"Stand your ground, no retreat required"

[KSFreeman]

Silly, Brady Bunch, tricks are for kids.

I'm old enough to remember the hysteria regarding Florida in 1987. Blood in the streets! Women and minorities gunned down by horse-riding, pistol-toting Floridians in white robes!

At least the Brady Bunch is earth friendly--they are into recycling.

CCW wasn't invented in Florida, we had it in my state decades before Florida's '87 reform.

The elimination of the duty to retreat was not invented in Florida, we had it in my state centuries before Florida's '05 reform.

There will not be any blood, but there will be much hysteria.

 

[Zekewolf]

The Brady Bunch would spend their "lifesaving" funds much more effectively, if they erected hugh billboards all over the world that said, "Smoking Cigarettes Causes Lung Cancer," with a picture of Sarah Brady with a cig hanging out of her mouth.

 

[blackmind]

In FL, you didn't have to retreat in your home, prior to the change. The change just expanded your rights outside of your home. Good for FL!!!

What this changed regarding the home is that now, you do not have to wait for a home invader to present a weapon and/or threaten to kill you -- you can use deadly force because now you are entitled to the presumption that anyone breaking into your home by force is there to kill you. I view this change as a good thing. Why wait until the guy has a weapon aimed at you? He's invading your home, possibly in a very violent manner. Should there be doubt about whether his intentions are noble?

-blackmind

 

[blackmind]

No, no legal action warranted, really.

It's an accurate portrayal of the law, just done in the most blindingly hysterical, fear ridden way possible.

Typical for the Brady Bunch.

Wait a minute. The article says the following:

Previously, gun owners could only use their weapons if they first attempted to withdraw and avoid a confrontation, and were permitted to shoot threatening individuals only inside their home or property.

Now they can use "deadly force" if they "reasonably believe" that firing their gun is necessary to prevent a crime or serious injury. The law also effectively prevents civil legal action by victims of such shootings.

Wrong on two counts -- and as a result, hardly what I would call an accurate portrayal of the law.


Prior to the new law, we were not limited to using deadly force only inside our homes or property. (Where did they get an absurd idea like that?)

And the law does not provide for using deadly force to prevent any old crime. Still has to be a violent or forcible felony, as far as I am aware. Still can't shoot someone for stealing your stereo. Still have to believe you or someone else stands to suffer grievous physical harm or death.


Calling this an "accurate portrayal of the law" and saying that it therefore has the shield of truth (regarding libel) as a result is inaccurate itself.

-blackmind

 

[blackmind]

The Brady Bunch would spend their "lifesaving" funds much more effectively, if they erected hugh billboards all over the world that said, "Smoking Cigarettes Causes Lung Cancer," with a picture of Sarah Brady with a cig hanging out of her mouth.

Hahahaa! And the NRA should take out ads targeted at Kalifornia tourists showing the infamous picture of Dianne Feinstein (mis)handling that "assault weapon" on a stage in front of dozens of people, saying, "Warning: visiting Kalifornia can expose you to the danger of being muzzle-swept by an incompetent gun-handler holding a 'high-powered-rifle' that she has neither personally cleared nor knows how to use."


-blackmind

 

[XavierBreath]

I would like to thank the Brady Bunch for educating the criminals on their new legal status. Perhaps it will save the law abiding citizens of Florida a little ammo when the criminals find a new line of work or simply move to Georgia.

More

 

[Mike Irwin]

OK, Blackmind, so they, and I, got it wrong.

There's still absolutely no legally actionable issue here that I can see at all.

First and foremost would be a question of standing. Just who would have standing to bring suit against the Brady people? As far as I can tell, it wouldn't be us.

 

[joab]

(Where did they get an absurd idea like that?)

Who says they got an absurd idea like that?
Maybe they're just trying to perpetuate an absurd idea like that.

The more of people that think this law has expanded our right to shoot way beyond our previous situation, the more people there are that are likely to misinterpret the law and shoot some mean looking guy for insulting us in public.

Brady needs a bloody encounter based on this new law to justify their opposition to it.
These people are so not above fanning the flames.

This may not be a warning to tourist but more an search for one of those itchy trigger fingers that they think are so prevalent down here