Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Florida to allow use of force even outside home

TALLAHASSEE, Florida (AP) -- Gov. Jeb Bush said Tuesday he intends to sign a bill that would allow people who feel threatened -- even on the street or at a baseball game -- to "meet force with force" and defend themselves without fear of prosecution.

The measure, the top priority of the National Rifle Association in Florida this year, passed the House 94-20 on Tuesday. It had already passed the Senate


this works for me, and i can hear the howls of outrage now.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/04/05/deadly.force.ap/index.html

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Florida to allow use of force even outside home
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Florida to allow use of force even outside home
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Decisions, decisions

In reply to: Florida to allow use of force even outside home

people who feel threatened

Would be able to

"meet force with force"

Should make for some interesting confrontations.

Should I

meet threats with threats?

OR

meet threats with force?

OR

meet force with excessive force?
Collapse -
You don't have to do anything. You don't live in Florida,

In reply to: Decisions, decisions

and you don't have to visit there.

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) but if he does better bring a passport:)

In reply to: You don't have to do anything. You don't live in Florida,

Collapse -
What a boon to tourism, KP (NOT!)

>>and you don't have to visit there.<<
-- Dave K.

Collapse -
well just think dave when you visit

In reply to: What a boon to tourism, KP (NOT!)

you can bring your taser the fun way to die.
its time people can defend themselves without worry of getting arested if they do.

Collapse -
Perhaps I should have said, 'you don't HAVE to visit there'?

In reply to: What a boon to tourism, KP (NOT!)

I suspect that the citizens of Florida don't care what the JP Bills of the world think about their decisions regarding the right to self defense. It is a drop in the water of the ocean of visitors to Florida.

They probably don't even care if you no longer visit there DK.

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) well since you dont live here you havent a fear

In reply to: Decisions, decisions

Collapse -
Well,

In reply to: Decisions, decisions

considering the statement of meeting "force with force," it would seem that justification for action will be based upon the use of force by the other party. Nothing wrong there, nor anything close to the situations you proposed.

Collapse -
What you should do...

In reply to: Decisions, decisions

...is read the article. That might prevent you from asking inane questions, because the last paragraph explicitly states:

The bill says a person has "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 to himself or herself or another."

Obviously, then, the answer is: no, you do not meet (exclusively verbal) threats with force, nor do you meet force with excessive force; you meet the imminent danger of grave bodily harm with force that is sufficient to stop the attack.

Besides which, this is all Problem #2 stuff. It's still entirely possible--I would say quite likely--that the best solution to Problem #1 is going to be to get the heck out of Dodge.

Just because one is no longer legally obligated to retreat doesn't mean it ain't a good eye dear - Mark

Collapse -
And a better way would be

In reply to: Decisions, decisions

turn the other cheek? Let the bullies do whatever they want with you and your family? Only criminal can/should carry weapons? I'm really trying to understand you. Are you thinking the meek will bully the criminals in a over reaction? That decent family men will start killing people What?

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) if assaulted outside you couldn't defend yourself?

In reply to: Florida to allow use of force even outside home

Collapse -
how the law was writen

In reply to: (NT) if assaulted outside you couldn't defend yourself?

id have to try to run away turn my back on you.

now if it you cause me to be in fear of my life by stricking me, not saying name calling mind you i can shoot to kill with out fear of reprisal as long as i fear for my life.
so its been signed

Collapse -
Yet another inane question from you...

In reply to: (NT) if assaulted outside you couldn't defend yourself?

...that could've been avoided if you'd read the article:

Under present law, however, people attacked anywhere else are supposed to do what they can to avoid escalating the situation and can use deadly force only after they've tried to retreat.

Lemme guess, like DK, you're too busy to read, but not too busy to comment on stuff you're too busy to read - Mark

Collapse -
Response

In reply to: Yet another inane question from you...

Florida to allow use of force even outside home

Mark's subject line implies that force was not allowed outside the home

and this new law would allow force to be used outside the home
Collapse -
P.S.

In reply to: Response

JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

This section makes no reference of where the "use of force" must take place.

In my opinion, if the place the use of force can take place is not identified, then the use of force can take place anywhere.

The date of the statute is 2004

CHAPTER 776

There was a problem with the links after I got this info so they may be having a problem
Collapse -
Response

In reply to: P.S.

Perhaps you should get them to explain it to you.

Do you think that you will be able to persue a person that attacked you, and the attacker is trying to flee the scene, and you shoot him or her "in the back", and then claim you feared for your life?

That would be excessive force and you can't reasonably believe you are in danger from a person running away.

I say the "new law" gives people nothing more than they had before.

I will write the Florida gov and express my views when you write the French gov and express your views on Rwanda.

My final word in this thread.

Collapse -
if persons backs to you

In reply to: Response

then your not in danger so you cant shoot a running away person.

and as usual when you question posts and are shown lacking in knowledge as per your anti gun stance you have to say this is my last post in this subject.

and as you cant understand the new law does give good people rights you go ahead and ignor these posts.

Collapse -
and if you used force b4 you had to try to run away 1st

In reply to: Response

which means turning your back on an attacker

Collapse -
They shouldn't allow it.

In reply to: Florida to allow use of force even outside home

They should require it. Enough of this pussyfooting around. Shoot already!

Dan

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) id new you would see the light

In reply to: They shouldn't allow it.

Collapse -
RE: the howls

In reply to: Florida to allow use of force even outside home

Giving folks a right to defend themselves. How awful.

I wonder what it was like before. Thunderdome?

Collapse -
no you had to turn away and try to flee

In reply to: RE: the howls

if you do that your dead or hurt worse.

Collapse -
Open invitation to murder, Mark.

In reply to: Florida to allow use of force even outside home

Florida isn't the Old West, but it soon will be with this piece of trash. I feel threatened by you, so I just do a quick draw and blow you away -- unless, of course, you're faster and blow me away first. Isn't that a wonderfully Christian approach from a Governor that helped to turn a private tragedy into a three-ring circus in the name of "preserving life." I guess the life of someone in a persistently vegetative state is of much more value to the Governorn than the life of the next person who looks slighty menacing and so is blown away for their troubles. FEH!
-- Dave K (on a laptop w/o sig-generator)

Collapse -
Snicker, chuckle, yuk yuk yuk.......

In reply to: Open invitation to murder, Mark.

> I feel threatened by you, so I just do a quick draw and blow you away -- unless, of course, you're faster and blow me away first.

I'm faster, lol.

Please stop this pretense of speaking on behalf of Christians. Perhaps there is a person somewhere with a kidney or something who is no longer considered HUMAN by some, and that body part could be put to use by somebody you still consider human, so we'll just take it and let the no-longer-human die, it's your decision...

Hey wait a minute, that could actually be YOU someday, with somebody else making the decision! Somebody has decided that YOU are in a PVS so we don't need any anesthesia as we harvest your organs for The Greater Good. We've got Great Experts who have concluded that you aren't conscious, you can't think, you can't feel, and that if you scream as the blade cuts you it's merely a reflexive reaction.

It hurts you as they cut you and take your body parts from you, but you're unable to scream in a way that the world can hear. The pain is more intense than that of a person who is able to speak, because you can say nothing. Nobody can hear you. But The Great Experts have decided that you cannot think or feel, therefore you cannot think or feel, regardless of what you're thinking and feeling. Wrap your mind around that expert opinion as your kidneys are being harvested. You can't know the incredible terror of it all or feel the pain because The Great Experts have said that you're unable to think and feel, so get used to it while you.... don't feel it. Your screams stay inside, silent to the world.

Whatcha gonna do then, when you're unable to speak? hmmmmm? Your screams will be only reflexive reactions, not true responses to pain, right? hmmmmm?

If you want to give orders, you must also be willing to follow them.

And one very important caveat regarding orders: someone must be willing to obey. The feeble minded generally comprehend this great fact only in the last few seconds of their lives, lol.

As to the rest and all of that brainless leftist tripe... sheesh.........

DE

Collapse -
The law Jeb Bush proposes is not just out of keeping with

In reply to: Snicker, chuckle, yuk yuk yuk.......

Christianity, DavE, it's out of keeping with civilization. Surely you recall the scene when Peter strikes off the ear of the high priest's slave, and Christ tells Peter to put away his sword? Christianity was a completely pacifistic religion until the Pope became responsible for the defense of the Western Empire after its fall in the fifth century, and the teaching changed. That's not "leftist tripe," that's historical fact. Frankly, the Quakers are closer to the original Christianity of any demomination, but they have no line of apostolic succession.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) well dave dont visit you wouldnt like it

In reply to: The law Jeb Bush proposes is not just out of keeping with

Collapse -
dave and since your such an authority

In reply to: Open invitation to murder, Mark.

you talk about things that you know nothing about.


"Florida isn't the Old West, but it soon will be with this piece of trash. I feel threatened by you, so I just do a quick draw and blow you away -- unless, of course, you're faster and blow me away first. Isn't that a wonderfully "


and if you do that and its proven you werent in danger your going to lose in court, as it will be investigated.

and for your christian comment thats asinine what has that got to do with it.

and i hope you never in the position to protect your life because the azzhole trying to kill you rob you rape your famially wont care if your a "good christian"

Collapse -
Isn't that a wonderfully Christian approach from ...

In reply to: Open invitation to murder, Mark.

...{Jeb Bush}...

Wasn't that you railing in another thread about how dangerous it is to have any Christian principles put forth by government officials? One would think you would applaud Jeb for this Wink

Evie Happy

Collapse -
Why bring up Christianity Dave when your numerous posts

In reply to: Open invitation to murder, Mark.

show that:

a. you don't really accept or understand its teachings

b. you use it mainly to condemn others

That's what the Pharisees did Dave.

Collapse -
Of course, KP, I consider that conservatives don't

really understand and follow Christ's teachings, so that's a wash. But my view is in accord with history, and the Gospel, unlike yours. Christ was not a conservative -- that's why the establishment of the time killed Him. The "Christian right's" version of Christianity is really descended from Calvinism, which taught that earthly success (iow, wealth) is a sign of righteousness and God's favor. How, I ask you, does that gibe with "Amen I say unto you, it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven?" And don't start talking about narrow gates into Jerusalem -- that nonsense has been shown false.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Popular Forums

icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

GIVEAWAY

Enter to win* a free holiday tech gift!

CNET's giving five lucky winners the gift of their choice valued up to $250!