In Florida: Shoot First, Think Later

Weird law in Jeb Bush’s state…

Florida’s legislature has approved a bill that would give residents the right to open fire against anyone they perceive as a threat in public, instead of having to try to avoid a conflict as under prevailing law.

Outraged opponents say the law will encourage Floridians to open fire first and ask questions later, fostering a sort of statewide Wild West shootout mentality.

Republican Governor Jeb Bush, who has said he plans to sign the bill, says it is “a good, commonsense, anti-crime issue.”

The bill is supported by the influential National Rifle Association.

[Source: Yahoo! News]

I think this law is absurd.
This basically gives people the right to go on and shoot whoever they feel like, under the pretext that they thought he/she was a threat.

I don’t see what’s so common-sense and anti-crime in it!
It seems the Bush family has an obsession with the wild west and stupid decisions.

Published by

MMM

Mohamed Marwen Meddah is a web development director, amateur photographer and web enthusiast from Tunisia, currently living in Canada.

10 thoughts on “In Florida: Shoot First, Think Later”

  1. This is so irresponsible, shallow and dangerous. It’ll be the easiest way to get a way with a crime, no need to spend time planning and thinking of excuses, just shoot and then say: (s)he looked threatening!
    I wish this law doesn’t spread!

  2. Very stupid law. i mean come on can jeb define what threat means. now you guys know what we americans deal with everyday. his brother is worse.

  3. I believe that this law is very effective in protecting people.

    In Britain and Canada, You are responsible for “avoiding conflict”

    You will go to jail for shooting somebody who breaks into your home because you did not attempt to avoid conflict.

    If the “avoid conflict” is in place, then If somebody breaks into your home, you are supposed to jump out a window and run way, leaving your family all alone to fend for themselves from potential murderes, rapists, or people who just want steal your computer.

    I say, when somebody breaks into your home, that person made the mistake not to avoid conflict, why should you be the run away, leaving your open to possible harm? I say shoot the bastard.

  4. Eh… Call me an idealist, but I think the people in the best position to judge whether there is enough threat for them to shoot or not are cops. So although I understand that it is freaky as hell when someone jumps through your window and you have no idea what they are capable of, I think it’s a bit premature to sentence let’s say a person committing petty theft with the death penalty.

  5. I will defend myself if ever and whenever possible. If force is used I will use overriding force. I will stand my ground and put one right between their eyes. Id rather talk to a judge than St Peter. If we were indeed “allowed” to carry weapons, do you really think that the problem with violent crimes, car-jackings, home invasions and killing in general would go up? You bet your ass. And in that time – it would be the bad guys who would be fillking the holes in the ground and not “helpless” victims. We are only as helpless as the las forces us to be. I dont go barging in folks homes and I have a reasonable expectation of not being killed. If you barge in here……they’ll find your corpse in the trash in the morning and I will sleep just fine.

  6. Read the law, you can only shoot if you are stopping a “forcible felony” (treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual) or if you “reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.”

  7. Tabor:
    It’s precisely the “reasonably believes” the use of deadly force to be necessary provision that’s the problem, especially since the law repeals the duty to retreat. Many, many shootings under this law will occur with no witnesses, or only witnesses who support the shooter. How then do you establish that the claim of “reasonable belief” is legitimate?

    That’s the entire reason that this law could provide cover for deliberate killings. Track down someone you hate, wait until there are no witnesses, shoot them–home free because no one can refute your claim of reasonable belief that you were in danger.

    Other problems include highway accidents. Two drivers get out and argue, one carries a concealed weapon (Florida had over 300,00 people licensed to carry concealed weapons as of 8/31/05), pulls it out and kills the other because he feared the other was going to hurt him.

    Even if the killing isn’t deliberate, this law makes it easier to get away with killing someone by mistake–where the shooter’s fear was real, but based on misapprehension of the victim’s intentions. This law doesn’t seem to care that it was a mistake; the only inquiry would be whether the mistaken belief was a “reasonable” one.

    AND the law requires the state to pay your attorney fees if you are prosecuted for a shooting which is ultimately found to be justified under this law–a great disincentive for prosecutors to bring charges against you unless the case is absolutely air tight.

    The sickest part about this law? It received incredibly strong bi-partisan support, passing the Florida Senate unanimously, and the Florida House with an overwhelming majority.

    Welcome to the 21st Century in America.

  8. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9922087/

    As Tabor said read the law. It is not about walking around the street popping people at will. From what happened to my family last week (view the link), I can now say I fully support this law. You go through life thinking these things don’t happen to you and it’s just news. When someone walks into your family’s house, walks up to your mother and jams a .45 in her face while she’s doing dishes, you tend to believe in the “ask questions later”. Especially, when there are minors in the house being ripped out of bedrooms and ordered to lay on floor while a gun is pointed at them. I have to say, I don’t know what my life would/could have been like this week. I am grateful to still have my family with me.

    Read before you jump. I agree it probably not perfect law, but also agree if someone busts into your own home you should have options.

  9. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9922087/

    As Tabor said read the law. It is not about walking around the street popping people at will. From what happened to my family last week (view the link), I can now say I fully support this law. You go through life thinking these things don’t happen to you and it’s just news. When someone walks into your family’s house, walks up to your mother and jams a .45 in her face while she’s doing dishes, you tend to believe in the “ask questions later”. Especially, when there are minors in the house being ripped out of bedrooms and ordered to lay on floor while a gun is pointed at them. I have to say, I don’t know what my life would/could have been like this week. I am grateful to still have my family with me.

    Read before you jump. I agree it probably not perfect law, but also agree if someone busts into your own home you should have options.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *