Gun Control, for or against? (Page 5)

The answer is that you don't get into the car. If they're going to kill me, I'd rather it be in a parking lot where my body can be recovered and increase the likelihood of them being caught and prosecuted. My chances are better in the parking lot than a secluded wooded area.  NEVER get in a car with a stranger.

My father gave me a .22; I learned to shoot it, etc. Once I had nephews and nieces in the house, I gave it back to my father. What are the odds of the kids having a gun accident when there is no gun in the house? 0%

That's not how it works in the Gunshine State!

From laidlaw.com, partial excerpt:

Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law. The law immunizes citizens who use deadly force in self-defense against criminal prosecution and civil liability...

Florida's new "Stand Your Ground" law changes Florida's self-defense rules in several ways.

First, it is now very easy to invoke the "castle" doctrine in Florida.

Under the old law, a person who killed someone in their home had the burden of proof to show that they were in fear for their safety. Now, all a person has to do is establish that the person they killed was "unlawfully" and "forcibly" entering their home when they shot the victim.

That is because the new creates a presumption that anyone who forcibly and illegally enters a home is intent on threatening the lives of the people within. And, at least according to a report written for the Judiciary Committee of the Florida Senate, that presumption is conclusive; it cannot be rebutted with contrary evidence.

So let's go back to Lisa and Bob. Under the old law, Lisa would have had to prove not only that Bob was in her home, but also that she was afraid for her life (or the lives of others in the house). In reality, that was often easy to do -- usually juries would take the word of a living homeowner over a dead burglar (even if the burglar was unarmed). But now Lisa, in theory, has a free hand to shoot even a plainly unarmed burglar as to whom he or she, in fact, felt no fear at all.

Second, the new Florida law expands the definition of "castle" to include vehicles -- such as cars and boats. This expansion the castle doctrine was clearly intended to address carjacking.

Third, in Florida, Lisa can now "stand her ground" even if she is outside of her home. But to do so, she must "reasonably believe" that using deadly force is necessary to prevent "imminent" use of deadly force against herself or others.

Thus, Florida is now joining the large number of states who do not value "life" above the right to stand unmolested wherever one wants. It's unlikely, however, that this change will change outcomes in particular cases.

Previously, all Lisa had to do to win her case was argue that she honestly and reasonably believed that she could not retreat safely. Now, she has to argue, instead -- somewhat similarly -- that she reasonably believed that if she didn't use deadly force, Bob imminently would.

Under either standard, Lisa still has the burden of proof to justify her killing. Also, under either standard, the jury may disbelieve her if there are witnesses around to contradict her story.

Can the dead sue?

The law gives civil and criminal immunity to a homeowner. So, even if the dead intruder's family decides to sue, they'd have no legs to their suit.

ASA can probably explain this much better than I can!

We also call it the "Shoot First" law.

Well if that happened in Florida, if the fall didn't kill him a homeowner could say "I was in fear for my life" and shoot (or stab?) the bastard. Or, if you shot him while he was on the roof you'd be covered, too.

The law certainly incentivizes the homeowner to report a dead burglar rather than an injured burglar.

That is because it is whacky California... anything can go there...