Florida set to bolster stand your ground law

[Sunburn74]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-florida-guns-idUSKBN17732H

"Florida lawmakers advanced a measure on Wednesday that could make it easier to avoid prosecution in deadly shootings and other use-of-force cases by seeking immunity on self-defense grounds under the state's pioneering "stand your ground" law.

In a 74-39 vote, the state's House of Representatives passed legislation that shifts the burden of proof from defendants to prosecutors when the law is invoked to avoid trial.

The measure now returns to the state Senate, which last month approved its own version of the bill. Both chambers are controlled by Republicans.

Florida's "stand your ground" law, passed in 2005, received wide scrutiny and inspired similar laws in other states. It removed the legal responsibility to retreat from a dangerous situation and allowed use deadly force when a person felt greatly threatened"

Could I wager it was a response to these other prominent cases?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/03/1...defense-in-florida-theater-shooting-case.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/cri...son-killing-teen-loud-music-article-1.1978021

 

[agent00f]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-florida-guns-idUSKBN17732H

"Florida lawmakers advanced a measure on Wednesday that could make it easier to avoid prosecution in deadly shootings and other use-of-force cases by seeking immunity on self-defense grounds under the state's pioneering "stand your ground" law.

In a 74-39 vote, the state's House of Representatives passed legislation that shifts the burden of proof from defendants to prosecutors when the law is invoked to avoid trial.

The measure now returns to the state Senate, which last month approved its own version of the bill. Both chambers are controlled by Republicans.

Florida's "stand your ground" law, passed in 2005, received wide scrutiny and inspired similar laws in other states. It removed the legal responsibility to retreat from a dangerous situation and allowed use deadly force when a person felt greatly threatened"

Could I wager it was a response to these other prominent cases?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/03/1...defense-in-florida-theater-shooting-case.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/cri...son-killing-teen-loud-music-article-1.1978021

Makes sense that gun lovers want more opportunities to use their precious.

 

[Sunburn74]

I just don't understand the need for this law. I mean don't these guys have better things to work on?
I mean if you want to talk about Florida's problems the ability to shoot someone on my property and get away with it is way down the list.

 

[pcgeek11]

I don't think you should have to back down from anyone while on your own property.

That being said, at times it is a smart thing to do, but not always.

 

[theeedude]

http://www.independent.co.uk/travel...urism-holidays-foreign-visitors-a7666461.html

These findings were backed up at the end of February by online booking agent Kayak.co.uk, which found that UK flight searches to Miami – the second most popular US city for overseas visitors – had “fallen off a cliff”. Search was down 52 per cent compared to last year.

Passing wacky gun laws won't help this. Most people don't want to visit places where they can be shot with impunity just because someone claims they feel threatened.

 

[Sunburn74]

I have no problem shooting a guy on your property. The problem is people are using that law to open fire in situations that can be defused without resorting to violence. The spirit of the law is for a situation where there is an immediate threat that was not created by the home-owner/person in harms away that he resolves without necessarily looking for peaceful methods (ie a home invader, a trespasser in the backyard, a threatening armed mob throwing rocks at your home, etc etc. These are situations where it is socially justifiable to skip negotiating a peaceful, non-violent outcome).

The law however is applied increasingly in situations that involve shouting matches between two people, pushing, shoving and eventually someone being shot in "self defense". Stand your ground to me doesn't mean two men standing nose to nose, chest to chest enraging each other until one finally kills the other because he stood in place and held his ground.

At the very least, the onus should be on the shooter to establish that he had no other choice and that his action was reasonable. This seems very clearly another unnecessary gun-lobby bill

 

[pcgeek11]

I have no problem shooting a guy on your property. The problem is people are using that law to open fire in situations that can be defused without resorting to violence. The spirit of the law is for a situation where there an immediate threat that was not created by the home owner and he resolves it without necessarily looking for peaceful methods (ie a home invader, a trespasser in the backyard, etc etc).

The law however is applied increasingly in situations that involve shouting matches, pushing, shoving and eventually someone being shot in "self defense". Stand your ground to me doesn't mean two men standing nose to nose, chest to chest enraging each other until one finally kills the other because he stood in place and held his ground.

At the very least, the onus should be on the shooter to establish that he had no other choice and that his action was reasonable. This seems very clearly another unnecessary gun-lobby bill

Under those circumstances I agree with you.

 

[Paratus]

By definition if the other guy goes for his weapon because he's afraid for himself then my life is in danger. I just need to quick draw faster and the law will clear me as long as I pick the fight in a plausibly public area.