Law Lets Floridians `Meet Force With Force'

[Hazard]

http://news.tbo.com/news/MGBPCES018E.html

This is a huge victory for those of us! What a great step forward in the legal process for Florida! I applaud this decision.

[CrAz3D]

I so read that!  YES!  I would buy a gun just because of that.

[Hazard]

I just like that the law is on my side if some stupid son of a bitch comes after me.

[CrAz3D]

I just like that the law is on my side if some stupid son of a bitch comes after me.

Heck yeah!  I think all self defense should be like that.

[Forged]

I think it is workd a bit to ambigouslly, but in general it is a good thing.

[MyndFyre]

Arizona has a similar law.  You may have heard recently of Sgt. Patrick Habb, who was arrested after he held 7 illegal immigrants at gunpoint at a rest stop while waiting for Border Patrol to arrive.  While I'm glad that he (himself) had his charges dropped, I believe that, in the purpose of the law, he broke the law.

You can use force to the extent to which it is being used in a criminal activity when conducting a citizen's arrest.  For example, if someone is using deadly force (example: a vehicle), you are entitled to use deadly force (example: a firearm) to prevent or stop a crime from being committed.

Arizona is a right-to-carry state. 

[Newby]

I think democrats are gonna absolutely slander Jeb (and the Bush family in general) for this.

I think it's great, though.

[Hazard]

You can use force to the extent to which it is being used in a criminal activity when conducting a citizen's arrest.  For example, if someone is using deadly force (example: a vehicle), you are entitled to use deadly force (example: a firearm) to prevent or stop a crime from being committed.

Pardon me, but that is worded incorrectly. The law states that you are allowed to use a proportional response to a threat. In laymans terms, you can only draw and fire your firearm when you feel that your life or the life of someone else is in imminent danger. If somebody is loading your big screen into their lowrider you can't shoot them. Now if they break into your house, you can drop them then and there. The point is you can't kill somebody for jaywalking, it must be with the intent to save lives ONLY.

[Arta]

Unless they're in your house, in which case, you can murder them with confidence.

This law doesn't seem like such a bad thing. That said, I can see the logic in requiring people to run away, if they can. I think it's good that people have the option of running or not though, so they can decide what is the most safe thing to do.

[Adron]

Now if they break into your house, you can drop them then and there.

Them just breaking into your house isn't in itself a reason to shoot them by that law - you have to be in danger.

Also, you realize this now gives me the right to shoot you on sight if I ever see you: Your continued existence is a threat to my afterlife according to my newly-invented religion

[Thing [vL]]

I just like that the law is on my side if some stupid son of a bitch comes after me.

I just like to kill people.

[Hazard]

Them just breaking into your house isn't in itself a reason to shoot them by that law - you have to be in danger.

Oh gee Adron, no. Thats actually not correct. The wouldn't be in your house to send you flowers. Forcefully entering somebody else's residence without their authorization means that the owner inside can consider his life/lives of others at risk. If somebody kicks down my door and comes inside, he'll be dead before he hits the floor.

Also, you realize this now gives me the right to shoot you on sight if I ever see you: Your continued existence is a threat to my afterlife according to my newly-invented religion

Gee, again, not the law. What a great socialist mis-interpretation. This new law says that if you are reasonably assured that I intend to kill you or somebody else that you could draw, warn, then fire. You can't just shoot somebody for no reason. Its a typical anti-gun misconception that in the United States you can pretty much shoot somebody for no reason, and its illogical, to use your own words against you. Your assertion that your religion permits it is the same argument that the Nazis used at Nuremburg, the Klan used in their trials, and the Black Panthers used before Congress. As we say around here "That dog just ain't gonna hunt."

[MyndFyre]

Pardon me, but that is worded incorrectly. The law states that you are allowed to use a proportional response to a threat. In laymans terms, you can only draw and fire your firearm when you feel that your life or the life of someone else is in imminent danger. If somebody is loading your big screen into their lowrider you can't shoot them. Now if they break into your house, you can drop them then and there. The point is you can't kill somebody for jaywalking, it must be with the intent to save lives ONLY.

No, that is not worded incorrectly, you read incorrectly.  By use of a vehicle as a means of threatening or applying deadly force, it means that they are threatening or attempting to kill you or someone else with a car.  That's why the Chandler police officer who was almost run over by someone, and as a result shot her square in the head killing her and her baby, was acquitted.  You can meet threat or use of deadly force with deadly force.

Opposingly, if someone breaks into your house but is not threatening you with deadly force, you cannot shoot them.  If a robber is running out of your house, but still in your house -- even carrying your possessions -- you cannot shoot him.

Although the original topic was about a new Florida law, I specifically said that it was a similar situation in Arizona.  See: Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 13, Sec. 405, Justification, use of deadly physical force.

Them just breaking into your house isn't in itself a reason to shoot them by that law - you have to be in danger.

Oh gee Adron, no. Thats actually not correct. The wouldn't be in your house to send you flowers. Forcefully entering somebody else's residence without their authorization means that the owner inside can consider his life/lives of others at risk. If somebody kicks down my door and comes inside, he'll be dead before he hits the floor.

At least in Arizona, Adron's interpretation is correct.  See: ARS Title 13 Sec. 404, Justification, self defense, and ARS Title 13 Sec. 407, Justification, use of physical force in defense of premesis.  (Interestingly, Sec. 407 permits the use of physical or deadly physical force, but only deadly when Sec. 405 applies).

What a great socialist mis-interpretation.

Leave your sarcasm out of this forum.  If you want to post something worthwhile and logical, by all means, this is the place to do it.  Get off your high horse, though.

[Hazard]

No, that is not worded incorrectly, you read incorrectly.

No, your closing was the part that was incorrect. You cannot use deadly force to prevent a crime, only to save lives.

Opposingly, if someone breaks into your house but is not threatening you with deadly force, you cannot shoot them.

My best friends father is the Deputy Cheif of Police for the Tampa Police Department, and he disagrees. I'll take his word over yours.

If a robber is running out of your house, but still in your house -- even carrying your possessions -- you cannot shoot him.

I repeat, you can only use deadly force to save your own life or the life of somebody else. Somebody entering your home, under Florida law, in an unlawful manner, can be seen as a direct threat to your safety.

[Adron]

This new law says that if you are reasonably assured that I intend to kill you or somebody else that you could draw, warn, then fire.

The new law said something about great bodily harm or death. If you rob me of my reincarnation, you're absolutely causing my death. And I need to be reasonably assured that that's the case. Are you reasonably assured that your Christian God exists, and that there is a heaven that you may come to?