Threatened Use of Force SB-448 PASSED ! WAHOOO.

[mac the knife]

On Tuesday, March 4, 2014

SB-448 PASSED by a vote of 9-0 in the Senate Judiciary Committee

SB-448 Threatened Use of Force by Senator Greg Evers (R-Baker) stops abusive prosecutors from using 10-20-LIFE to prosecute people who in acts of self-defense, threaten to use deadly force against an attacker as a means to stop an attack.

Read the whole Law at ......

http://www.nramedia.org/t/2496687/6010384/34047/11/

 

[Flguy32514]

Good, I just hope we don't have to many people wind up using this as an excuse to pull their guns to stop something stupid. I can already see the cases of someone pulling their gun because someone hollered "I'm gonna kick your ass" to them

I am very for this law however, because I have been involved in a situation where I drew my weapon, but still needed him to advance me before I would of shot the guy.

 

[Dan1612]

Good law, but unfortunately, it WILL be abused.

 

[donr101395]

Good law, but unfortunately, it WILL be abused.

Yep, unfortunate, but true.

Ironically, the stupid women they are used as the catalyst for it was wrong no matter how you look at it.

 

[FrankT]

With all the little or no training and how easy it is to get a permit this will or could end up being a nightmare!

 

[bigbulls]

Come on guys! Do you honestly believe this will change anything in how someone perceives a life threatening situation where the use of lethal force would be justified? I don't. The law isn't going to allow people to pull a firearm willy nilly. The same "guidelines" are still going to apply before lethal force could be used.... ie: draw your firearm. The law isnt going to protect any one for pulling a firearm because someone threatened to "kick your ass". It will only protect those people that pull their firearm in legitimate, life threatening situations.

A permit to carry shouldn't be required by law in the first place but thats for another thread.

 

[FrankT]

yes I do

 

[bigbulls]

So, the guys with a cwp are now going to be running around pulling firearms for no good reason? Come on Frank, you sound like you're writing for the huffington post. The laws defining justifiable lethal force have not changed. The only thing this law is going to do is protect people in situations where the threat to life deescalated before a shot had to be fired.

 

[FrankT]

No there is little or no training so I don't doubt for a second once this gets public that the untrained will be showing more guns than ever. You and I will not be but with lax requirements to get a permit you bet it could be a problem.

 

[donr101395]

Come on guys! Do you honestly believe this will change anything in how someone perceives a life threatening situation where the use of lethal force would be justified? I don't. The law isn't going to allow people to pull a firearm willy nilly. The same "guidelines" are still going to apply before lethal force could be used.... ie: draw your firearm. The law isnt going to protect any one for pulling a firearm because someone threatened to "kick your ass". It will only protect those people that pull their firearm in legitimate, life threatening situations.

A permit to carry shouldn't be required by law in the first place but thats for another thread.

I/we understand that, but you would be surprised at the number of people who don't understand it. Overall I don't believe it will change the actions of anyone. The brain dead such as the lady in Jacksonville who left and then came back with a gun, people like her are who will be initially emboldened and do stupid stuff until a few of them end up on the news.
I hope I'm wrong about that last part, but I don't have much faith in people.

 

[bigbulls]

I think youre reading way too much into this. This law protects ONLY those people that would have already been justified in killing someone under chapter 776. This law simply allows them to not pull the trigger and not go to jail for not having to actually kill the aggressor when the aggressor stopped advancing.

I didnt see the thing about the lady in Jacksonville but if she left a scene and came back with a gun then she wouldnt be protected under chapter 776 or this new law. Using her as an example of what could happen is apples and oranges as she would be going to jail with or with out this new law.

 

[donr101395]

I think youre reading way too much into this. This law protects ONLY those people that would have already been justified in killing someone under chapter 776. This law simply allows them to not pull the trigger and not go to jail for not having to actually kill the aggressor when the aggressor stopped advancing.

Not reading too much into it. I know that's what it says.
I still hear people saying that if you shoot someone outside your house you should drag them inside and other such nonsense. When I hear stuff like that and they are serious when they say it; I have no doubt they don't know or understand what the law says or care.

 

[Fletch]

I agree it will be abused and everybody who pulls a firearm in a criminal manner will try to use it just like they do stand your ground when they shoot somebody in a criminal manner. Not to many folks in jail who don't claim to be innocent. If this law helps a few truly innocent folks not go to jail I'm all for it however.

The can't pull a gun if they just want to kick your ass argument is interesting to me. Why should someone have to take a severe ass kicking if they are not contributing to the situation. Once the ass kicking begins then they are at the aggressors mercy. Say a father gets a call from his daughter to come pick her up because of an irate boyfriend or husband. What if the boyfriend/husband says go mind your business or I'm gonna stomp your old ass all over the yard.

Say the father is legally carrying concealed. What's he to do? Take an ass kicking and risk the chance that the asshole will notice his gun which would probably further anger him and maybe even make him feel justified in escalating the violence to another level. I see no reason why dear old Dad can't say: Look junior that's a 357 Magnum by hand is resting on behind my back. My daughter and I will be leaving now and if you threaten me again I will ventilate your ass. I'm okay with someone pulling a firearm to stop from being physically assaulted if they did not escalate or contribute to the situation.

It's not like half way through the beating he can stop and say this has now reached the level of great bodily harm and I would like you to stop pounding me so I can pull my firearm and shoot you in self-defense.

 

[bigbulls]

Every law is abused, thats why we have investigators. Cops and investigators arent exactly a bunch of dumb ass push overs. This new law is only going to stop overly zealous prosecutors trying to make/keep a reputation by going after people that lawfully protected themselves with out having to pull the trigger. This should have been part of the original law in the first place.

There's a difference in taking an ass kicking and being verbally threatened to get your ass kicked.

A person is justified in using lethal force if they reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm

If the said irate boyfriend is pounding your head in or is aggressing toward you with a baseball bat, knife, crobar, etc... and is trying to knock your head off or stab you, thats a justifiable use of lethal force situation. If, however, he simply tells you to eff off and mind your business or your going to get your ass kicked, thats not a justifiable use of lethal force situation. Having said that, the father has no duty to retreat if being threatened provided he is at the scene lawfully. If the father is getting his daughter out of a situation with an abuser he is justifiable in being there and if attacked he would likely be justified in using lethal force to stop the attack.

Also, keep in mind that a person is justifiable in using lethal force in defense of another person. If this father arrives at his daughters house and her boyfriend/husband is beating the crap out of her, he would be justifiable in shooting that son of a bitch dead because he was defending his daughter from death and/or great bodily harm. On the other hand, if the boyfriend stopped when he saw dad then the threat no longer exists and lethal force would not be justified even though it would be well deserved.

I still hear people saying that if you shoot someone outside your house you should drag them inside and other such nonsense. When I hear stuff like that and they are serious when they say it; I have no doubt they don't know or understand what the law says or care.

They were saying it before this law and they will be saying it into the future. You can't fix stupid but these people are the extreme minority and most of them would be too scared shitless to do anything in the first place.

 

[donr101395]

They were saying it before this law and they will be saying it into the future. You can't fix stupid but these people are the extreme minority and most of them would be too scared shitless to do anything in the first place.

I don't disagree except that they are the extreme minority. Just visit a non gun related forum that has a gun sub-forum. A lot of people out there think their gun and permit is some sort of talisman and by simply showing it they will ward off evil. I see it frequently on both a motorcycle forum and a 4x4 forum I visit.

 

[Dwatts1984]

I do fee like it will be abused... However in some cases, is that a bad thing? No I don't want an innocent person shot or harmed... However the more criminals know and understand everyone is packing the less crime. I might be a tiny bit naive believing this but I feel like criminals out there are gonna really have to be careful who they attack in the streets now! Concealed carry owners have always had to be so cautious... I feel this can now be used as a deterrent as opposed to having to actually gun someone down.

Just my thoughts..

 

[Fletch]

It's an interesting debate for sure. On one hand you have folks who have some training. Typically we are trained that once a deadly threat is established then it's draw stroke, front sight or flash sight picture, and trigger press. This takes all of maybe 1.5 seconds. Not much time for the aggressors to change their behavior and have the sight of the gun prevent a crime.

On the other hand we have statistics that a lot of pro-gun proponents tout all the time about how more guns are good because they prevent crime by some estimates over 1 million times per year but are not always reported because the presentation of the gun ends the advance. According to a lot of professional gun training the firearm should never have been produced if it wasn't going to be fired. But yet we have these supposed crimes prevented. Should 1 million more people have been shot in self-defense and it wasn't lawful self-defense because the gun owner's did not fear enough to automatically pull the trigger from the get go?

There is a lot ambiguity in there and I think that's what this law is trying to address. No a gun is not magic talisman and will not ward off evil by itself but I have to think the sight of gun will deter many people. It would me I can tell you that. Massad Ayoob stated in his book that many a criminal's last words were something to the effect of "you don't have the guts" when facing scared women or homeowner with a firearm. I imagine the smarter one's would actually high tail it away from the situation.

My wife ran off a looter days after Ivan with the presentation of my handgun before she had any training. To be fair my very angry 106 pound dog had a hand in deterring the looter as well. I was at work and she knew where it was and was scared. Phones were out, cell phone had no signal, the police were overwhelmed and she had no way to contact them anyhow. She was on her own and the threat display was her natural instinct. I realize things could have went different and that event led to her getting training but none the less the firearm and our dog prevented a possible crime.

 

[joe]

I am not from Florida but if I was I would be happy. I think one thing that is not being mentioned much is that it was partially written to protect people from the stupid mandatory minimums.

The law as written does not protect you unless firing your weapon was legitimate in the first place. Sure some will try to use the law to claim innocence but thats just the way it goes. Any lawyer worth a crap should have his client claim it as a defense if applicable.

Will there be people who abuse it yes. That does not mean it should not be there to protect individuals who follow the laws.

 

[donr101395]

I am not from Florida but if I was I would be happy. I think one thing that is not being mentioned much is that it was partially written to protect people from the stupid mandatory minimums.

The law as written does not protect you unless firing your weapon was legitimate in the first place. Sure some will try to use the law to claim innocence but thats just the way it goes. Any lawyer worth a crap should have his client claim it as a defense if applicable.

Will there be people who abuse it yes. That does not mean it should not be there to protect individuals who follow the laws.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a good thing and there is no stopping stupid people.

 

[FrankT]

Me too, would rather have it than not just saying we are going to hear about its use in the paper by stoopid people