Fla backs use of deadly force...

[Dave Schwartz]

...in a home invasion.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/04/05/florida-bill050405.html

It's about time.

[CryingForTheHorses]

I think its great! I also think a person has a right to defend himself at home or at work! I think it sucks to see these kind of people(criminals) take away what you have worked for.
Wont turn the South into the "Wildwest'.It already is.
Hope the governor has the "Balls" to sign it

[PaceAdvantage]

Who the hell comes up with these forced "turn and run" policies? Why aren't politicians who conjure up such assinine laws immediately voted out of office?

What homeowner would stand for such a law that forces one to run away from an intruder? How insane!

It amazes me that laws such as these are created, AND those that create them still have a job!

[Kreed]

WHY INDEED? in FLA, "they" (the bad guys) must be politically protected?
how else?

[Dave Schwartz]

Amazingly (as I understand it), the majority of states see the use of "armed violence" as "excessive force" in dealing with an intruder.

Everybody talks a big game (i.e. "If a guy breaks into my house in the middle of the night he's gonna meet up with both Smitth and Wesson.") but the truth is that there have been lots of both criminal and civil suits based upon the homeowner's actions.

Denny Crane, uh, I mean, Dave Schwartz

[Tom]

The right to defend your home is basic - it supercedes all laws to the contrary.
We hold this to be self-evident.....any government that doesn't suppor tthat right is not fit to be a government.
In the imortal words of G. gordon Liddy..."Head Shots!"

How true.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Did anyone notice that no paper in the USA thought it politically correct to run the story? Give credit to the CANADIAN Broadcsting Company!

[lsbets]

First, let me say that I am absolutely pro gun, and in the hands of someone trained and ready, a gun is a valuable tool. With that out of the way, let me use my wife as an example. If I were to put a gun in her hands to defend herself, and she were ever forced to try and use it, she would probably create a worse situation. Why? Because she would hesitate to kill. Most people are not really prepared to make the decision to kill when the time comes. Plenty of people talk tough, but when it comes down to it they cannot take the neccesary action. So, while I carry a gun, my wife does not. Why? Because we both agree that she would stand a good chance of making things worse for herself in the moment of truth. I strongly believe that unless you can view the intruder or criminal as a target rather than a person, you would not be able to take the action neccesary - i.e., never point a gun at anything you do not intend to kill. It sounds simple, but psychologically it is not.

[Tom]

Wise words, ls. Last thing you need do is give the intruder a weapon and piss him off!

My thoughts are, if I am pushed to the point of having to draw a weapon ( an dI do not own one) I am not going to try to "wing" him - I am going to try to stop the SOB in his tracks as fast as possible. And no kourt should have anything to say about it.

[CryingForTheHorses]

Did anyone notice that no paper in the USA thought it politically correct to run the story? Give credit to the CANADIAN Broadcsting Company!

This story is in todays Miami Herald.It also gives you rights at your workplace or in your car.
In a confrontation the law required you to back down and get as far away as possible.
I do hope the law will still regulate when and where you may carry for those that have a permit.
In the state of Florida almost 85% of homeowners own guns,Time for these people who do own them is to take a firearms course to convince themslves that guns dont kill, People do!

[highnote]

This story is in todays Miami Herald.It also gives you rights at your workplace or in your car.
In a confrontation the law required you to back down and get as far away as possible.

It makes sense to try to back away from a confrontation. If a person only wants some money for drugs and they're only going to hurt you if you try to stop them, then let them have the money and back away from them.

However, if your life is being threatened and backing away is not an option - then shoot the bastard and make sure you don't miss -- and make sure they're dead. Then dispose of the body. You don't want to be linked to the shooting. And if you are linked, improper disposal of a body is only a misdemeanor.

Now, if you're the type who can't back away, then also make sure you shoot them dead. That way they can't defend themselves in court. You'll be the only witness.

Now, if you're in public and you kill them and they didn't really pose a threat other than wanting your money and there are other people around who witness you killing the mugger - you're screwed. I doubt you can get away with killing all the witnesses. Unless you've got an Uzi or something. However, you'll need a getaway car so you can leave before the police arrive. Also, make sure their are no surrveillance cameras. Wipe your fingerprints off the Uzi. Make sure the Uzi can't be traced, etc. etc. etc.

You'd probably save yourself alot of money if you'd just give the bastard mugger a $100. If you kill him, it's gonna cost you thousands in legal fees plus the hassle.

[PaceAdvantage]

It makes sense to try to back away from a confrontation. If a person only wants some money for drugs and they're only going to hurt you if you try to stop them, then let them have the money and back away from them.

Yes, it makes very good sense. What doesn't make sense is the fact that legislatures are trying to take the DECISION away from the person(s) DIRECTLY INVOLVED in the confrontation!!!

[highnote]

Yes, it makes very good sense. What doesn't make sense is the fact that legislatures are trying to take the DECISION away from the person(s) DIRECTLY INVOLVED in the confrontation!!!

That's why if you shoot the intruder inside your house you have to make sure you dispose of the body and make sure no one sees you do it (the shooting and the disposal).

Then you can tie a note onto the intruders clothes and dump them in a garbage bin or alleyway. The note would say something like "This person was killed because he/she broke into a house in an attempted robbery. The shooter cannot identify him/herself because the shooter does not want to be in violation of the new law that says a person directly involved in a life threatening confrontation is not allowed to protect him/herself."

This would surely make the front page news and would give the lawmakers something to think about.