|
| Florida drops 'duty to retreat' |
| Tuesday, May 03, 2005 |
| Floridians can hold their heads a little higher today. They no longer have a state-mandated duty to act like cowards. Florida is now one of only a handful of states that allow people to respond to life-threatening assaults with deadly force.
Until Governor Bush signed a law yesterday, Floridians, like most of the rest of us, had a "duty to retreat." That is, if they were attacked in public, they were required by law to retreat from confrontation before they could use deadly force. Only if they could not escape their attacker, could they kill him instead. State mandated cowardice is the law of the land, but no longer in Florida.
The new Florida law does three things. First, it codifies a long-standing assumption that a homeowner has the right to use deadly force against an intruder if he feels that his or his family's life is in danger. It shields the homeowner from prosecution and prevents the assailant from lodging future civil action against the homeowner.
Second, it extends the same right to protection of one's vehicle.
Third, it says people attacked in any place outside the home where they have a legal right to be may also use force to defend themselves. It eliminates the "duty to retreat" provision that existed in previous law.
Opponents dragged out the same old "Wild West" argument to try to defeat the law. Democratic Senator Steven Geller said he liked the first two parts, but hated the third part. He said men, liquored-up at a sporting event, could easily get into a deadly confrontation and then claim self-defense. "Does this sound like some bad western you've seen?" he asked.
Critics warned of the same "Wild West" scenes when Florida passed its concealed-carry laws in 1987. In fact, there is a proliferation of evidence to indicate the concealed carry laws have decreased gun violence significantly in Florida and other states with similar laws.
The new Florida law does attempt to anticipate some abuses. For instance, if the person claiming self-defense used an illegal weapon, or was engaging in criminal behavior when the action occurred, all of the protections are null and void.
The Florida law is a wise and measured response to the tide of control laws that have made our country more vulnerable to criminal gun violence. Other states should follow suit. It will take time and perseverance to assemble an irrefutable body of evidence that arming and empowering law-abiding civilians is the best deterrent and most effective response to criminal gun violence.
The illogic that has permeated the gun debate in this country is wide and deep. It is personified by a leading gun control advocate in Florida, Arthur Hayhoe, executive director of the Florida Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. He asks, "How are you going to reduce crime when you embolden gun owners to act?" That may be the dumbest question I've heard this week, but it's typical for gun control advocates who believe it is guns, not gun owners, that control gun violence. He makes no distinction between criminals and law-abiding gun owners.
His question, properly phrased, would be, "How can you stop criminal gun violence by empowering law-abiding gun owners to confront the criminals?" If that sounds like a silly question, it's only because it is. But it is the question he is asking.
That is the way to stop criminal gun violence. It is the only way to stop criminal gun violence. Police, whom even most gun control advocates grudgingly agree need to be armed, can only stop criminal gun violence if they happen to be in the right place at the right time.
Intended victims are always in the right place at the right time. If they are armed and willing to defend themselves and their families, the ability of people to accomplish criminal goals with threatened gun violence carries a much higher risk and fewer people will choose it.
One does not have to have genius level cognitive skills to understand the logic of the new Florida law, but logic alone will never overcome the fear that people have of guns, even in the hands of law-abiding citizens.
Criminals are generally lazy and evil, but they are not all stupid. They prefer a workplace in which only they are armed.
Well-intended but irrational people who have used the public fear of guns to keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens are the heroes of criminals who depend on a safe work environment.
Florida has taken a step toward making the work environment a little more risky for gun-toting criminals. I recommend that other states follow suit.
Ralph Bristol |
posted by Jack Mercer @ 5/03/2005 04:11:00 PM   |
|
| 4 Comments: |
-
Liberal as I may be, if someone started hitting me and I had to defend myself in desparation, it would be a bat to the knees and a shod foot to the mouth. That is survival. Not a savage criminal act. Turning the other cheek is nice, but sometimes you gotta act...
-
I find myself constantly evaluating my gun control stance. If people are allowed to carry concealed weapons, there is potential for disaster. No matter what, though, there always is. I also find that it may perhaps motivate people to not act like assholes if they know other people may be strapped with a .38. Maybe I am issue-dodging, or maybe I am actually that independent-minded and dont know it.
-
I think the latter, CH.
-Jack
-
Oh, also, I believe there are three kind of people: 1. the predator, 2. the victim and 3. the fortunate.
If you happen to walk through life as a 3, then you have avoided 1 & 2. 1 is avoided by being principled, 2. is avoided by being prepared.
I'm a 3!
-Jack
|
| |
| << Home |
| |
|
|
|
| About Me |
|
Name: Jack Mercer
Home:
About Me:
See my complete profile
"Snipet" (pronounced: snipe - it) is not a word.It is a derivative of two words: "Snipe" and "Snippet".
Miriam Webster defines Snipe as: to aim a carping or snide attack, or: to shoot at exposed individuals (as of an enemy's forces) from a usually concealed point of vantage.
Miriam Webster defines Snippet as: : a small part, piece, or thing; especially : a brief quotable passage.
In short, "Snipets" are brief, snide shots at exposed situations from a concealed vantage point.
WARNING! With due reverence to the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment there is NO comment policy on the News Snipet.
|
| Other things |
| Archives |
|
| Politics |
|
| Template by |
|
|
Liberal as I may be, if someone started hitting me and I had to defend myself in desparation, it would be a bat to the knees and a shod foot to the mouth. That is survival. Not a savage criminal act. Turning the other cheek is nice, but sometimes you gotta act...