Group opposed to new gun law targets tourists

By MARY ELLEN KLAS

meklas@herald.com


TALLAHASSEE - Enter Florida at your own risk. That's the message supporters of gun control are sending in an ad campaign designed to warn visitors about Florida's new law allowing victims to shoot first in self-defense without fear of prosecution.

The law, passed by the Florida Legislature in the spring and signed by Gov. Jeb Bush, takes effect Oct. 1. That's the day the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence will start its newspaper ad campaign in London, Chicago, Boston and Detroit and hand out fliers to arriving passengers at Miami International Airport. <snip>

The fliers urge tourists to take precautions, such as: ''Do not argue unnecessarily with local people,'' and ''keep your hands in plain sight'' if you are involved in a traffic accident or a near-miss.

Under the law, which was passed at the urging of the National Rifle Association, Floridians may use deadly force against an attacker, even if they could have fled, and requires prosecutors to presume that they acted in self-defense. <snip>

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/12717771.htm

Florida is officially a third world country. We are now free to terrorize each other. I wonder how a black man in a mostly white county would do if he shot a white person on the borderline of this law?

Criminals will always have guns....how turning the entire population into gun toting quick draw McGraws will reduce the incidence of death and injury is counter-intuitive.

But it will help to sell a lot more guns and bullets....and really, isn't that the agenda of the NRA is all about?

CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

QUOTE
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or

(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or

(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

(5) As used in this section, the term:

(a) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.

(b) "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.

(c) "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
UNQUOTE

.. in statutes conferring the right to use deadly force when X "reasonably believes" X are threatened or "reasonably believe" the person X is shooting is a felon, is that these phrases apparently have no definite meaning and are subject to the vagaries of prejudice, as in (for example): "He was a black refugee, it has been widely reported that many such people are criminals, and everybody I know thought he had a sinister manner."

The so-called "duty to retreat" was, in part, a method for attempting to prevent unnecessary bloody mistakes, in my view a legitimate aim which trumps pure ideological motives ...