Florida's "Shoot First" Law Reflects Crazy Ideology of Preemption

[White Eagle]

Be careful, all the "good" repugs in Florida are after you.


http://www.alternet.org/stories/59584/

Florida's "Shoot First" Law Reflects Crazy Ideology of Preemption

By Isaac-Davy Aronson, Comment Is Free. Posted August 17, 2007.

Florida's crazy "stand your ground" gun law is part of an ideology of preemptive action against any perceived enemy spreading from the White House on down.

Crossing the state line into Florida on I-75, one is greeted by a billboard reading, "Visitor Warning. Florida residents can use deadly force. Please be careful." Erected by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the sign is a reference to the fact that, for the last year and a half, Floridians have been allowed by law to shoot anyone they want.

Well, not just anyone. A citizen can use deadly force only if, in the words of the law, he or she "believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony." So breathe a sigh of relief. As long as you don't give anyone a reason to feel threatened, you're perfectly safe.

The "stand your ground" law - called the "shoot first" law by opponents - passed the Florida legislature by a wide margin. Since it went into effect, similar laws have been passed in at least 14 other states and are being considered in many more.

The law allows someone attacked, even in a public place, to "stand his or her ground" - and to use deadly force if he or she feels it necessary. It revokes a legal requirement to try to avoid conflict. Thus the case of the West Palm Beach cab driver who shot and killed a drunken passenger in an altercation after dropping him off.

In the eminently reasonable words of the foreman of the deadlocked jury, the cab driver "had a lot of chances to retreat and to avoid an escalation. He could have just gotten in his cab and left. The thing could have been avoided, and a man's life would have been saved".

Brooklyn Law School professor Anthony J Sebok told The New York Times that the central innovation of the law is not its elimination of the duty to retreat but the expansion of the right to shoot intruders (intruders into "any… place where [the shooter] has a right to be") who pose no threat to the shooter's safety. "In effect," Sebok told the Times, "the law allows citizens to kill other citizens in defence of property."

Or in defence of trash. Jason Rosenbloom of Clearwater was wounded by his neighbor, Kenneth Allen, who had filed a complaint with local authorities about Rosenbloom leaving eight bags of trash on the curb instead of the regulation six. After a heated exchange, Allen - a retired Virginia police officer - shot Rosenbloom twice; according to Rosenbloom, Allen went back into his house to get the gun and shot Rosenbloom even after he put his hands up. According to Allen, Rosenbloom had his foot in the door and was trying to rush into his house.

Whichever man is to be believed, it is hard to see what in such a circumstance could have necessitated deadly force. But the new law does away with such pesky questions. Allen was not charged. After all, according to him, he felt threatened.

Plus, Allen fulfilled the only requirement of the law: he was not engaged in anything unlawful at the time he shot his neighbor; in other words, he was a law-abiding citizen. This is a phrase that came up a lot during the debate - such as it was - over the passing of the law. The sponsor of the original bill, Rep Dennis Baxley (R-Ocala), said: "What this does is empower law-abiding citizens to stop violent crime in its tracks."

But it was Wayne LaPierre, executive vice-president of the National Rifle Association, which is behind the Florida bill and its brethren in other states, who articulated the true ethos of the Florida bill most plainly. "Good people make good decisions," he said. "That's why they're good people. If you're going to empower someone, empower the crime victim."

I know a lot of incredibly good people who make bad decisions on a daily basis; I know even more good people I wouldn't trust with a gun. But it's clear that these laws really aren't about gun rights at all. They're about the practical application of a moral philosophy of good and evil: There are good people and bad people in the world, and the way to deal with the bad people is to arm the good people to the teeth.

If this good people/bad people philosophy sounds familiar, it's because it's been the basis for most of the rhetoric, and a great deal of the policy decisions, made by the United States government in the last six and a half years. Florida's "shoot first" law may be the most audacious local example of it, but that's just because no one had the temerity until recently to write good and evil into the law.

Essentially, what Florida judges and juries considering shooting cases now have to decide is whether the shooter is a good (the code is "law-abiding") or bad person. If a good person shoots someone, it's okay. If a bad person shoots someone, it's not.

You might call that a double standard, but the current White House calls it common sense. That's why laws in general have seemed a little, well, irrelevant these days. The president is a good man with good intentions; if a law says he can't do something, it can't be a very good law, now can it?

Indeed, Bush has attached signing statements to more than 750 laws enacted by Congress since he took office, statements that say he has the right to disregard these laws when he sees fit. The image, long pushed by Bush and his handlers, is that the president is a good, simple man, and good, simple men simply don't do bad things.

This philosophy underpins many of Bush's rather tortured responses to tough questions. Confronted with the findings of the 9/11 commission, that a great number of warnings about the 2001 terrorist attacks crossed his desk, Bush repeatedly asserted that if he had had the information, he would have stopped the attack. Another way to put that is, since he didn't stop the attack, he couldn't have had the information. Because, to quote LaPierre, "Good people make good decisions."

Like Bush's signing statements, the shoot-first laws are a wholesale rejection of law itself, a step toward replacing a nation of laws with a nation of value judgments; a nation in which whoever is currently considered "good" gets a free pass.

And if you subscribe to the ideology of good and evil, as our government does, you have to be in constant war. There's no way around it. Bad people, to take the logical inverse of LaPierre's philosophy, do bad things. It's in their nature; they can do nothing else. War against evil has no end; its only end is when all the bad people are dead.

All this wreaks havoc on us as human beings. When the law is less important than the perceived nature of the person breaking it, perception becomes everything, and we all become complicit; we all become, in essence, informants. What, exactly, will be the standards for judging someone's goodness?

The subjugation of law to ideology was to be expected, given our current government's moral certitude. I recall a hypothetical that was often posed in debates over the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq: What if, we asked, your neighbour came over and shot you simply because he believed you were a threat?

Advocates of the war protested that that was different; the two situations couldn't even be compared. But the ideology of good versus evil subsumes everything, and all politics is local - and getting closer and closer to the place you're standing right now, perhaps unwittingly making some law-abiding citizen with a gun feel threatened.

 

[FlyingCheeseSteak]

Eventhough I no not own a gun, I am pro-guns.

But, do you know who feels perpetually threatened? senior citizens.
I know because they keep giving me bad looks as if I am a rapist or serial killer. Old ladies keep reaching into their pockets for mace whenever I pass by jogging.
Do you know who lives in Florida? Senior citizens. O.K. That is a joke, but you get the point.

I could have been dead many times over!
Yeah, the alleged crime victim is safe - but what about me? Do I just gun down all the old ladies on my jogging path because I feel threatened that they are threatened?

 

[jackoroe]

Behave like a himan being and you're not likely to get shot in Florida. It's really pretty simple. The same morons that are decrying this law also swore the streets would run red with blood back when Florida allowed decent folks to go about armed. It never happened and crime went down. We need more states that think like the folks in Florida.

 

[iman]

This ain't rocket science. More guns means more money for the gun manufacturers and their lobby and more killing. The assertion that only guilty people get killed is nonsense, of course, dead men tell no tales.

America needs to grow up. This is not the frontier.

 

[White Eagle]

I think trusting this "good" person to choose the right option. This makes them the judge, jury and executioner.
Where is Wyatt Earp when we need him.

 

[RandomAccess]

Say something to piss someone off in their home, they shoot you then claim you threatened them. . . they're off scot-free! Perfectly legal here in FL.

Idiot legislators.

 

[Ramindra]

A madness that could only happen in gun-crazy America!

 

[White Eagle]

A madness that could only happen in gun-crazy America!

It is not only the guncrazies here. It's also that faction that think they are better than the next man, I point out the Administration,

The religious fanatics know what is best for all.

 

[Kyanimal]

The majority of gun deaths, in the U.S., are not the result of criminal acitivity. Rather, they are "domestic disputes", or accidents, that would not have ended in death had a gun not been readily available. The fact is, the gun that is going to kill you, or a loved one, will most likely be your own! Just some "food for thought" ...

Keep smilin'!!
Chaz

 

[letme]

A citizen can use deadly force only if, in the words of the law, he or she "believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

I.E. This means that Force is being applied or is showing a presented that it will be used in the minute's time. IOW if the bastard sticks a gun in your face, fucking shoot him First !

 

[RandomAccess]

A citizen can use deadly force only if, in the words of the law, he or she "believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

I.E. This means that Force is being applied or is showing a presented that it will be used in the minute's time. IOW if the bastard sticks a gun in your face, fucking shoot him First !

Care to cite the law you're quoting from, Letme? Probably not worth your trouble, huh? Or, you don't want to cite it because everybody will see that the law is so vague that there is NO BURDEN OF PROOF! Note the very portion you quoted: "believes it is necessary. . ." Can't you just hear it? "Whah, Yayus, Officah. . . I do beleive he intended ta HAHM me! Ah was so SCAYUD! Ah Jus' hadta SHOOT 'im DAYID!"

New York Times Editorial: Shoot First - No Questions Asked

If ever a law was designed as a get-out-of-jail-free card for the trigger-happy gun owner, it's one that comes to us via the gun lobby and the State of Florida. The law, passed in the last year in 15 states and being considered in eight others, allows the extraordinary use of deadly force when a person simply doesn't want to back away from a confrontation.

Visit "ShootFirstLaw.org"

This law seriously needs to be overturned. And, Thank you, Fuckbait, for bringing up this topic. I've been wanting to, but was afraid nobody cared what was happening in Florida. But, be aware, gun nuts in other states are already trying to copy this legislation.

 

[iman]

Protection of home and business are not really at issue here, they are well established principles. Street crime is the primary instance where one may have resort to using a weapon.

I am unable to find any numbers, but, the instances of people being murdered in the course of a mugging must be very small. Most murders are committed by people who know each other. If those people who know each other are armed, the likelihood of someone being killed is much higher. That ain't rocket science.

 

[RandomAccess]

That's not really a biased source... about as rational as the NRA's website.

Here's the actual law: http://www.flsenate.gov/data/session/2005/Senate/bills/billtext/pdf/s0436er.pdf Where exactly do you have issues with it? Without making up false quotes for hypothetical rednecks, the letter of the law is freely available in pdf format and open to debate. I'd say it shouldn't be hard.

I've read the law, because I live here. Show me where there's a burden of proof. What's the litmus for the shooter to say, unequivocally, that their life or well being was threatened? As long as they say they feared harm, they cannot be prosecuted.

If you want to kill someone, drive them to Florida, shoot them in your car, and put a knife in their hand. You'll be driving home by nightfall.

Visit "ShootFirstLaw.org"
It's a perfectly valid organization. VERY rational. The proof is in the reading.

 

[Kyanimal]

When one thinks of "Criminal Activity", it usually brings to mind a forcable incident perpetrated by an absolute stranger. It's when the "Bad Guys" get you!

"Domestic Disputes", though indeed still a crime, are brought on by people you Know. And, judging by the statistics noted above, if 58% of gun deaths are suicides, and add the "domestic disputes", then you must agree with my statement that, "The gun that is going to kill you, or a loved one, is likely to be your own!" Yes?

Keep smiln'!!
Chaz

 

[Kyanimal]

Well played, but I would guess that if my goal is to kill myself it would be easiest to use my own gun. That is why the matter is rather moot. If I had no gun I'd overdose on some easily obtainable o-t-c drug, strangle myself, jump off a mountain (I have several within short driving distance), run my car off the road, I have all sorts of knives, all sorts of electrical equipment and a couple of tubs with easily flowing water, not to mention a pool a few feet deeper than I am tall and various whatnots to tie to my person so I can drown... get the point? I could go on, but then you guys might think I'm suicidal.

If the fear of guns is really because it has the capacity to kill me, then I can't say that I am succumbing to an irrational fear of it. My computer mouse can kill me just the same since it isn't wireless.

Aw ... but that gun makes it so much easier! Yes? Not as much thought required for preparation, and "Execution". Besides, all those other means are not that simple to carry out! We Humans may be fragile beings, but, without a gun, we're not really all that easy to Kill! Hmmm?

Keep smilin'!!
Chaz

 

[RandomAccess]

I don't see anywhere where it removes the burden of proof.

It doesn't PLACE a burden of proof. It makes no requirement of the shooter to prove that their action was justifiable.

Has this went to the courts, either through being challenged or through its use since its enactment? Have the courts agreed that if you get to 'shoot first' you get off scot-free? If it is true, then the law actually benefits criminals; I'm certain in court that such a determination would need to be met.

In order to challenge a law in court, the challenger must prove a vested interest. Anyone with a vested interest in this has already been killed!

It is obvious that the law does not prevent such cases from going to court since it specifies certain events can allow either force or deadly force. In other words, it sounds like hyperbole against the law to me, the courts tend to take their roles seriously and that is why there is judicial review, but I'm not surprised considering this cite:

The law by its very nature prevents these cases from going to court. It holds the shooter harmless, while not requiring proof by the shooter that they were in danger.

Again, about as reliable as the NRA from the best I can tell. I refute it as a reliable source. Obviously it has an agenda and I don't see why I should trust it blindly as being objective.

Yeah. . . this group's concern is for the safety of the innocent. That's a far cry from what the gun loving NRA is all about: GUNS. Don't trust 'em. . . their agenda is safety!!!

In other words, as it stands, if I were able to undo laws and executive orders and such, this currently would rank rather low in priorities.

Aren't you thankful you don't have to worry about that!!!

 

[Kyanimal]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure we are. It isn't as if suicidal people have a gun holstered on them at all times just in case the spur of the moment hits them. Some people endure quite a bit before giving in to the temptation, and that is why suicide should not be analyzed by its instruments but by its causes. Overdosing is rather easy to do. Or using whatever home cleaners one has, assuming one keeps such things to clean. After all, a little drain cleaner took out the great Heather.

My posts have, at times, had odd references. At least it wasn't a Simpsons reference this time.

I do have to agree with you on the suicide causes, vs. the instrument. I actaully knew someone who did the "cleaner thing". And, someone who hung themselves, after killing their family (wife, daughter, son) with hammer blows to their temples. And, another, who drove their car into a bridge abuttment, no skid marks. And several others who used guns. Two that O.D'd ... but on purpose? But, the guns have "won out" numbers-wise ... of people I've really known ...

 

[RandomAccess]

The state has a vested interest and, as always in a criminal case, the burden of proof doesn't fall on the defendant.

The whole point of the law is to relieve the shooter of the burden of being prosecuted. If the state is going to prevent the prosecution of these people, then these people need to be able to prove their shooting was "righteous." That's all I'm saying.

So, Joe Schmoe kills someone in his living room. Says the dude tried to strangle him. He has some bruises on his neck (who knows. . . could be self inflicted). This law prevents his prosecution! Doesn't matter whether there is a history of violence between the two. Doesn't matter if the victim of the shooting has been witnessed making some threat against the shooter. The shooter gets of scot-free! I don't understand why you don't see this as a problem!!!

And, as for your suicide argument. . . there are few methods of suicide, so readily available, that hold the"success rate" of a gun in the mouth. Not to mention the perceived lack of pain. It's really thought of as an "easy" suicide. So Kyanimal's point is still valid. . . the gun to hurt you is most likely to be your own.

 

[White Eagle]

ICO's mention of his state may be considering it made me think. I googled shoot first law Texas and found links that the gov signed the bill, but I can't find any stories other than the law itself. So be careful when coming to Texas too.
Gotta quit now, for some reason people are getting freaked about Hurricane Dean and it is still 3 days off being a threat.
ciao

 

[iman]

If I had no gun I'd overdose on some easily obtainable o-t-c drug, strangle myself, jump off a mountain (I have several within short driving distance), run my car off the road, I have all sorts of knives, all sorts of electrical equipment and a couple of tubs with easily flowing water, not to mention a pool a few feet deeper than I am tall and various whatnots to tie to my person so I can drown... get the point? I could go on, but then you guys might think I'm suicidal.
/quote]

Go with the electrical equipment and the tubs of water.

Why is this law necessary? Prosecutors have discretion as to what cases to indict. Clear cases of self defense are not prosecuted, grand juries do not have to indict and juries do not have to convict. The intent of the law seems to be to make it more difficult for the justice system to do it's job - make judgements and encourage the use of firearms to settle disagreements. What problem is this law intended to address?