Gun Control Group Warning Tourists About Florida's Deadly Force Law

MIAMI (AP) - Clark Ramm sees shades of the Wild West in Florida's new law giving greater legal protections to people who shoot or use other deadly force when threatened or attacked.

"It seems like everybody ought to be packing a piece," said Ramm, a visitor from Ukiah, Calif., who found out about the law Monday from a gun control group handing out leaflets at Miami International Airport. "I don't know if that's the right thing to do."

The leaflets begin with the words "An Important Notice to Florida Visitors" in bold red type by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

"Do not argue unnecessarily with local people," it says. "If someone appears to be angry with you, maintain to the best of your ability a positive attitude, and do not shout or make threatening gestures."

Florida's "stand your ground" law, which took effect Saturday, removes a duty on the part of citizens to retreat in the face of an attack as long as they are in a place they have a legal right to be, including a public street or their place of business.

It also gives immunity from criminal or civil charges to a shooter as long as the person shot is not a police officer.

Proponents of the measure, pushed by the National Rifle Association, say it will make Florida a safer place, not more dangerous. Gov. Jeb Bush has repeatedly pointed to a 34-year low in state crime statistics to demonstrate that Florida is not a haven for violence.

"It's pure, unadulterated politics," Bush said last week of the Brady Campaign's tactics. "Shame on them."

The Florida tourism industry, however, is taking the campaign seriously, with Visit Florida - the state's official tourism marketing arm - issuing a statement calling Florida "a very safe and secure destination that excels in caring for its visitors."

"We believe that Americans and international visitors are smart enough to understand that the Brady Campaign is one group's political agenda and not a real safety issue," the statement said.

Florida hosts more than 1 million visitors on any given day, with nearly 80 million tourists visiting the state in 2004, according to Visit Florida.

The Brady Campaign leaflets, which the group intends to hand out for about a month at the Miami and Orlando airports, call the measure the "Shoot First" law and urge people to "take sensible precautions" while visiting the state.

"There is no other state in the nation - and no other civilized nation on Earth - that has a law like this," said Brady Campaign spokesman Peter Hamm. "It could cause the most aggressive people in society to overreact."

The group also has taken out ads in major Detroit, Chicago, Boston and London newspapers about the new Florida law.

Several people who got the leaflets at the Miami airport on Monday appeared taken aback by the new law.

"It's a little scary," said Melissa Vosberg, on her way home to the Chicago area after a cruise in the Bahamas. "It's 'shoot first, ask about it later.'"

Here is a letter that Michelle Malkin received from a reader to help clarify the new Florid Conceal Carry Law:

Here's the background: for _decades_, case law in Florida was well defined on
the topic of self defense:

(1) A person had a duty to retreat from a fight if
they were able to safely do so; and (

2) the duty to retreat did not apply in
your own home (or business, or automobile) if the attacker didn't also have a
right to be there; and

(3) anyone who broke in to an occupied dwelling was
assumed to be there to harm the occupants, giving the occupants the right to
shoot the intruder on the spot. No other evidence of evil intent was
necessary. The second of these is known as "the Castle Doctrine", i.e. a
man's home is his castle, and he has no duty to retreat from it. An
unfortunate example of this case law in action was a year or two ago in Ocala
(north central Florida), a paramedic responding to a heart attack call broke
a window next to the front door of the home in order to gain entry to help
the victim. Unfortunately, the window belonged to the duplex next door, and
not to the home of the victim. The elderly occupant next door shot the
intruder, not realizing he was a paramedic. It was ruled justifiable under
the Castle Doctrine. Tragic, but not murder.

In south Florida, on the other hand, lawyers and judges began applying rules
more like those in New York than the established Florida case law, in
particular with regard to the Castle Doctrine (I assume that the lawyers and
judges in question moved here from New York and vicinity, bringing their
idiotic philosophy of crime prevention with them). The assumption of evil
intent disappeared. The duty to retreat was extended to the home and
business.

After a few people were convicted for shootings that SHOULD have been
perfectly legal under decades of established case law, the legislature
started to take notice, and decided to put things back how they were before
the Yankee Lawyers got involved. They actually went a bit further than just
putting it back how it was, because even that was mystifying to some people.
For example, under the old standard, if some one walked up to your car and
started smashing it with a baseball bat, there was not much you could do
about it within the law. You had a duty to retreat from a fight, and as with
most states, you could not use deadly force to protect property. Most
prosecutors wouldn't have bothered to prosecute you if you did beat the snot
out of the "attacker" (as long as you didn't get too carried away), but the
damnyankee lawyers in south Florida don't work that way.

So now, under the new law, things are pretty much how they were before, but a
bit less in favor of the criminal. The new law pretty much says:

1) Anyone who breaks into a occupied dwelling or automobile, or kidnaps
someone from such, is assumed to intend great bodily harm and using deadly
force against them is automatically justified (there are a lot of details,
such as the occupants must have a legal right to be there and the intruder
must not). In other words, it simply re-instated the old "Castle Doctrine"
from case law.

2) A person who is _anywhere_ they have a right to be, if attacked, may defend
themselves with appropriate force. The defender may use deadly force only if
they believe it necessary in order to prevent death or "great bodily harm".
This is a return to the old case law, although broadened a bit to apply
anywhere you have a right to be, not just in your "castle". Again, there are
lots of details, e.g. shooting a police officer is almost always a bad idea,
even in your home.

What this law does NOT do, contrary to the statements of many anti-gun
organizations and individuals, is make it legal to shoot someone for a minor
offense. The requirement that deadly force is authorized in response only to
(the threat of) deadly force is still in effect. For example, see Florida
Statutes 782.11, which says that "Unnecessary killing to prevent unlawful
act" is manslaughter. Something that amazed me when this was moving through
the legislature, was a south Florida _prosecutor_ claiming that this law
would make it legal to shoot someone in the back after they committed a minor
offense, a claim that is an outright lie. I wonder if he will stick to that
claim when someone does exactly that in his jurisdiction? And will the
defense attorney be allowed to enter the prosecutor's public statement into
evidence?

Sorry I got so wordy, but I'd really like to see the reporting on this issue
be a lot more accurate than it has been.

Question: How do you tell the difference between Democrats, Republicans and Southern Republicans?

The answer can be found by posing the following question:

You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, a dangerous looking man with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, raises the knife, and charges. You are carrying a Glock .40, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family.

What do you do?

Answer in the Extended Section...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Democrat's Answer

Well, that's not enough information to answer the question!

Does the man look poor or Oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation? Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it? Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children? Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me? If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me? Should I call 9-1-1? Why is this street so deserted? We need to raise taxes, have a paint and weed day and make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior.

This is all so confusing!

I need to debate this with some friends for a few days and try to come to a consensus.

Republican's Answer

BANG!

Southern Republican's Answer

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!

*click*

Daughter: "Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips?

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.