The New Gun Bill

[erpowers]

Yesterday on Ring of Fire I learned more about the new gun bill signed into law by Jeb Bush. I had heard about the part where you could shoot someone just because you thought they posed a threat to you. I thought that part of the bill was bad enough. Yesterday it seems as if Mike and Bobby were saying that the bill extended to the idea that you could shoot someone even if you did not think they would cause you harm, but you thought that they may cause harm in the future. It seems to me that Jeb Bush has made it the law that a person can shoot anyone for any reason. So what do other think; has Jeb Bush legalized the practice of just shooting anyone for any reason? I contend this is a dangerously bad bill.

[PaDem]

1. Any links?

Curious on the details of this. Nothing surprises me anymore.

[davepc]

7. Talked to death in the Gunegon some weeks ago.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=102696&mesg_id=103629

1) SB436 creates a presumption that you have a reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury where a person unlawfully and forcibly breaks into your home.

This presumption effectively satisfies the crucial element of the affirmative defense of self defense, namely that you have a reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury.

As a practical matter, this changes little in terms of which cases will be prosecuted. It merely codifies the prevailing opinion among residents of the U.S., particularly in Florida, that where a criminal forcibly breaks into an occupied home, he is not there to watch television. You should not have to decide in the heat of the moment whether a criminal is breaking in to hurt you or merely to steal your television.

2) SB436 eliminates the duty to retreat where you are the victim of a forcible felony. It does not eliminate any other element of the affirmative defense of self defense. One must still reasonably believe that it is reasonably necessary to respond with lethal force in order to prevent death or great bodily injury.

3) Similar to 1) above, SB436 creates a presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters a residence or occupied vehicle intends to commit an unlawful act of force or violence. This provisions allows the presumption to tie in with other Florida statutes and case law allowing the use of force to respond to acts of force or violence.

As with 1) above, this will change little in the actual outcome of cases, but it does provide some certainty and uniformity.

4) SB436 provides immunity to civil and criminal prosecution for the lawful use of potentially lethal force. The grant of criminal prosecution is a bit redundant, since lawful use of potentially lethal force is, by definition, not illegal. The intent, however, is to shift the burden a bit at the outset. Normally, an arrest and prosecution is permitted in any case of lethal force, notwithstanding an undisputedly valid claim of self defense. Affirmative defenses do not defeat probable cause. This provision, however, requires probable cause to believe the claim of self defense is not valid before arrest and prosecution proceeds.

[sled]

2. Considering...

Florida's "10-20-Life" law, I'd be very hesitant to even carry a gun in the state, much less, use it...if you pull a gun there, you better be right...probably safer to just run, or carry a baseball bat...the law you refer to, is nothing but sheeple fodder, to appease a bunch of neocons, & make "progressives" get their panties in a twist...much ado, about nothing...sheeple politics, as usual...

http://www.dc.state.fl.us/secretary/press/1999/1020life.html

[MichiDem]

3. It wouldn't surprise me

these dime store cowboys want to return us to the days of the wild west.

[ElectroPrincess]

4. Cool! Invite some of your enemies over to yer home and start a

shootin' ! Fish in a barrel?!? I just loves Jebbie ... he thinks of everything so we don't have to (THINK at all). :P :sarcasm:

[davepc]

5. All's the law does is remove the duty to retreat

If you are accosted in your home, place of business, or any other place where you have a perfect right to be.

It does not give you the ability to invite your worst enemy over your house for tea then shoot them and claim self defense and escape prosecution.

All 'justifiable homicides' must STILL pass the same scrutiny as they did before.

All the 'blood in the streets' and 'wild west' hyperbole is just scare tactics.

Several other states have the same provisions in their legal code as Florida and they are not wild west shooting galleries where cold blooded murder is committed wily nilly and excused without security under the guise of 'self defense'

[Vickers]

6. It goes both ways...I'm a wild-eyed gunowner, too.

Some DUers might be surprised at how many otherwise sane Americans own firearms. :eyes:

[Toots]

8. If it works for America it works for the individual

Pre-Emptive attack is not American. How is it that so many Americans fail to understand that? We have always been the good guys. Bush* Cabal has changed that perception in the eyes of the entire world. I will never set foot in Florida again as long as they have such obscene laws.

[davepc]

9. Self Defense is NOT "pre-emptive" attack. Self Defense is a human right

http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0776/titl0776.htm


The Old Statute read:

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.

History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102.

just for reference, here is the definition of a 'forcible felony' in the Florida Statute:

776.08 Forcible felony.--"Forcible felony" means 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.

New Statute adds:

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force;
31 presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.--
2

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable
fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to
himself or herself or another when using defensive force that
is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to
another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was
used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering,
or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence,
or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was
attempting to remove another against that person's will from
the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had
reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or
unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does
not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is
used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the
dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or
titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection
from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order
of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a
child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or
under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the
defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in
an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or
occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is
used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s.
943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling,
residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her
official duties and the officer identified himself or herself
in accordance with any applicable law or the person using
force knew or reasonably should have known that the person
entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful
activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or
she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and 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 or to prevent the commission of
a forcible felony.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or
attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied
vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit
an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any
kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or
conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile,
which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to
be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person
resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an
invited guest.
(c) "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether
or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or
property.

Where does this new statute allow a person to kill another person for the hell of it?

[Toots]

10. It is not self defense until one is attacked or in imminent danger of bein

Reasonable belief is in the eye of the beholder. Bush* says he reasonably believed Saddam was going to launch a nuclear strike against the USA. I for one do not think that was reasonable based on the facts as they are now presented. One could use the same "reasonable belief" that a black man in a white neighborhood is there only for ill and decide to act Pre-emptively. What other purpose could a black person ever have for being in an all white neighborhood? Have to protect ourselves you know.

[davepc]

11. can you highlight the section that allows murder based on skin color

cause i don't see that anywhere in the law, so maybe you could point it out to me.

Also,your definition of reasonable belief is nonsensical, and has no legal basis.

If you were to "pre-emptivly" murder a black man in a white neighborhood based on his skin color in the State of Florida, you would be guilty of murder and in violation of the Florida Hate Crime statues (§ 775.085).http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0775/SEC085.HTM&Title=-%3E2001-%3ECh0775-%3ESection%20085#0775.085

Nowhere does this law give any person the right to murder another "just because".