Thursday, April 07, 2005

Florida eyes allowing residents to open fire whenever they see threat

Let's get it on! Are you talking to me?

MIAMI - Florida's legislature has approved a bill that would give residents the right to open fire against anyone they perceive as a threat in public, instead of having to try to avoid a conflict as under prevailing law.

Outraged opponents say the law will encourage Floridians to open fire first and ask questions later, fostering a sort of statewide Wild West shootout mentality. Supporters argue that criminals will think twice if they believe they are likely to be promptly shot when they assault someone.

Republican Governor Jeb Bush, who has said he plans to sign the bill, says it is "a good, commonsense, anti-crime issue."


At 8:53 AM, Blogger Sick Boy said...

This will give a whole new meaning to "Gun Control"; one's ability to hit their target. As a former operator in the Special Operations community, I believe this will increase the potential for "collateral damage". We went through a vast amount of weapons handling, target acquisition, and threat assessment training. With the amount of man hours of this training there were, although rare, the occaisional missed shots, missed head and hips, and one violation of a R.O.E. (Rule of Engagement). Should tazer's be sold at box stores? Should all gun owners be mandated to attend urban warfare training? I heard somewhere the world is governed by the aggressive use of force. If the civil mass is worried about the "Wild West" invading Florida, maybe they should quit whining about Law Pandering and concentrate on aggressive Law ENFORCEMENT. We need to uncuff the Police in their use of deadly force and aggressive use of clandestine, tactical, police officers into "hot spots", and policing tactics. We, as a community, have allowed this feminization of our laws to occur. There is only a minute amount of gun owners with the maturity to even own a gun. Divide that amount by 75% and you will arrive with the amount of owners who have the maturity to discern an actual lethal threat vice a one perceived. We must also be "sensitive" to the potential amount of people of color involved in shootings due to "Hate Crimes" legislation. Will the ACLU allow for the proper identifying comments on an APB? This is a legal Pandora's Box. What will happen when a person under the age of 18 is put down? Would they be considered an adult if they threaten Joe Six Pack? Will the shooter be under the scrutiny of International Law if they shoot an Illegal Alien? Will the Supreme Court rule against a state's right to have such a law? We must decide what constitutes Vigilante Justice versus law enforcement. Personally, I find it easier to drop a man than a deer. Of course, this is only an opinion. I could be wrong...

At 12:44 PM, Blogger Howard said...

Thank goodness the innocent victims are finally getting some rights. Yeah, there will be some unfortunate accident, but I think the lives saved, due to the message it will send to the criminals will more than make up for it.
People still need to have a conceiled weapons permit to carry a gun right? I don't have mine (yet), but I suspect there is some training as to the Rules of Engagement in that class.

Power to the people!

At 3:12 PM, Blogger Sick Boy said...

Didn't Bernard Geotz (sp?) do in the '80's what will be legalized in Florida in 2005? Yes, we must allow a power transfer back to the responsible citizen. "I'm your Huckleberry."

At 4:11 AM, Blogger Sick Boy said...

here's another: If anyone from a Hospice approaches, will I be "justified" and cleared hot to engage? A little sarcasm. Does this include "the nice, young men in clean, white coats who are coming to take me away"?


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home