Law Expands Right to Kill in Self-Defense

Reviews, Videos, and Everything Else Martial Arts in the News
1

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050405/od_nm/crime_florida_dc&e=2&ncid=757

[me] Pandora’s Box or About Damn Time? Personally, I like this idea. If someone attacks you, why should you have to run? [/me]

Law Expands Right to Kill in Self-Defense

By Michael Peltier

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (Reuters) - People in Florida will be allowed to kill in self-defense on the street without trying to flee under a new law passed by state politicians on Tuesday that critics say will bring a Wild West mentality and innocent deaths.

The Florida House of Representatives, citing the need to allow people to “stand their ground,” voted 94-20 to codify and expand court rulings that already allow people to use deadly force to protect themselves in their homes without first trying to escape.

The new bill goes further by allowing citizens to use deadly force in a public place if they have a reasonable belief they are in danger of death or great bodily harm. It applies to all means of force that may result in death, although the legislative debate focused on guns.

The “Stand Your Ground” bill passed the Senate last week on a 39-0 vote and now goes to Republican Gov. Jeb Bush, who indicated he will sign it.

“This is about meeting force with force,” said House sponsor Republican state Rep. Dennis Baxley of Ocala. “If I’m attacked, I should not have to retreat.”

Critics have few objections to allowing people to protect themselves from intruders in their homes but said the provision making it easier to use deadly force in public gives gun owners a license to kill.

“For a House that talks about the culture of life it’s ironic that we would be devaluing life in this bill,” said Democratic state Rep. Dan Gelber of Miami Beach. “That’s exactly what we’re doing.”

Like many states, Florida courts have ruled that people have a right to defend themselves in their homes. Florida courts have expanded that “Castle Doctrine” to include employees in their workplaces and drivers who are attacked in their automobiles.

Outside the home, however, courts have ruled that most victims must at least attempt to escape before using deadly force, a provision gun advocates say puts victims at greater risk. The proposal removes that requirement if a person has a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm.

Critics say the measure could lead to racially motivated killings and promote deadly escalations of arguments.

“All this bill will do is sell more guns and possibly turn Florida into the OK Corral,” said Democratic state Rep. Irv Slosberg of Boca Raton.

2

This brings up an excellent point when talking about REAL self defense, not that machismo chest to chest thumping crap.

Things to say AFTER you have defended yourself:

*I felt my life was in danger.
*I tried to run, but he/she/they blocked my path. I could not escape.
*I felt my life was in danger.
*Did I mention I felt my life was in danger?

3

As I understand it, the intent of the Castle Doctrine is exactly for those situations - such as if someone is trying to carjack you (with a weapon) or someone is trying to kill you in the workplace. In the first instance, this allows drivers to fire on someone who is attemtping to, or reasonably believes they are about to, target them with deadly force. In essence, you can shoot back instead of just drive away and hope he misses you. In the second instance, most employers prohibit firearms on company premises so application is likely limited to smaller, private businesses. It essentially provides small business owners with the same rights they would have to stand thier ground if they were at home.

Whether or not this new legislation is actually required I don’t know. However, the devil is in the details. If not precisely worded, this does have the potential of turning into a wild west-like defense state. In short…Castle Doctrine is good in principle, but the ultimate wisdom will be dictated by the language of the law.

4

I’m surprised Florida didn’t have the castle doctrine before this. I thought it was pretty standard. Good on them.

5

I think that killing someone is wrong, no matter why you do it. That said, if the only choice is kill or be killed, pick kill. Just because something is wrong doesn’t mean that it isn’t the best choice available. I would just want to be sure that there is no way to stop someone without killing them first.

6

I’m sure many agree with that, my understanding of this law is that
they won’t hold you criminally responsible for defending yourself -
not that it gives you a bunch more freedom to kill. I read somewhere
that in England you can’t even shoot a burgler who is in your home
without facing criminal charges. That just doesn’t make sense, why
do we impose any criminality on the simple right to defend ones self and
property?

7

When someone is coming at you with a knife, there is no “way to stop someone without killing them first.” You either kill or be killed. No ethics are involved.

I have no sympathy for someone trying to kill me or anyone else.

8

Because it’s easy to hurt someone and then claim “I was defending myself”. I’ve often worried about that. If I get attacked and do some permanent damage to my attacker, would he be able to sue me for that? I’ve heard of similar things happening.

And I know that this law won’t make it so you can kill anyone who looks at you funny, I just felt like adding my take on it.

9

Well, you are sort-of agreeing with me. My point is that this law takes away some of the burden of worrying about a retarded jury convicting you for defending yourself. It’s still not legally safe to defend yourself, but this looks like a good first step.

10

I personally feel this is a good step in the right direction.

11

Yeah, I am sort of agreeing with you.

Out of curiousity, how feasible do you guys think it is to defend yourself without killing someone. I’ve never been attacked, so I have no real world experience. But I don’t think it would be that hard, at least not as far as fighting goes. But I’ve heard people who are heavy into guns telling me you can’t train to shoot someone in a non-lethal area. They claim that you train to shoot at the head or upper-torso, not a leg, arm, or stomach. I can understand about the legs and arms, as hitting a smaller target is more difficult (although in that case I don’t understand why they aim for the head and don’t just go for the midsection all the time). But why not go for the stomach? It seems that a shot or two there would be good (unless they had a gun, then you could make the arguement that nothing short of death would stop them).

12

That’s more along Phil’s line than mine. I just hope it’s a trend allowing us less repercussions for legally defending ourselves.

13

i don’t know about this law. i wonder if it will let yet more people get away with murder?

But I’ve heard people who are heavy into guns telling me you can’t train to shoot someone in a non-lethal area.

if they’re heavy into guns, shouldn’t they be able to shoot properly? I’ve never fired a hand gun but how hard could it be to cap a guy in the legs at 10-15 feet distance especially if you have a full clip?

14

Well, murder (maybe the legal definition is different) is the UNLAWFUL killing
of someone. This law would appear to lesson the restrictions on what’s
lawful as far as self-defense.

15

I’ve never fired a hand gun but how hard could it be to cap a guy in the legs at 10-15 feet distance especially if you have a full clip?

:violent5:

16

How feasible? Are you talking hand to hand?

If so, I’ll ask you this question: would you fight if you didn’t feel you were in imminent danger? My answer is no. Unless I feel like I’m about to get hurt, I’m not going to fight.

Next question: If you are in imminent danger, what would you do? My answer is make DAMN sure I’m not in danger anymore. I’ll do whatever I have to in order to ensure that I get out of that scenario as safely as I can. I’ll worry everything else later.

17

I know someone who is in prison because he was screwed over by the requirement of retreat. I’m glad that in Florida this has been overturned.

18

Firing a hand gun is not as easy as you might think. The basic point + pull trigger is misleading, in my (limited) experience. If you go to the range all the time, then you will gain firing skills, but most of us probably won’t. Depending on the firearm, aiming can be difficult to do quickly, and not particularly accurate. From what I know, semi-automatics are less accurate than a revolver due to the number of pieces in the barrel and the slide. When you fire, if it’s a semi-automatic pistol, you run the risk of hurting your hand if it’s in the wrong place, and recoil is a bitch. Then there’s the noise. It’s loud. And I wouldn’t want to be around it without a pair of those ear muffs. I am not going to sit through the noise of ten rounds in order to aim for some guy’s leg. I probably won’t have a lot of time to line up the sight in the first place. I don’t carry a gun, and I would rather unload one than use one, but if it happened, I would try to hit the biggest target possible.

Actually having fired a gun, I am of the opinion that it would be difficult to attempt mercy with one, given the limited experience that I and so many others have with a firearm.

19

If you think your life is in danger, you saw a gun, knife, stick of dynamite, sword and thought you were going to be killed before pulling out your .45 and blowing the guy away.

It’s good that there is no duty to retreat on the streets of Florida. It still doesn’t give you the right to escalate the situation, you’ll lose your defense. I’ll be interested in seeing what the future holds with application of the defense.

20

Is he getting out?