"Contraty to its critics, this measure will encourage civilized behavior."
You haven't spent much time in Florida then, have you? 
FDLE is going to like this about as much as they did when the conceal-carry laws were passed. The Post article has it right on that score though – police opposition to giving the mouthbreathers more incentive to shoot each other remains muted because nobody wants to cross the NRA.
You're right. I don't know first hand what the situation is like in FL. I do wish we had laws like this here though. If we did, thugs would think twice about accosting or harassing law-abiding people.
Nowhere in the article does it say that the police opposed the measure - merely that they didn't try to block it. Since it will undoubtedly make their jobs more difficult, I'm a bit surprised they didn't actively oppose it. Also, I fail to see how the measure in any way incentivizes violence.
My police-perspective take on it is more from personal contact, albeit in a limited and highly unscientific manner.
The carry-conceal laws that were passed here (Before my time) are much lamented by a couple of cop/fathers from my kids' baseball teams. They suggest that this move will similarly make their jobs more difficult and more dangerous since there is now a foot in the door to a self-defense plea in a cop shooting.
One of these guys had worked undercover previously, and he in particular thinks that an after-the-fact 'He pulled a gun/I didn't know he was a cop' plea will be a real can of worms in the courts if the laws are already soft on vigilante self-defense.
As far as incentivizing violence, I don't think it's much of a stretch at all to envision the potential problems in here in Gunhappy FLA...
Say you and me have been knocking 'em back in my shed while doing a bunch of crazy fun gun shit. We get to arguing because it turns out the reason your wife isn't putting out fer you no more is that she's jes' plum tired from putting out fer me. (I have more teeth than you and she digs that.) As up on the new gun laws as we both are (from reading our various NRA, sportsman, survivalist, and militia newsletters), we both know that if I can shoot you before you shoot me, here in MY CASTLE (well, it is a real big shed), all I have to do is tell the police that you pulled your gun in a rage and I had to shoot you in self defense.
Previously, the onus was on the individual to make at least some effort to not shoot each other come Saturday night. Now, the "Well, yer honer... he NEEDED killin! " defense – formerly only viable in Texas – is officially on the table in Florida.
Solution: Avoid drinking with a man you are cuckolding who is armed.
Or shoot him first
(huh... huh... You said cuckolding...)
So the Pope is wrong for sentencing a woman to death by forbidding condom use but the FL legislature is okay if they suggest you to handle an armed robber by dodging the bullets as best you can rather than defending yourself.
Looking first for reasonable means to remove yourself from a potentially dangerous situation is part of any self-defense plea. if no such avenues exist, the laws already on the books gave adequate allowance that you could use lethal force to protect yourself, your family, etc.
Under the new model, it is merely assumed that you must have tried your best to not have to shoot the other feller.
This measure does make certain situations more dangerous - that is central to its purpose. My point was that it makes engaging in uncivilized behavour more dangeous - something which your cuckholding scenario illustrates nicely.
This measure has nothing to do with vigilanteism - quite the contrary. And cops don't usually go around harassing law-abiding citizens. That it may make it more difficult for police to defend their conduct in the courts isn't a valid reason to oppose the measure. Perhaps one should take a hard look at the legal system instead.
Well certainly people should probably not get in a fight if they don't have to. Like, if I am out and some drunken idiot wants to pick a fight, I walk away.
But say, if it's someone you see often, someone that will likely use your backing down to take advantage of you further, then you may wish to stand your ground. After all, bullies (even adults can be bullies) are only encouraged by your backing down.
And that 2nd case is where the current laws break down. Sure in that one situtation, you can walk away, but it may just encourage more situations to come up.
Note that this does not mean getting "revenge" is ok. like getting your neighbor back if he annoys you. Revenge escalates conflicts. Standing up to bullies does not escalate the conflict it is only "calling" rather than "raising".
I see this as just an extension of "battered wife syndrome". I mean, we could just as easily tell battered women they should run away rather than kill their husbands. And perhaps we should. If anyone is against this law then they should also be against the battered wife syndrome defense.
You can't say this has nothing to do with vigilantism, because we are not talking aboout one-on-one conflicts in a residence with an aggressor and a homeowner bearing arms in defense any more.
Now that people in Florida have a right to 'defend themselves' on the street, meeting "force with force" without fear of being prosecuted, all of the folks who are already conceal-carrying are now going to feel justified in playing self-appointed do-gooder-by-force (sounds like a vigilante).
A guy pulls a bat on somebody and I as a bystander can shoot him dead (not that I shouldn't be trying to subdue him non-lethally) if I feel I'm in danger.
A big drunk guy at a bar can tell me to go beat it while he chats up my girlfriend, but if I "reasonably believe" I might be looking at some "great bodily harm" I can pull my gun and blow him away.
"To have to retreat ... defies common sense," says Jeb.
No, to make it easier to justify pulling that piece... defies common sense.
Hell, it'll be a state full of Bernhard Goetzes lining up to get off on justifiable homicide. That was a defender against his agressors and he got labeled 'vigilante.' Why? Because he shot 4 people because he THOUGHT they were going to rob him and he THOUGHT his life was in danger. The appellate court way back then reinstated the charges against him after they had been dropped because his beliefs were found NOT to be reasonable beliefs.
We'll be seeing a lot of that, I'm sure.
You ignore the effect that this law will have on aggressive behaviour before the fact. Knowing that being the aggressor in a situation with someone who might be armed and has the law on their side should deter that aggressive behaviour. That is, if you believe people are capable of being rational.
http://www.awesome80s.com/
Awesom...lante_Goetz.asp
http://www.amren.com/9610issue/9.../
9610issue.html
You can judge whether Goetz's judgement was right or wrong. I think part of that judgement is discerning the intent of the other party. On that score, Bernard got it right.
'Behaviour'? One year in Scotland and they got you doing smarmy UK spellings?
Oh well, I guess it adds colour to the conversation.
I guess in the end it may oddly be of benefit for gun control advocates that Florida is the test case. There is an abundance of people here with an amazing lack of the capability for rational thought, a requisite ingredient for this move to have a benefit as you pointed out Bill C. We're already 2nd or 3rd I think in per capita gun violence, and as with the conceal-carry laws enacted in the 80s this should galvanize the gun control side.
Hopefully NRA has tied itself very tightly to this very heavy rock before throwing it off the bridge.
Yes, crime stats will tell the tale.
So if three 'mere flesh wounds' leave you with only one limb, say a leg, do you still have to run away or can you defend yourself?
So.. you're saying he can still hop pretty good?
I'll get back to you on that.
...Ok, FWIW, now there indication that some law enforcement officials that are and were publicly opposed to the bill.
'John F. Timoney, Miami's police chief, called the bill unnecessary and dangerous. Chief Timoney, who has successfully pushed his police officers to use less deadly force, said many people, including children, could become innocent victims. The bill could make gun owners, including drivers with road rage or drunken sports fans who get into fights leaving ball games, assume they have "total immunity," he said.
"Whether it's trick-or-treaters or kids playing in the yard of someone who doesn't want them there or some drunk guy stumbling into the wrong house," Chief Timoney said, "you're encouraging people to possibly use deadly physical force where it shouldn't be used."
Chief Chuck Harmon of the St. Petersburg police and Sheriff Ken Jenne of Broward County also publicly opposed the bill.'
One doesn't need Florida as a test case. In London, when they outlawed self-defense, violent crime soared. No greater carrot for a criminal than the absolute certainty that his break-in won't be met with a Smith & Wesson.
And just how many London homes hactually had Smith & Wesson in residence before the laws changed?
AVQ,
They didn't have S&W but the criminals in Britain have been getting them. Like drugs, if there is a demand there will be a supply and only a draconian set of laws can slow demand.
Crime rates can rise for a number of reasons, increase in the population of young males, immigration, etc. but preventing crime is a matter of enforcement and imprisonment. Check this out:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Co...6umtwb.asp?
pg=2
ALso, concealed carry has correlated with lower crime rates. (see John Lott's More guns, less crime) We are having a societal debate about crime and prevention part of which seems decided. The majority does not seem to mind imprisoning a higher precentage of the population for the peace it brings. AVQ, you might believe it is ok to allow one home invasion if it means one less dead drunk who picked the wrong house. My question is how many home invasions vs. dead drunks? What ratio? I think chances are that you and I have different preferences and that chances are good that societies preference will be reflected in our laws and that neither of us will be happy with that.
As to the appeal to authority, I think Chief Timoney would rather have zero accidently shootings of officers vs. allowing concealed carry but this just shows that societies preference and that of the police do not necessarily coincide.
That Weekly Standard link is interesting, thanks.
In championming 'superior policing' and longer sentences for violent offenders, it does, however, support somewhat my contention that we may be empowering the wrong part of the equation in removing some impediments to citizen use of lethal force in crime prevention.
I'm all for improving 'superior policing' (by the police and not my NRA member neighbors)and 'the commitment from the justice system to keep violent thugs off the streets.'
If violent crime has continued to decline on the whole in the nation over the last 40 years, and continues to do so, maybe NRA-backed moves liek that down here are unneeded.
As for Lott, that Weekly Standard piece also points out that Lott's "deterrent effect [of gun ownership] can't explain more than a small part of America's recent success [in crime reduction]."
AVQ,
You know that one study does not a trend make. It is a starting point.
AvQ, I do not know how you can say you are championing superior policing without championing the citizenry with policing powers. As I said there is a conflict between the police and society about the number and quality of policing of a particular distract. Appealing to the leaders of police forces is weak.
Commenting by HaloScan
