Wednesday they agree that the bill may be too broadly written and will tighten it before it goes to a final vote in the House.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/10975798.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp&1c
 
Way to go FL!! This is a smart piece of legislation that would be great to have all over the country.
 
Jenny Brill, an assistant state attorney for Miami-Dade County, said the law could lead to chaos and confusion.
Sounds familiar. When Florida took the lead in passing legislation that instituted nondiscretionary concealed weapon licensing, detractors claimed that motorists would routinely be involved in gunfights, the streets would run red with blood, bodies would be stacked up like cordwood, Florida's new nickname would be "The Gunshine State" and so on and so on.

None of this happened. Crime went down.

Sounds like Florida is on the right track - more power to them. :cool:
 
``prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.'' is almost exactly what Colorado law says. No vigilantism here. I expect a number of other Western states are nearly identical.
 
''You've always had the right to defend yourself if you believed you'd be subject to bodily harm,'' Brill said. ``But, in the past, you had a duty to retreat because of the high priority we give to life. By taking away the duty to retreat, we're left with fistfights in the street, which will escalate into armed fights and we'll have a lot of dead bodies.''

Yeah because there are so many bodies piled up here in Texas that we can't even walk down the street. Our lack of a duty to retreat has turned Texas into the Wild West. :rolleyes:
 
...Rep. Jack Seiler, a Wilton Manors Democrat and lawyer, these new broad provisions will spawn ``pure vigilante justice.''

He left out the part about the streets running with blood. He apparently didn't memorize the cheat sheet from the leftist extremists.

No dog biscuit for the leftist lapdog.
 
While I have a Florida CCW and carry regularly, I have doubts about the wisdom of removing "duty to retreat" from the law. Not because I fear a new age of vigilante bloodshed, but because "duty to retreat" makes good practical sense.

The use of a self-defense weapon should be a LAST resort. Once you draw that weapon, somebody's going to bleed in most cases. It may be the bad guy. It may be you, or an innocent bystander. IMHO, if you can disengage from the situation safely, without endangering innocent parties, you should do so.

That said, I also think that people need to be clear about when you really can disengage safely. The Tueller Drill is a good example not understood by the uninitiated. Dennis Tueller proved that an attacker with a knife can cover 21 feet and stick you before you can draw a CCW and shoot. So, if someone with a knife threatens you, and they're within 21 unobstructed feet, you're justified in shooting before the bad guy decides to move, because Officer Tueller proved that the threat is unavoidable.

Florida law properly says that there is no duty to retreat inside your home or place of business, because you're defending your property as well as your life. If, however, you're out in public, a safe retreat is IMHO preferable to engaging in a shootout.
 
The problem with "duty to retreat" is that it puts the onus back on the defender to explain or justify why they chose to make a stand. It gives another hook for a wrongful prosecution to use to wipe away their affirmative defense.

"Mr. Smith, isn't it true you had a duty to retreat?"

"Well, I didn't think it was safe to try."

"That's for the jury to decide, Mr. Smith. You chose to escalate the confrontation instead of leaving and because of your vigilante aggression a man is dead."

The only legal standard a defender should be held to is the "reasonable man" standard on whether he should have shot at all. Not what he should or shouldn't have done prior.

If he has a right to be there but can retreat safely he should, but that's an education issue, not a legal one. We don't (or shouldn't anyway) make rape or robbery victims explain why they were on dark streets alone when they had a right to be there.
 
:banghead: David, it strikes me as wise to retreat in some situations, if possible or feasible and common sense says that's the best course.

But a legal requirement about a duty to retreat cannot deal with every individual situation. That's bad law. And, philosophically, I'm fed up with the idea that legislators' ideas about common sense are somehow superior to my own.

Or yours...

Art

PS: A DemParty Pol from Wilton Manors oughta move east about 40 miles.:D
 
Why do liberals seem fixated with our streets? "Flooding the streets" with guns, "the streets running red with blood", "violence in our streets," etc. How about fixing the potholes in my streets? That would make a whole lot more sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top