Murder rate in Florida headed toward ZERO per 100,000!
 

So, Expanded Castle Doctrine or Right to Commit Murder?

"Duty to retreat" was an evil doctrine from the get-go. I'm glad to see it gone.

How did any laws as good as this "maybe," get by a BUSH?

Some people just need killin'. :cool:

No argument there.

I do wonder about how this changes our current system about who decides who needs killin'. Back in September, juries made the decision, prosecutors suggested candidates with captial charges, and judges have made the decision. These decisions took place in the highly controlled environment of the criminal justice system, and mistakes were rare.

Policemen made the decision on the street in situations of extreme stress and danger. These decisions are routinely examined for their validity. Mistakes are more common, but still rare.

Criminals made the decision too, of course. These are all mistakes.

Back in September, sometimes citizens in their homes made the decision. I have no idea how many of these decisions were mistakes.

I wonder how many times I have caused someone to feel threatened. What about on the road, when I follow too closely or change lanes without signalling? Is this a capital crime now? Who decides? The citizen, the shooter. They now have the protection of the law to become the judge, jury and executioner.

Where will this lead to? Where will it end?

Not only is the world my castle, it is also my oyster.

Except for months without an "R" obviously.

They're examined, but the only way a cop is actually going to get jail time or even dismissed is if he kills someone politically connected and there's a videotape. They've got pretty much carte blanche to kill whoever they want.

Even with the new law, ordinary citizens don't have that kind of protection. They're still going to be prosecuted and judged; it's just that they'll be judged based on more reasonable criteria.

Protection? What's to prosecute?

If I am not in the process of committing a crime (drug deal, etc), and I feel threatened, I can legally apply deadly force.

What more reasonable criteria are you talking about?

Overall, I think it's a good thing.

However, I believe that repo men in Florida will soon be demanding a performance bonus beyond their usual fee per car.

yeah, it is a good thing. your going to have to justify to a grand jury though why the said dead person needed killin'. they're going to frown upon someone who shot someone because they said they felt threatened and there were not any witnesses. now if the assailant had a gun, crowbar, baseball bat or the like and it was found at the scene then your chances of not getting charged with some form of murder are far less.

You seem to be focusing on the word "threatened," as if the legal statute includes nothing more specific than that. That was the article's word. It clearly goes on to state that the citizen specifically "has the right to use deadly force against an intruder if he feels that his or his family's life is in danger;" and also, "persons attacked in any place outside the home" may fire their weapon as well.

This will get people like my dad, who tends to get loud and obnoxious when his blood pressure goes up, shot for no other reason than they have a whiplash temper coupled with an excellent system for projecting their voice.

Maybe the grand jury will indict the shooter later, but hey...dad has still been plugged. Might be something that the blood pressure people will fight...kill enough blood pressure drug users and some of those monster pharm companies will lobby.

Isn't this the only threat the shooter faced prior to this law as well? People with a whiplash temper were either going to shoot your dad before or not. They're not going to look at this law and say "Well whoo-ee! All those consequences that were keeping me in check are gone! Let's get to killin'!"

I suspect that what will happen is that the criminal element will make more use of this law than the honest citizens. Stop and think about it. How many regular citizens, other than our new director of FEMA, of course, have guns and are trained in their use? And how many folks pack guns around with them when they go down to the grocery store or the office? Not many.

Who is the most likely person to have a gun on them and feel no hesitation in using it, outside the police? A criminal. So, a drug deal goes bad, Joe Gangbanger shoots his dealer and claims he was threatened and walks. :eyebrow:

Joe Gangbanger won't have a legally purchased weapon, and he won't have a concealed carry permit.

It's not going to be the wild west, people. Otherwise law abiding citizens will not be calling each other out on whatever they call Main Street in Miami Beach.