Florida law regarding use of deadly force
Florida governer Jeb Bush signed into law a bill that would allow citizens to shoot someone who threatened them, even in public places. Link to article. Previously, citizens were allowed to use deadly force with a firearm if they could not safely get away. But now, if a person feels threatened in a mall, for example, and they can safely get away, they are justified to begin shooting.
The NRA, who lobbied heavily for this law, plans to introduce the bill all around the country.
I'm trying to understand why this is necessary. Any thoughts?
posted by Carolyn P @ 4/27/2005 10:21:00 AM
4 comments
4 Comments:
I heard about this new law this morning on NPR. As a non-gun owner and someone who doesn’t believe in the necessity of owning personal firearms, I am concerned about what this will mean. In theory, the law is meant to give people the ability to defend themselves if they are threatened in a public place and have the means to defend themselves with a weapon. In practice, however, I see it as giving people another reason to escalate confrontations into violence. I am thinking of Sean Connery’s speech to Kevin Costner in the Untouchables—“they send one of yours to the hospital, you send one of theirs to the morgue. That’s the Chicago way.” I know this law probably won’t result in the kind of gangland violence seen in 1920’s Chicago, but it could give someone just that added incentive to pull a gun and use deadly force in an altercation that might have otherwise ended peaceably at best, or in fisticuffs at worse. I also don’t see why existing laws are so inadequate that a new law is required. If there is a doubt as to whether someone is justified in using a firearm under existing law, then he probably shouldn’t be pulling a gun in the first place.
I couldn't agree more. The existing law seems totally adequate. And, adding a firearm to an already escalating situation seems dangerous.
Case in point, recently Kevin (my husband) witnessed some pretty serious road rage. A truck in front of him had apparently been angered by a nearby car. At a stop light, the driver got out of his truck, walked to the car's driver side window and smashed it in with his elbow. Then, he yelled at the driver, got back in his truck and drove away when the light changed. Fortunately, the incident ended without violence, but if the driver of the car had a firearm, under Florida law, he would have been justified in using it. I'm sure he felt threatened.
I just think adding a gun to the mix is not wise, and not necessary.
I am confused by Caroyln's post - "(f)ortunately, the incident ended without violence".
I would argue that someone smashing in a car window is violence. I believe she actually means that she feels relieved that the event didn't escalate to bloodshed.
Either way, it is a sad commentary on our society when individuals feel entitled to break your window and drive off. I hope the individual driving the car, called in the truck drivers' license plate.
The overall violence in society is one reason I chose to carry.
You're right. Smashing the car window was violent. I did mean that is was fortunate this incident didn't end in someone getting physically hurt. And, when my husband called 911, the driver had apparently already called, so I certainly hope the driver of the truck was prosecuted.
But, since you are someone who carries a firearm, I'm wondering what your take on the Florida law is. Do you feel its appropriate for someone to shoot someone who is threatening them, even if they can safely retreat?
Post a Comment
<< Home