Unchristian, maybe even unscience
More gun lies from the Christian Science Monitor:
Florida’s lawmakers have passed a bill to remove criminal penalties for anyone who shoots an attacker even if the shooter didn’t first make an effort to escape.
That leaves out the rather important requirement that the person who uses deadly force presumes that there exists threat of serious bodily harm. Of course, attacking you kind of denotes that.
The “Stand Your Ground” bill, which is expected to be signed by Gov. Jeb Bush, removes the “retreat if it is prudent” clause from state law, thus giving citizens the right to use deadly force – even when it may not be needed.
Another lie. If deadly force is not needed, then the police can still prosecute under the law.
The Florida measure would push citizens toward a mentality of “shoot first and ask questions later.”
Yes. And back in 1987 when Florida passed concealed carry laws, people cried there would be blood in the streets. That never came to fruition.
And it could even encourage more citizens to carry weapons, thus increasing the possibility for using deadly force. Accidental shootings could also rise, especially among those with no gun training.
Packing.org tells us that a Florida concealed carry permit does require passing a training course.
The CSM yammers about states and courts debating self defense and duty to retreat. They fail to mention that most states do not have a duty to retreat. This legislation actually brings Florida in line with most other states.
The state’s move reveals the sheer force of the nation’s gun lobby, not the force of common sense. In fact, getting the law passed was the No. 1 priority in the state for the powerful National Rifle Association. Let’s hope other states don’t follow suit.
Actually, it is common sense. Retreating is a good way to get killed. And, as I said earlier, it’s actually Florida that is following suit. And, in the event there is no reasonable notion that the person was in danger, then the self-defense is not justifiable.
April 14th, 2005 at 9:03 am
This is the second time I’ve seen one of these piece say that this law was “the NRA’s top priority.” Could we have a source for that, please?
April 14th, 2005 at 4:48 pm
Buh?
April 14th, 2005 at 4:50 pm
My fingers and brain weren’t in sync. Happens a lot.