Lone_Gunman
Member
I have been thinking about Florida's new stand your ground law, and how it will be applied.
It has been suggested by the media that this will turn FL into the "OK Corral", and I totally disagree with that. But at the same time, I am not sure how useful this law would really be. I envision three scenarios where this law might come into play:
1. You are at home, and a criminal breaks in on you. It is my understanding that most states do not require you to retreat in your own home, and so you can use deadly force to protect yourself. So, the new law doesn't help anything here.
2. You are out in town, and are accosted by a criminal who intends to do immediate deadly harm to you. He pulls a gun or knife and launches an attack. You don't have time or opportunity to retreat, so you use deadly force. I believe in most states using deadly force in that situation would be justified, and Florida's law would not apply. If you don't have time to retreat, and threat of death is imminent, you can use force.
3. Here is where things get fuzzy for me. You are out on the town, and are accosted by a criminal who is threatening you. He is physically threatening in some way, but has not yet attacked. You have time to get away if you want. You think if you stay, he might try to do physical harm to you. Does the new law allow you to shoot this person? To clarify, you feel physically threatened, but have time to escape (you think) if you want. In this situation, is it not morally wrong to retreat if you have the opportunity, even if the law says you can defend yourself with deadly force?
Input is appreciated. Again, I am not against the new law, just trying to sort out how it will be used.
It has been suggested by the media that this will turn FL into the "OK Corral", and I totally disagree with that. But at the same time, I am not sure how useful this law would really be. I envision three scenarios where this law might come into play:
1. You are at home, and a criminal breaks in on you. It is my understanding that most states do not require you to retreat in your own home, and so you can use deadly force to protect yourself. So, the new law doesn't help anything here.
2. You are out in town, and are accosted by a criminal who intends to do immediate deadly harm to you. He pulls a gun or knife and launches an attack. You don't have time or opportunity to retreat, so you use deadly force. I believe in most states using deadly force in that situation would be justified, and Florida's law would not apply. If you don't have time to retreat, and threat of death is imminent, you can use force.
3. Here is where things get fuzzy for me. You are out on the town, and are accosted by a criminal who is threatening you. He is physically threatening in some way, but has not yet attacked. You have time to get away if you want. You think if you stay, he might try to do physical harm to you. Does the new law allow you to shoot this person? To clarify, you feel physically threatened, but have time to escape (you think) if you want. In this situation, is it not morally wrong to retreat if you have the opportunity, even if the law says you can defend yourself with deadly force?
Input is appreciated. Again, I am not against the new law, just trying to sort out how it will be used.