Posted on 06/23/2014 4:34:44 AM PDT by marktwain
The media coverage given to the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case, and the attention paid to Florida's "stand your ground" law, resulted in the legislature considering flaws in the law. They passed a reform bill that was signed by Governor Rick Scott yesterday, 20 June, 2014. From tallahassee.com:
The legislation, which marks one of the most significant changes to the state’s self-defense laws since the 2012 killing of teenager Trayvon Martin, was one of nearly 60 bills signed by Scott on Friday.The state mandatory sentencing law, the "10-20-life" law, was being used by some prosecutors to obtain plea bargains from people who had attempted to defend themselves, but had not shot anyone. The case of Marissa Alexander was one that caught the media attention. Marrisa claimed that she fired a shot that qualified under the "stand your ground" law, but a judge ruled otherwise. She faced a mandatory 10 years in jail.
Defensive display used properly can results in less shots fired.
RKBA/Florida double-ping!
> “It is not uncommon for criminals to use the criminal justice system as a means of revenge. They often understand the system better than most citizens, and how to manipulate it to their advantage.”
The above should be noted by every person that has never had a close encounter with an experienced criminal. Many criminals are unfortunately shrewd and know how to turn reality on its head.
For example, a criminal who attempts to extort from a victim will threaten to turn the person over to authorities for a crime they make up on the spot. For example, if the victim has IRS problems, or problems in their marriage, etc. These types of criminals will ‘study’ the victim for such weaknesses and meanwhile smile and look sympathetic, until they see an opportunity to take advantage.
The remedy for such situations is to never divulge personal information until you have known the person that is ‘studying’ you for a long time and you are convinced they mean no harm.
Since common sense died years ago we have to make laws so intricate as to be useless.
No more “Spirit of the Law”, it is all “Letter of the Law”. Zero tolerance is a good example.
By the title, I was thinking that the screeching parasites got their way. “Reform” almost always means advance of leftist manure policies. Glad this was an advance in civlization instead.
This is an important point. The first person to call 911 is the person who controls the police perception of what happened. If you are attacked, call 911 immediately after securing your safety.
“By the title, I was thinking that the screeching parasites got their way. “Reform” almost always means advance of leftist manure policies. Glad this was an advance in civlization instead.”
Basic leftist propaganda methods. If the change moves the “progressive” agenda forward, it is “reform”. If it moves the country toward freedom or sanity, it is “controversial” or “radical”.
I agree that this reform was needed. While I am not a fan of firing warning shots because that can result in unintended injury or death, gun owners need to be able to legally use a gun in a non-violent way to decisively end violent encounters. This scenario goes on all the time anyway and has a non-violent outcome;so, lets get these legal protections in place.
I’m not sure this law is a good thing. Suppose this law had been in effect when George Zimmerman shot his attacker in self defense. He fired one shot only to end the threat to his life.
Suppose at trial the prosecution had made a point that he should have fired a warning shot first? What happens when the jury goes to deliberate murder charges and have as fallback that George killed him when he didn’t have to because he didn’t fire a warning shot to see if that worked.
I know George was on the ground being beaten and a warning shot would not have done anything, but that’s irrelevant if the jury wants to convict outside the facts. This now gives them the opportunity to do just that.
This is a critical point! I tried explaining this concept to a liberal colleague who was talking about domestic violence, but she was sure that the law prevented that from being an issue for victims of domestic violence.
Typical liberal thinking: the law always offers perfect protection and cops always do the right thing. Nice to live in an idealistic fantasy world!
In the real world, people need to pay attention to these realities.
PapaBear3625 wrote:
This is an important point. The first person to call 911 is the person who controls the police perception of what happened. If you are attacked, call 911 immediately after securing your safety.
Mental calisthenics. There is nothing made by Man that is perfect on this earth. If this law had been in effect when Trayvon went down Zimmerman probably would have threatened to shoot first before actually doing so. He knew it was all or nothing the way the law was written. At the time of the incident the option to display or threaten was not there.
Much more frequently I can buy. But a thousand times as often? Where does that number come from, and doesn't Dean realize that (unless it is backed with solid statistics) a statement like that makes us look as bad as the lying liberals?
At the same time as the Gov. signs this reform into law, he ought to issue a full pardon to those unjustly convicted for firing warning shots or showing a weapon.
That is an interesting point; however, the real purpose of a warning shot is to prevent someone from attacking you by letting them know you are able to defend yourself (warning them). Once you are violently attacked like George Zimmerman was, it would be dangerous to attempt to fire a warning shot because that would give your attacker the opportunity to wrestle the gun away from you further imperiling you.
If a jury convicts someone outside of the facts of the case, your attorney can appeal the case and make a motion for the case to be dismissed due to lack of evidence.
strings6459 wrote:
I’m not sure this law is a good thing. Suppose this law had been in effect when George Zimmerman shot his attacker in self defense. He fired one shot only to end the threat to his life.
Suppose at trial the prosecution had made a point that he should have fired a warning shot first? What happens when the jury goes to deliberate murder charges and have as fallback that George killed him when he didn’t have to because he didn’t fire a warning shot to see if that worked.
I know George was on the ground being beaten and a warning shot would not have done anything, but that’s irrelevant if the jury wants to convict outside the facts. This now gives them the opportunity to do just that.
We know guns are used to stop crimes about 500,000 to 3 million times a year.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent
Our best estimates on justified homicides are about 750 to 1,500 a year.
That is where the 1-1,000 ratio comes from. The FBI reports about 250 justifiable homicides a year, but they underreport by a factor of 3-7.
http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2014/06/justified-homicide-in-califonia-not.html
The 1-1,000 ratio deserves a documented article of its own, which I am working on.
The idea that if you display your firearm, you have to draw it, and if you draw it, you have to shoot, and if you shoot, you better be shooting the perp - otherwise, it’s “brandishing”,
is asinine on its face.
It is funny that you could replace the word criminal with Democrats and it works perfect.
Warning shot(s), while legal in some jurisdictions, are not necessarily tactically smart.
1. They give your position away ( if unknown to your attacker)
2. They use up precisous resources that may be needed to keep you alive.
3. They are lethal regardless of your intent ( to bystanders etc).
4. They convey a possibility of not needing to fire at all ( if you really needed to shoot, why didn’t you shot the threat?).
5. They provide a real case for your weapon to fail ( malfunction) at the time when that would be the worst case-save that first shot in the chamber or under the hammer for threat, you may not have another available in time.
6. If you are justified under the conditions of the threat to use lethal force ( a warning shot is lethal force) then you should engage the threat with that lethal force.
7. If you have time to think and act regarding a warning shot, then you had time to think and act about other de-escalation methods or even escape (SYG not withstanding).
The best scenario is to actively avoid such situations by active and passive techniques, avoidance, layered security ( yes you can layer security even walking down the street after work etc).
Remember, in a lethal fight, 50% of the participant are likely to be losers....
Just as in armed combat RE military action, once the need to act becomes obvious, a good plan executed violently is better than a perfect plan that cannot be executed at all.
Keep your finger off the bang switch until you must fire because you have a real, articulable fear for your life.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.