Florida's "Shoot First" Law Reflects Crazy Ideology of Preemption

Regarding concealed weapons in Florida. The Florida Dept. of Agriculture issues all Concealed Weapons Permits. The application process is fairly standard with most others states, requires a background check, finger print cards, etc… You also have to complete an authorized Weapons Handling and Safety Course from a state licensed instructor, or prove you had weapons training in the military (DS-9 I think) or by a law enforcement agency. It has your photograph and looks pretty much like a driver's license. The CW Permit allows you to carry most any type of weapon, but it has to be concealed when your in public. It also allows you to purchase hand guns without a waiting period. It is reciprocated in 37 other states. The only restriction is you can carry a concealed weapon in a school, court house, or government building.

What makes the Florida Concealed Weapons Permit law controversial, is the fact that Florida is a Must issue permit state, meaning the state must issue a CW Permit to anyone that applies if the applicant meets all the requirements of the law.

"Grey" is simply a variant spelling of "gray." Commonly used in England, not the US.

Yes quite so - just wondering where Grey Wolf is coming from since he / she is taking such an interest in FL. the US etc.

Hey, no offense intended GW.

You're right, it didn't and it wont.

Hahaha - get the Hell outta California - it just don't seem to suit you right.

California is one of the largest economies in the world.
why give him stupid advice?

Grey Wolf, you may be reading a bit too much in to the Stand Your Ground idea, and not the actual law. If you use deadly force in the State of Florida, the matter is still investigated as any homicide would be. The only difference now, than before, is that the State prosecutor has a codified statute to use when deciding the if the matter should be pursued in the courts. The Bar and the Legislature is quite aware of the Castle Doctrine. All the new law did was codify the Castle Doctrine into a statute, and went a step further in stating that if you intend to forcible steal, rob, or otherwise use force against someone in Florida, you could be killed. Jeb Bush, the Governor of Florida when the law was past, was very clear on that point when he responded to the New York Times editorial regarding the Stand Your Ground law. Really, nothing has changed from before except for the fact that the Florida Statutes spell out the conditions by which deadly force can be use to defend one's self, or their property.

and it rubs me wrong that the law has quietly and subtly changed and for all I know, since this law says you can use deadly force to protect property Since you keep stating this over and over again, despite being corrected on it more than once, please quote for us where it says that. We'll wait.

Setting a "shotgun trap" would be considered "premeditated." As in, you actually planned in advance to shoot someone... anyone who came thru the door. How would this new law change the premeditation aspect of setting a trap?

The example of the cab-driver IS an example of something that happened prior to the existence of the law. Naturally, that doesn't seem to have been mentioned in either the AlterNet or the TalkLeft opinion pieces. But it was reported in the New York Times article that covered this law.

I imagine most things are a euphemism for fascist in your world, sir.

good argument.

I mean, why isn't it fascistic?

Because of the definition of "fascism"?

LOL!

2 extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.

— DERIVATIVES fascist noun & adjective fascistic adjective.

And??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

And?

Don't quite think that's credible. Sorry.

I think if you asked most people - they would have no clue about laws that require you to flee instead of defending yourself. I also suspect that most people are offended by the notion that if someone breaks into your home - your suppose to roll over and run. That you shouldn't defend yourself or that which you have spent your life and time acquiring. People talk about defending to the death others right to say something. How are you going to do that if your not going to defend your own rights.

Well, I guess in my case, I gathered the concept of self preservation from Thomas Jefferson, as he debated the matter with John Adams, in a series of letters. I have those letters, and the discussion is quite interesting. Jefferson argues that there are no guarantees in the natural world, and that every human is going to act in the interest of self preservation. In his case, he would be happen to run down and tell the authorities that someone is robbing his house, and they should be arrested and prosecuted to the full extent of the law, however, in his day, the authorities were not really interested in Jefferson's ideas, or attitudes, or even people who attempted to rob or steal from him, so he argues that a man has no other choice sometimes, other than to defend himself and his property, by his own hand. In modern times, the situation of governance may be slightly difference in the since that the British are not running the country, however, the circumstance may be similar in the vein that the authority may not have the resources or the will power to assist you when such a situation arises. In reality, self preservation, according to Jefferson, includes your land, your family and your personal property by means in which enables you to survive and prosper. You have to accept the fact that running away my not solve your problem, or preserve your life. Consider this, if you run away from your home, call the police, and they some time later catch the guy that threaten and robbed you, now your testifying against him, and it is your sole word that is keeping him incarcerated, what is stopping him from coming back to finish the job, or asking one of friends to do it?

How are you going to do that if your not going to defend your own rights.

I would say, more importantly, how are you going to defend your rights from the grave? Things are not worth risking one's life and family for. It's not like we're talking about a foreign army sieging and over running your whole city, raping your women folk and killing all males and children.

I also suspect that most people are offended by the notion that if someone breaks into your home - your suppose to roll over and run. That you shouldn't defend yourself or that which you have spent your life and time acquiring.

I suspect that most people would not kill for their possessions, especially when it endangers them and their family. Thinking this way is neither humane, responsible nor pragmatic.

"rolling over and running" is just an aggressive and macho way of saying, protecting the lives of yourself and those you hold dear in the most prudent and responsible way. Why not just go to a safe place and call the cops from there?

"Don't quite think that's credible. Sorry." greg888

you add so much to a discussion, you might as well write your own articles

SuperUnspecial, I think you're right in that most people will simply flee if the opportunity presents itself. This legislation isn't going to result in a sudden general lethal response on the part of the populace, which probably doesn't know what the law says one way or the other. What it DOES do, however, is put the onus on the person doing the threatening, bodily harm, or commission of a felony, rather than on the minority of home owners who take deadly action.

Before, if someone broke into your home, and you shot him, you were put on trial, and had to prove that you felt your life was threatened, that you had no opportunity to escape, and that the only avenue open to you was shooting the intruder.

Now if someone breaks into your home, threatens you, or commits a felony, they don't have they "escape clause" of forcing the victim to prove that he had no opportunity to run away. They don't get to sue the victim in court for having caused them injury during the commission of their crime. Ultimately, that's a good thing.

I would say, more importantly, how are you going to defend your rights from the grave? Things are not worth risking one's life and family for.

Once again the assumption is that an intruder in your home is there to rob you rather than kill you. You have no idea what an intruder in your home is doing there. You don't know if they're armed, if they're there to kill you, kidnap your child, or just take your stereo, and you have no reasonable way of finding out. Are you going to ask them? "Excuse me Mr. Robber - are you going to kill us in our sleep after you load up the stereo or is that all you're here for?"

Once again the assumption is that an intruder in your home is there to rob you rather than kill you. You have no idea what an intruder in your home is doing there. You don't know if they're armed, if they're there to kill you, kidnap your child, or just take your stereo, and you have no reasonable way of finding out. Are you going to ask them? "Excuse me Mr. Robber - are you going to kill us in our sleep after you load up the stereo or is that all you're here for?"

This is really not a fair way of presenting the hypothetical. You are the one doing the assuming in a general hypothetical, you are assuming that the individual in his own home has no information on the particular situation.

The other side of the situation could easily be a neighbor who was looking out for you, a neighbor who, for some reason or another, thought he should go and investigate for your safety or someone some other member of your household had already given permission to enter. This is, in my experience, the most likely situation of finding a person who seems like an intruder. Having your gun drawn with the mindset of shooting the person first is very dangerous in many ways and is very negligent. It can lead to mistakes you can't take back, mistakes that, under a different legal framework you would not be so inclined to make.

Shooting that person is a grave mistake. Whereas, leaving and calling the cops and having them sort out the problem, is a more rational response which will clear things up without anyone having to attend a funeral.

Before, if someone broke into your home, and you shot him, you were put on trial, and had to prove that you felt your life was threatened, that you had no opportunity to escape, and that the only avenue open to you was shooting the intruder.

You don't think that's a good thing? How many wrongful imprisonments happened?

Now if someone breaks into your home, threatens you, or commits a felony, they don't have they "escape clause" of forcing the victim to prove that he had no opportunity to run away. They don't get to sue the victim in court for having caused them injury during the commission of their crime. Ultimately, that's a good thing.

I suppose the "escape clause" itself can be problematic depending on how it's written. I was always taught, that, in order to use lethal force

1) the person in question must have the ability to do you harm

2)Must have the opportunity to do you harm

3) And you must feel that you are in Jeopardy.

But this is a far cry from allowing anyone to shoot any intruder.

Don't quite think that's credible. Sorry.

Why not? It's no secret I'm from New Hampshire, which is among the most pro-gun states around and has the highest gun-per-person ratio. I grew up with firearms and, for paranoia's sake, I may or may not own one.

I was also in favor of the background checks that were passed as law in my state as a result of the Brady bill...our version was that a criminal check must take place within 30 minutes and there was never any waiting period in New Hampshire to purchase a firearm... EVER, also, no guns are ever registered with the government in my state and I am quite happy about that (merchants are required to keep records though).

I've considered many times, and still to this day, moving next door to the state with the least gun restrictions... Vermont, the state which also has a socialist congressman.

So, You don't think that's credible, convince me that you're actually thinking first, because your comments in this seed have not demonstrated that.

But this is a far cry from allowing anyone to shoot any intruder. Aside from Grey Wolf's numerous repetitions that this is what the law now allows, is there any reason to believe this is what the law actually now allows?

You chide Brian for "making the assumption" that a home-owner doesn't know what an intruder is doing in the home, then, yourself, make a huge assumption that, because of this law, a home-owner will now be poised, shotgun at the ready, behind some door, ready to blast away. Again, not likely. But in any case, this law isn't a "shoot first and ask questions later" law. It's a law that says that, given a certain set of circumstances, shooting an intruder may not require the shooter to prove that he had no opportunity to retreat.

That's far different from how Grey Wolf (and, subsequently, yourself) frame this legislation.

You don't think that's a good thing? How many wrongful imprisonments happened? How many "wrongful" shootings happen? I don't think either one of us has credible statistics handy, but the news reports plenty of stories where assailants are injured and wind up suing their victims. In the linked case, four assailants with criminal records hunted down a 54 year-old man whom they felt had insulted them, and proceeded to beat him (in some reports he is said to have suffered a broken arm from the assault). The guy who cut the fight short by firing two shots in the air, being charged by one of the assailants and (in the resulting scuffle) accidentally shooting another was the only person charged, the only person jailed, and the one person whom the assailants are suing for more than $20,000.

If we're playing the hypothetical game, what are the odds on the four assailants "accidentally" beating their victim to death?

Personally, I don't think these laws will make any difference in the number of these incidents. I do, however, think that the law might make some differences in which of these cases actually wind up being prosecuted.

But this is a far cry from allowing anyone to shoot any intruder. Aside from Grey Wolf's numerous repetitions that this is what the law now allows, is there any reason to believe this is what the law actually now allows?

That is essentially the claim made in the article.

You chide Brian for "making the assumption" that a home-owner doesn't know what an intruder is doing in the home, then, yourself, make a huge assumption that, because of this law, a home-owner will now be poised, shotgun at the ready, behind some door, ready to blast away. Again, not likely. But in any case, this law isn't a "shoot first and ask questions later" law. It's a law that says that, given a certain set of circumstances, shooting an intruder may not require the shooter to prove that he had no opportunity to retreat.

I stand by the assertion that the mind set that this law promotes and that it's very existence indicates will lead to different habits involving firearms that could, and likely will, prove problematic and unjust.

You don't think that's a good thing? How many wrongful imprisonments happened? How many "wrongful" shootings happen? I don't think either one of us has credible statistics handy, but the news reports plenty of stories where assailants are injured and wind up suing their victims. In the linked case, four assailants with criminal records hunted down a 54 year-old man whom they felt had insulted them, and proceeded to beat him (in some reports he is said to have suffered a broken arm from the assault). The guy who cut the fight short by firing two shots in the air, being charged by one of the assailants and (in the resulting scuffle) accidentally shooting another was the only person charged, the only person jailed, and the one person whom the assailants are suing for more than $20,000.

If we're playing the hypothetical game, what are the odds on the four assailants "accidentally" beating their victim to death?

This is a horrible event, and it has it's counter point in the man getting shot for putting out 2 extra garbage barrels. I suspect that the problems in the legal system there are problems with people not laws. I suspect that there are other issues at play here, because the description of this event is completely and totally unimaginable in my home town. It could not happen. It sounds like serious racial tension, but one can never know.

The man, as far as I could gather, also didn't demand a jury trial, which seems stupid.

There is a phrase I've used and used to be a popular phrase in the mid 80s "why not just enforce existing laws." The judge here plainly had no intention of doing that.

This is really not a fair way of presenting the hypothetical. You are the one doing the assuming in a general hypothetical, you are assuming that the individual in his own home has no information on the particular situation.

I am assuming that if you are awakened by the noise of someone moving around your house in the middle of the night that yes, you cannot find out from them what their intentions are. That seems a reasonable assumption to me. Furthermore, many homes have the bedrooms on the upper floor and only a single stairway downstairs - my house does. In such a situation in my home, I would have no way to flee without jumping out my second floor windows. Nor would I have any way to alert anyone else in my family sleeping in other bedrooms upstairs.

and it has it's counter point in the man getting shot for putting out 2 extra garbage barrels

This is the shootee's side of things. The shooter in that case has always maintained that he was being charged by the irate neighbor.

That is essentially the claim made in the article. Yes, that is the claim made in the seed, and that is the claim made in the article. What does the law actually say? What does the law as quoted by the article say? In other words, the "claim" that you and Grey Wolf stand by is an interpretation of the law that is little supported by the actual wording of the law.

I stand by the assertion that the mind set that this law promotes and that it's very existence indicates will lead to different habits involving firearms that could, and likely will, prove problematic and unjust. The law was instituted three years ago. Has there been a spike in these sorts of shootings since then? Where's the data? Otherwise, what you're promoting is baseless speculation.

The judge here plainly had no intention of doing that. The judge enforced the laws as they are written, and the gentleman in question couldn't point to anything codified in law that gave him leeway to intervene. Let's paraphrase, if it were the beating victim who pulled the gun and shot his assailant, would the law offer him any more leeway than it offered Hosack? In states other than Florida, not particularly likely.

And, again, I'm a bit confused by this apparent rampant sense that the victim in these cases has the responsibility to refrain from hurting the assailant. A substantial number of people will approach this, regardless of the wording of the law, or perhaps in spite of it, with the sense that they have the right to defend themselves, not from the point of view that the assailant has the right to assault them free from reprisal.

I am assuming that if you are awakened by the noise of someone moving around your house in the middle of the night that yes, you cannot find out from them what their intentions are. That seems a reasonable assumption to me. Furthermore, many homes have the bedrooms on the upper floor and only a single stairway downstairs - my house does. In such a situation in my home, I would have no way to flee without jumping out my second floor windows. Nor would I have any way to alert anyone else in my family sleeping in other bedrooms upstairs.

Well certainly, this scenario suggests you should be able to use lethal force. I would assume you're not going to shoot in the dark or anything like that, because you'd realize that the intruder could be your child. But you just described the scenario where you don't have a reasonable escape avenue.

Yes, that is the claim made in the seed, and that is the claim made in the article. What does the law actually say? What does the law as quoted by the article say? In other words, the "claim" that you and Grey Wolf stand by is an interpretation of the law that is little supported by the actual wording of the law.

If it's different than either A) quote the law, B) link to the law C)point me to the comment number where a link or quote were made, don't just suggest that the interpretation might not be accurate.

The law was instituted three years ago. Has there been a spike in these sorts of shootings since then? Where's the data? Otherwise, what you're promoting is baseless speculation.

This is bull@!$%#, and not a real way to argue. I've argued 1) that the law is not a good one 2) that the law is not a moral one and 3) that the law could cause more trouble than it solves, ie, that it is unclear, from a practical standpoint, that the law is beneficial. The point of saying that the mentality could cause more harm is both a moral argument and a practical argument, insofar as it is a practical argument it's plausibility is sufficient, insofar as it is a moral argument, the numbers don't actually matter.

The judge enforced the laws as they are written, and the gentleman in question couldn't point to anything codified in law that gave him leeway to intervene. Let's paraphrase, if it were the beating victim who pulled the gun and shot his assailant, would the law offer him any more leeway than it offered Hosack? In states other than Florida, not particularly likely.

Then why weren't the assailants convicted for felonious assault and battery of the first man? Why weren't they at fault for rushing the man, that fits the legal definition of assault, and possible criminal threatening too?

And, again, I'm a bit confused by this apparent rampant sense that the victim in these cases has the responsibility to refrain from hurting the assailant.

I don't support what you are suggesting I do.

A substantial number of people will approach this, regardless of the wording of the law, or perhaps in spite of it, with the sense that they have the right to defend themselves,

They do have the right to defend themselves, absolutely.

not from the point of view that the assailant has the right to assault them free from reprisal.

Contrary to what seems to be your belief*, if I hit you in the face and then walk away, and then you come up and hit me in the face, you are guilty of assault regardless of whether I am too. In that instance, you are the victim first, then, by your own actions, you turn yourself into the criminal, and me into the victim.

*note, you may have a different intention by the use of the term "reprisal" but that is how I read it, if that's not what you mean, then disregard my remarks and please clarify.

A citizen can use deadly force only if, in the words of the law, he or she "believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

Big enough? Because I can't get it to render any larger than that.

Note that this is different from your assertion ins #9.9-- allowing anyone to shoot any intruder.

It's also different from Grey Wolf oft repeated contention; see #1.2, for example-- The point here is you can shoot anybody, anywhere, anytime, even an unarmed person, if you say afterwards you felt threatened.

There is no way that the police will not investigate a death, or that you will not be prosecuted should you fail to point to what a reasonable person would agree is evidence that you were about to be harmed. This law is not a "get out of jail free" card. You can't just "invoke the Stand Your Ground law" and have the legal system shrug its shoulders and say, "oh.. well, then... carry on!"

This is bull@!$%#, and not a real way to argue. Sorry, charlie. I call bull@!$%# on your calling bull@!$%#. It very definitely IS a way to argue. You contend, as does Grey Wolf, that this legislation leads to a mindset that will result in innocent people being shot. Where's the proof? Show me the evidence, please. If you can't, then it's nothing but speculation on your part.

I've argued 1) that the law is not a good one 2) that the law is not a moral one and 3) that the law could cause more trouble than it solves, ie, that it is unclear, from a practical standpoint, that the law is beneficial. The point of saying that the mentality could cause more harm is both a moral argument and a practical argument, insofar as it is a practical argument it's plausibility is sufficient, insofar as it is a moral argument, the numbers don't actually matter. In point of fact, you've asserted your three points, not argued them, and it's already been shown that some of the assumptions that are necessary to accept your arguments are not, in fact, valid. As a moral argument, given that you have no ability to predict what a forcible invader of your home might have as an ultimate end, doing nothing could, in fact, put yourself and the lives of your family in MORE danger than standing your ground well-armed. You've done nothing to support your contention that fleeing is the better option. Nor, depending on the situation, can you say unequivocally that dealing with an intruder is less moral than allowing the intruder to continue victimizing others, should he leave you unmolested. So from a moral standpoint, I don't think you have the high ground.

As far as its plausibility, the ignorant gunning down of one's neighbor timidly investigating why you're asleep in the middle of the night seems to run counter to your contention that a homeowner will be aware enough of what's going on in his home to gather his family and flee an intruder unharmed. Which is it? The homeowner knows what's going on or the homeowner blasts away at the neighbor from a dead sleep? It's as plausible that a rational person can tell friend from foe in his own home, and make a rational decision as to whether fleeing or defending himself presents the greater risk.

Then why weren't the assailants convicted for felonious assault and battery of the first man? Why weren't they at fault for rushing the man, that fits the legal definition of assault, and possible criminal threatening too? Because the judge took issue with Hosack "bringing a gun to a fistfight"? That's what he stated. You're not seriously suggesting... ah, never mind.

I don't support what you are suggesting I do. It's pretty clear that you support the notion that a homeowner has the responsibility to flee, despite the fact that he has done nothing wrong.

if I hit you in the face and then walk away, and then you come up and hit me in the face, you are guilty of assault regardless of whether I am too. And yet if you threaten to hit me, and raise your fist to do so, and I get in the first blow, I am clearly not legally guilty of anything.

Well, I respect the S&W 500, but it is a 5 shot revolver. I prefer the S&W M1006, Stainless Steel 10mm Auto. It is an FBI prototype developed during the cocaine cowboy era, featuring a 240 grain bullet and the fire power of a 30-30 rifle in a concealable hand gun. It's intent in design was to be a service weapon that could take out a bad guy in body armor, which it can do very easily, as could the S&W 500, but the M1006 has a 10 round magazine, a bit easier to grip and hold, and has surprising little kick for such a large bullet. Since it is stainless steel, it is very particle on the boat, or when fishing in the Caribbean. Especially now a days with the pirates floating about.

I couldn't put it better myself.

The "Stand your ground" law does not apply in those cases. it only applies to conveyances, such as, some attempting to force their way into a space conveyed to you like a car, boat, motor home, office, house, hotel room, etc…

The old doctrine said you could only use deadly force when you had no other options "cornered." The new law says you can use deadly force in defense of yourself, other people, or any conveyance you hold title too (someone breaking into your house or someone trying to car jack you).

I think your confusing the "concealed weapons permit" law with the "stand your ground law."

One really has nothing to do with the other. A person must have a "concealed weapons permit" in Florida to carry a weapon in public, with a couple of exceptions like going to and from a gunsmith (gun business) or in the process of, traveling to, or from a hunt. You are not required to have a permit to keep a weapon (handgun) in your home, business or any other private conveyance you have title too.

The commissioner of Agriculture can refuse your application for a permit. The law does not specify why he would refuse it other than people who are precluded from having firearms by other laws such a convicted felons and certain other cases (mental illness).

And people wonder why gun-owners think gun-grabbers are so full of @!$%#.

Alex, if someone cuts you off in traffic (I am assuming you visit Miami :) , then don't make aggressive gestures and don't drive aggressively to make your point to the other driver. Those things often provoke conflict. You must also consider that the legal, law abiding citizen who is allowed to conceal carry their weapon would not likely be a danger to you. However, there are many criminals who carry guns regardless of whether the law says that they can or not. You do not want to take your chances with someone like that. Just relax when you drive and have fun. I lived in Florida for 9 years and dangerous incidents are very, very rare, regardless of what the unscrupulous, anti-gun people would have you believe.

I have to agree that dangerous incidents are very rare and your advice to Alex to take easy while driving makes good sense, particularly as he will be driving on the "wrong" side of the road, may find a 4 way confusing and be uncertain about making a right on red.

Outside of the big city driving in Florida is pretty relaxed compared to some of the crazy places I've driven in Europe.

Ha - I know exactly what you mean.

Hope you had a good Sunday. I sure did - made some American style 'cue for some friends. Not long now and I'm headed home - it's been too long.

Catch you later, dude.

People like that are just in denial that the world is a dangerous place and always has been. They are kind of like people who drive threw traffic lights when they turn red pretending to themselves it was still yellow or people who continue to step off the curb into the crosswalk after the signal says "stop." When they get hit by a car they also contend it was not their fault, that something else is to blame.

"or people who continue to step off the curb into the crosswalk after the signal says "stop." When they get hit by a car they also contend it was not their fault" Don't you fret now. In Chicago they have a new law to protect people from their own stupidity. It seems that since most pedestrians are not covered by walking insurance they now go directly after the motorists. If a pedestrian so much as takes one step off a curb towards traffic you can get a ticket for not slamming on the brakes and causing a 5 car pile up behind you. What they fail to take into account is that most people are teaching their stupid kids to walk or ride bikes right down the middle of the road.

Fuggin' ridiculous. The City of Chicago must have lost it. Yeah, well I know they lost it years ago.

We most certainly will not.

I can't agree with you there.

There are bound to be some duds in law enforcement, but in general they have my confidence and support. Not only should regular law abiding folks support them, the politicians need to do the same.

Don't even get me started on politicians - bottom feeders all of 'em.