Thursday, September 29, 2005

Countdown: T – 2 Days

On October 1st, Florida citizens have

"the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm."

Yes, you read that right, come Saturday assailants that attack will be shot more than not. Originally, Florida law stated that gun owners must first attempt to escape from precarious situations or alleviate them: i.e. giving the assailant your wallet/purse or letting them have your keys.

Now, the "Wild, Wild West" is apparently reborn according to the Washington Post. According to the Post, humans are no more than gun-toting lunatics waiting for a chance to let some shells loose. The NRA and Marion P. Hammer, a Florida Lobbyist, calls the measure the "Castle Doctrine" relating private property and the citizen’s right to protect it.

Not only am I in full support of this law, I’m excited to see the outcome. This law will not be an active thought in our lives but it will end up protecting us in the courtroom. Florida citizens already have the right to carry concealed weapons but in the midst of an attack, if the weapon is used, this law will support that citizen. I can guarantee that no one, as of October 1st, will be looking for a fight and there won’t be shootouts at nearby intersections. This law is no more than protecting citizens from high-priced lawyers and minor stipulations. If I am walking to a movie with my girlfriend and am confronted by a criminal, I have the right to protect, my girlfriend, property, and my life.

7 comments:

Dad29 said...

You forgot to mention that Marion Hammer is the ex-President of NRA/ILA, not just "a lobbyist."

Second, and far more important: if you read "In the Gravest Extreme", a handbook for civilians who carry concealed, you will find that the author EXPLICITLY recommends carrying a "throwaway" $20.00 bill for the goblins. He also EXPLICITLY recommends running like hell from the scene.

While the Florida law changed, the Predator Attorney class has NOT changed. The damage suit will cost you $30K, more or less...

Disgruntled Car Salesman said...

I've got my holster all set up for a shootout, see ya in a couple...

Clownpuncher said...

Awesome....it almost make me want to move back to Florida just so I can be a little bit of chlorine in the gene pool.

Neo-Con Tastic said...

Well, I didn't write a blog on the book "In the Gravest Extreme" and perhaps my actions would resemble that of the author but I'm just specifying the law. Someone should always avoid an aggravated attack, especially if it only would cost $20 as opposed to a life.

On the other hand, what if you threw the $20 and he ran off? Next time, he robs a young woman that is defenseless without a $20, he might go on to a worse crime (rape or murder). You could've prevented a future crime by eliminating the problem.

Neo-Con Tastic said...

To tangent off this blog:

A few months ago, an elderly man was jumped by two youths. They kicked him, stomped his head, and were beating him senseless. The next moment later, it all stopped. The victim opened his eyes to see one of his assailants next to him, dead. He got up to see the other running off. The one laying dead had been shot by the elderly man's neighbor.

It went to trial as third degree murder. The good samaritan (+80 yrs old) was finally set free considering his age and in light of the passing legislation. HE WAS ACTUALLY CHARGED FOR SHOOTING A KID THAT WAS STOMPING THE HEAD OF A SENIOR CITIZEN. Would the kids have stopped if the neighbor said so? Do you think a $20 would have worked then?

Dad29 said...

Umnnhhhh...

The rules of engagement with deadly force are quite simple: you do NOT use deadly force UNLESS you are absolutely, positively, convinced that your life (or that of another) is in danger.

That's usually not the case, especially with some 14-y.o. twit who's after $20.00.

And your citation of the 80-y.o. man's case proves my point: you WILL be prosecuted, whether criminally or civilly, for using a gun, no matter WHAT the justification.

Dad29 said...

Found this on Malkin's site, which explains the "actualities" of the law:

The statute allows citizens to use physical deadly force against a person who enters their premises and is a threat to their safety. If a person within a residence feels an intruder will kill or cause serious injury to him or her, or that the intruder will kill or cause serious injury to someone else in that dwelling, that person may use deadly physical force against the intruder to stop the attack.
The law does not apply to incidents outside of the gunowner's home