Feeling threatened? Shoot them.

[phildonnia]

The law has traditionally recognized that a person claiming self-defense has a "duty to flee". There are some exceptions; you never have to flee your own home, for example.

This new law seems to be removing this duty in all cases.

 

[ManfredVonRichthoffen]

The upside is that in the long run it is likely (or at least that is the hope) that less people will be injured or killed because it will discourage crime in general.

I seriously doubt this, because I seriously doubt that people consider the law before defending themselves, and run from an attacker.

I would say the law will only limit the prosecution of people who defend themselves instead of running. Which I am all for.

 

[Kerberos]

Someone who is highly intoxicated who approaches complete strangers and physically accosts them falls in the "insane and dangerous" category when my family is involved. His behavior indicated he was capable of doing anything. I was not going to take any chances.

I am a non-violent person. I've been in many violent situations and surroundings and have even been physically attacked without lifting a finger to defend myself even though it would have been simple to put a serious hurt on my attacker.

This was a different situation. A completely unpredictable madman in the presence of my pregnant wife and my young son. With no help in sight.

Well I wasn't there, so I don't know exactly what happened.

My attitude on violence is that I will not get violent unless I plan on going all the way. And because of that, I will not get violent unless I think there is extreme danger to my family.

I have a very long fuse. But when that fuse burns down, there will be fireworks.

That frankly strikes me as rather bizarre attitude; you won't punch people on the nose unless you're willing to kill them? BTW isn't it actually rather difficult to kill people with your bare hands, and normally much easier simply to incapacitate them non-fatally?

I was not going to give the madman money so that his behavior would be encouraged or so that he could make himself more insane with whatever his drug of choice was, and thereby make him an even greater threat to his next victims.

There were no police or cars in sight. In hindsight, I maybe should have sought out the authorities to find the man after he left us.

Well how to react in a situation like this obviously depends on how good you are in a fight. If he had chosen to fight, and you couldn't beat him then you would have significantly increased the risk to your family. Perhaps you believe that you could have beaten and if your assessment was reasonable then your behaviour might be reasonable. For my part however I weight 60 kilos, I'm not in particularly good shape and I'm clumsy. For me the only rational thing to do in a situation like that would be to give him the money - picking a fight would be plain idiocy. As for encouraging his behaviour I'm not going put myself and my family in harms way to avoid the mere possibility that my behaviour might have increased the risk to others. Also as I said I'd have called the police afterwards which would probably be more likely to keep him from doing it again (course he’d hopefully be in prison) than simply scaring him away, which as I said, I’d probably be incapable of in any case.

 

[shanek]

I have a friend who works a lot with prisoners. It really is true that prisons are like graduate schools for crime. They all exchange knowledge, tips, etc. about how to commit more effective crimes. And they also share knowledge about what kind of crimes to avoid. One of those is that, no criminal in his right mind would break into a home in Mississippi, because no jury there would ever convict a homeowner of shooting them, regardless of what circumstances surround this.

This prevents crime, people.

 

[CFLarsen]

I have a friend who works a lot with prisoners. It really is true that prisons are like graduate schools for crime. They all exchange knowledge, tips, etc. about how to commit more effective crimes. And they also share knowledge about what kind of crimes to avoid. One of those is that, no criminal in his right mind would break into a home in Mississippi, because no jury there would ever convict a homeowner of shooting them, regardless of what circumstances surround this.

This prevents crime, people.

Prove it.

 

[C.J.]

So, a theoretical.

Let's say I'm in a moderately crowded public place (say, a city street) and feel justifiably in fear of my (or my family's) life. I pull a handgun (properly registered in the State of Florida) and shoot at my assailant. I take four shots and fatally wound him. Everything's jake, because I was acting in self-defense and have no obligation to flee under this new law. Let's also say it turns out that one of those four shots hits a passer-by, and fatally wounds him. What's my legal standing, for one, and what are the social reprecussions, for another?

From a legal perspective, maybe I can still be prosecuted under some other Florida criminal law, which is fine. Any lawyers from the Sunshine State that could say?

But in a broader social sense, the state legislature is saying that I'm legally allowed to used deadly force to protect myself (which I would suspect for most people involves use of a handgun) in a public area, which reason tells us may have innocent others about. Do I not have an obligation to the safety of those others? I do feel that if I had a (near) certain expectation of death and the surrounding crowd had a minimal expectation of collateral death, I would probably shoot as in the hypothetical described above. Yet, the spouse or children of that fellow I accidently shot probably don't care a whole lot about that.

What's my penalty? Have I acted legally but immorally? If this law increases the possibility of death or severe injury to innocent others, isn't it reasonable to go back to the obligation to flee requirement previously used?

 

[Ian Osborne]

I have a friend who works a lot with prisoners. It really is true that prisons are like graduate schools for crime. They all exchange knowledge, tips, etc. about how to commit more effective crimes. And they also share knowledge about what kind of crimes to avoid. One of those is that, no criminal in his right mind would break into a home in Mississippi, because no jury there would ever convict a homeowner of shooting them, regardless of what circumstances surround this.

This prevents crime, people.

So there is no burgulry in Mississippi, right?

 

[punchdrunk]

So, a theoretical.

What's my penalty? Have I acted legally but immorally? If this law increases the possibility of death or severe injury to innocent others, isn't it reasonable to go back to the obligation to flee requirement previously used?

What if you flee, find you are still being threatened, use your handgun and accidently kill an innocent bystander? Would you feel your actions were any more moral than not fleeing in the first place?

 

[Tony]

So there is no burgulry in Mississippi, right?

Yep, just like no one gets shot in London, Los Angelas, New York, Washington DC, or Chicago.

 

[Suddenly]

So, a theoretical.

Let's say I'm in a moderately crowded public place (say, a city street) and feel justifiably in fear of my (or my family's) life. I pull a handgun (properly registered in the State of Florida) and shoot at my assailant. I take four shots and fatally wound him. Everything's jake, because I was acting in self-defense and have no obligation to flee under this new law. Let's also say it turns out that one of those four shots hits a passer-by, and fatally wounds him. What's my legal standing, for one, and what are the social reprecussions, for another?

From a legal perspective, maybe I can still be prosecuted under some other Florida criminal law, which is fine. Any lawyers from the Sunshine State that could say?

But in a broader social sense, the state legislature is saying that I'm legally allowed to used deadly force to protect myself (which I would suspect for most people involves use of a handgun) in a public area, which reason tells us may have innocent others about. Do I not have an obligation to the safety of those others? I do feel that if I had a (near) certain expectation of death and the surrounding crowd had a minimal expectation of collateral death, I would probably shoot as in the hypothetical described above. Yet, the spouse or children of that fellow I accidently shot probably don't care a whole lot about that.

What's my penalty? Have I acted legally but immorally? If this law increases the possibility of death or severe injury to innocent others, isn't it reasonable to go back to the obligation to flee requirement previously used?

Good question. This statute provides immunity, and quite frankly as read I see nothing that limits it to immunity from suit/criminal liability as only against the person making the threats. Looks like a gray area at first glance.

 

[CFLarsen]

So there is no burgulry in Mississippi, right?

Oh, boy....am I waiting for that answer....

 

[C.J.]

What if you flee, find you are still being threatened, use your handgun and accidently kill an innocent bystander? Would you feel your actions were any more moral than not fleeing in the first place?

I'm not sure, which is part of my problem. I suppose I could say that if I did everything in my power to ensure that I both: a) protected myself/family and b) reduced risk to innocent bystanders, but still killed an innocent bystander, then I'd still feel crappy but perhaps not as crappy. But is such an action more moral? I certainly don't know the answer; is it moral to defend your own life or the lives of others important to you even if such defense may case the death of innocents? Maybe so. Isn't that the sort of question civilian and military leaders deal with in any conflict situation where "collateral damage" is possible? The death of innocents is a given in a war, and people seem...not alright with that, but accepting of it. Does the same logic apply to self-defense? If it does, then maybe there's no inherent moral difficulty.

Yet it seems to me that accidentally killing an innocent when defending yourself in your car or home is of a lower probability that killing an innocent in many public places. Essentially, in many public places it's not possible to really reduce the risk to innocent others to what might be considered an acceptable level. And no, I don't know what that level is.

I worry, because I can't help but feel that a situation like this might arise and that someone innocent will be killed by someone exercising their legal rights of self-defense, and that would by a grievous thing. Does this new Florida law make that more likely? If it does, are Floridians willing to accept the tradeoff that they can defend themselves with deadly force in public, but so can others, so you'd better be ready to duck?

 

[ma1ic3]

The law has traditionally recognized that a person claiming self-defense has a "duty to flee". There are some exceptions; you never have to flee your own home, for example.

This new law seems to be removing this duty in all cases.

Just yesterday I was thinking how much I disliked the fact that I am expected to run away from some a**hole that wants to fight. What good news.

 

[C.J.]

Good question. This statute provides immunity, and quite frankly as read I see nothing that limits it to immunity from suit/criminal liability as only against the person making the threats. Looks like a gray area at first glance.

My reading was similar, but as a non-lawyer wasn't sure if there was something I missed. Would that mean, then, that someone could argue that any incidental damage caused as a result of their self-defense actions is not prosecutable? That doesn't seem right....

 

[punchdrunk]

I worry, because I can't help but feel that a situation like this might arise and that someone innocent will be killed by someone exercising their legal rights of self-defense, and that would by a grievous thing.

It might be useful to remember that if you are attacked and killed then you are also "someone innocent" and I don't think your death is any less immoral than a bystander's accidental death.

ps - greetings neighbor

 

[Darat]

Can someone with legal knowledge please explain to me how this significantly will change the right to self defence that already exists (I'm assuming it exists)?

(And pretend you are being asked to advise a very valuable client who isn't the brightest spark on the planet e.g. K.I.S.S.!)

 

[C.J.]

It might be useful to remember that if you are attacked and killed then you are also "someone innocent" and I don't think your death is any less immoral than a bystander's accidental death.

In the broader sense, I agree with this, but more specifically an innocent life is still being lost. I'm glad it's not me (or my family), but my discomfort comes from the thought that I protected my life (or family's lives) at the cost of an innocent person's life. I've killed the one who was not innocent, the legitimate danger, which is one thing (and one thing I'd feel some, albeit limited, remorse about). But this poor fellow who just wanted to take a walk? Again, I didn't intend to kill him, but I did in the course of protecting myself. Maybe that is morally okay, but I still feel weird about the possibility.

ps - greetings neighbor

And to you, neighbor!

 

[shanek]

So there is no burgulry in Mississippi, right?

So there are no firearm homicides in the UK, right?

According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, in Mississippi the crime rate (per 100,000) was 4004.4, whereas nationwide it was 4124.0. Their violent crime rate of 360.9 was well below the nationwide rate of 560.1. Their murder rate was 5.5, compared to 9.0 nationwide. The robbery rate was only 95.0, when it was 144.9 nationwide. Aggravated Assault was only 221.1, vs. 323.6 nationwide. Motor vehicle theft was 245.0 in Mississippi, 414.2 nationwide.

You tell me.

 

[Ralph]

Can someone with legal knowledge please explain to me how this significantly will change the right to self defence that already exists (I'm assuming it exists)?

(And pretend you are being asked to advise a very valuable client who isn't the brightest spark on the planet e.g. K.I.S.S.!)

One difference seems to be that the new law allows for self-defense in ANY situation (not just when in one's home) without the requirement to retreat first if possible.

If you're confronted by a man with a knife in your own home--you're allowed to shoot him with no duty to retreat if possible.

If your in a car and a man points a knife at you through an open window you have a legal duty to retreat (by driving away) if possible.

The new law would allow you to shoot him--even though driving away might have been another option.

I think one intent of the law is to avoid dragging innocent citizens through the court process when their only "crime" winds up being ruled legal self-defense.

A man can "win" both a criminal case and a civil lawsuit brought against him......but wind up being financially ruined from the cost of defending himself.


Take a situation like Luke's and add in the fact that the man had a baseball bat and was threatening to strike his son with it.

Luke is armed--draws his weapon--and kills the attacker.

The court rules legimate self-defense.

Luke in the meantime has been jerked around the court system for several years and has 6 figures in legal bills------all because he did what any reasonable man would do.

I've noticed a tendency for non US citizens to think that you can go around blowing people away in the US with few if any consequences.

The reality is--the victim often winds up suffering more than his attacker.

 

[Bjorn]

According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, in Mississippi the crime rate (per 100,000) was 4004.4, whereas nationwide it was 4124.0. Their violent crime rate of 360.9 was well below the nationwide rate of 560.1. Their murder rate was 5.5, compared to 9.0 nationwide. The robbery rate was only 95.0, when it was 144.9 nationwide. Aggravated Assault was only 221.1, vs. 323.6 nationwide. Motor vehicle theft was 245.0 in Mississippi, 414.2 nationwide.

You tell me.

Yes, I will.

You conveniently forgot burglary, which was the crime in question:

Per 100,000 in Mississippi - 1035.6
Per 100,000 nationwide - 740.5

Both numbers from 2003. How come you forgot?

no criminal in his right mind would break into a home in Mississippi

I can only conclude they have a lot of crazy people there?