My home state (Florida) gets self-defense right.

[vulturesrow]

Fla. Gun Law to Expand Leeway for Self-Defense (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/25/AR2005042501553.html)

MIAMI -- It is either a Wild West revival, a return to the days of "shoot first and ask questions later," or a triumph for the "Castle Doctrine" -- the notion that enemies invade personal space at their peril.

Such dueling rhetoric marked the debate over a measure that Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) could sign as early as Tuesday. The legislation passed so emphatically that National Rifle Association backers plan to take it to statehouses across the nation, including Virginia's, over the next year. The law will let Floridians "meet force with force," erasing the "duty to retreat" when they fear for their lives outside of their homes, in their cars or businesses, or on the street.

[BCPVP]

Perhaps the NRA can put some more pressure on my own idiot governor (WI) to pass right-to-carry laws instead of vetoing them.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
when they fear for their lives outside of their homes, in their cars or businesses, or on the street

[/ QUOTE ]

but what if those fears are irrational?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The law will let Floridians "meet force with force," erasing the "duty to retreat" when they fear for their lives outside of their homes, in their cars or businesses, or on the street.

[/ QUOTE ]

but what if those fears are irrational?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well then they won't have to "meet force with force"; they'll just have a nice day /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
The law will let Floridians "meet force with force," erasing the "duty to retreat" when they fear for their lives outside of their homes, in their cars or businesses, or on the street.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't read the legislation, only the article; but it sounds to me like redundant legislating, in that:

1) Florida citizens already had the right to 'fight' back if they though their lives were in danger during a home invasion/attack on the street/store robbery, etc.
2) I have absolutely no idea, no empirical evidence, nor any special knowledge of this; yet I'm willing to wager no one has ever been charged with a crime because of the 'duty to retreat' clause. In other words, I find it hard to imagine that during a home invasion where lives were threatened, a home owner has been charged with a crime because they shot at/harmed the perpetrating invader when they could have fled.


I suppose it's nice they closed the loophole. I'm guessing it will have absolutely no practical change on how the law is already applied anyway. If Florida wants to continue making redudant laws, perhaps they can pass an Equal Rights Amendment or something. Maybe codify my right to breate air while they're at it.

I could be wrong. If someone shows me evidence someone has been charged with a crime because they 'failed to respect their duty to retreat', I'll gladly retract everything I said here.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
yet I'm willing to wager no one has ever been charged with a crime because of the 'duty to retreat' clause. In other words, I find it hard to imagine that during a home invasion where lives were threatened, a home owner has been charged with a crime because they shot at/harmed the perpetrating invader when they could have fled.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your confusing the issue a little. You dont have a duty to retreat in your own home, hence the 'castle provision'. Outside your home you do. How much do you want to wager that I can find a case, in Florida, where someone has been charged because of violation of duty to retreat ? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
How much do you want to wager that I can find a case, in Florida, where someone has been charged because of violation of duty to retreat ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, have at it.

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
Fla. Gun Law to Expand Leeway for Self-Defense (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/25/AR2005042501553.html)

MIAMI -- It is either a Wild West revival, a return to the days of "shoot first and ask questions later," or a triumph for the "Castle Doctrine" -- the notion that enemies invade personal space at their peril.

Such dueling rhetoric marked the debate over a measure that Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) could sign as early as Tuesday. The legislation passed so emphatically that National Rifle Association backers plan to take it to statehouses across the nation, including Virginia's, over the next year. The law will let Floridians "meet force with force," erasing the "duty to retreat" when they fear for their lives outside of their homes, in their cars or businesses, or on the street.


[/ QUOTE ]
Let's see if any of this legislation budges any of the Southern states to the point where they are safer than the northerneastern states. Even with all the big bad northern cities, the violent crime rate remains lower in the Northeast than it does in the South. Yet folks on here argue that more lenient gun laws in the South make them safer because gun ownership deters crime. Yet the proof that this is true is almost nowhere to be found...

[CHiPS]

I am not aware of anyone prosecuted under the duty to retreat clause, but for a case along a similar vein - Ronald Dixon of Brooklyn - a navy veteran with a clean record who shot a home invader with 5 felonies. Dixon was protecting his wife and 2 year old son from the invader who broke in in the middle of the night. The Brooklyn DA was trying to put him in jail for a year over a technicality. Dixon had a Florida licence for his firearm but was in the middle of the paperwork for a New York permit. DA tried to nail him on this technicality. This story got national exposure on the Hannity and Colmes show, with both hosts supporting Mr. Dixon and the charges got substantially reduced. The heart of the problem here is that the New York handgun permit process is so difficult that it amounts to an effective ban.
Another case in the same ballpark is Hale DeMar of Willmette Ill, who shot a burglar during a home invasion but faces a city ordinance banning handguns, which in my opinion is unconsitutional under the US constitution.
There are more examples. So cases of people getting unfair treatment because of excessive anti-gun legislation is not totally uncommon.
On the other side of the coin I do support handgun registration, background checks and permit renewals. Florida is right to make the laws very clear so that rogue DAs or Judges do not end up going after people legitimately defending their lives.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
The Brooklyn DA was trying to put him in jail for a year over a technicality. Dixon had a Florida licence for his firearm but was in the middle of the paperwork for a New York permit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunate, to be sure; but nothing to do with the Florida law.

[ QUOTE ]
So cases of people getting unfair treatment because of excessive anti-gun legislation is not totally uncommon.

[/ QUOTE ]

There was no anti-gun legislation involved here; then again, even there were, I never said it was common. I said the Florida legislature is legislating redundantly.

[ QUOTE ]
Another case in the same ballpark is Hale DeMar of Willmette Ill, who shot a burglar during a home invasion but faces a city ordinance banning handguns, which in my opinion is unconsitutional under the US constitution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sad. Red tape is yucky. Then again, since the law hasn't been struck down as unconstitutional yet, perhaps Mr. DeMar should be following the rule of law. Either way, this is a debate for another day. But this has nothing to do with the Florida law.

[ QUOTE ]
Florida is right to make the laws very clear so that rogue DAs or Judges do not end up going after people legitimately defending their lives.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there an epidemic of this going on in Florida? I'd like to see some proof of this.

[CHiPS]

Dvaut - No there's not an epidemic in Florida. I wasn't trying to pick apart your original post, actually what you said originally I think is fine. I'm just saying that there have been some cases that have gotten national exposure within the last year or two that involve people defending their lives with firearms and facing criminal prosecusion.
At one point you mentioned theres no anti-gun legislation involved here - you must mean in the Florida situation. In my examples there was A ban on guns in a city and a mountain of obstacles to get a permit can amount to an effective ban.