The Florida law, which served as a model for the others, gives people the right to use deadly force against intruders entering their homes. They no longer need to prove that they feared for their safety, only that the person they killed had intruded unlawfully and forcefully. The law also extends this principle to vehicles.
In addition, the law does away with an earlier requirement that a person attacked in a public place must retreat if possible. Now, that same person, in the law’s words, “has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force.” The law also forbids the arrest, detention or prosecution of the people covered by the law, and it prohibits civil suits against them.
The complete NY Times piece here.
So the next time you're taking a taxi, make sure you ask the driver whether you can get in very, very politely.
Oh, and does this mean that when the irritating aunty-ji from next door comes visiting in the middle of the final movement of Beethoven's 9th, I'm legally permitted to shoot her? (Are cyanide-tipped bullets okay?)
Notice meanwhile, that the right to shoot someone for intruding on your property is limited to people's homes. Unlawfully and forcefully entering someone else's country is presumably still acceptable.
Coming up: Other things the Texas legislature is considering allowing you to shoot people for:
a) Drinking soya lattes
b) Driving a Volkswagen
c) Using the phrase 'Due process'
d) Using the phrase 'It's okay, I'll walk.'
e) Voting Democrat
f) Being in Dick Cheney's sights
g) Evolving.
[1] Pun intended
Categories: CurrentAffairs
Posts
7 comments:
some "standing ground" this is -- telling people to become beasts. What will happen to the serenading Romeo now? the colonel daddy can legally shoot him now !!
sigh!! paranoia and intolerance..
In India there's a different (unwritten) law: if your father is big shot, shoot anyone; do target practice on bartenders...
meh, more reason not to visit texas. I dont drive a volkswagen, but i'd make the cut on the other six. thats a good thing isn't it...
the NRA argument is always self-defense, isn't it?
and you need a gun to defend yourself.
now if there were greater gun control, your attacker won't have a gun either. but i suppose that's just an outlandish proposition.
Interesting Article I found online... definitely something to think about: 15 States Grant Right to Kill in Self Defense; Killing "Just For Fun" Planned for 2007
insane! Do the lawmakers read their laws after writing them?!
Sach1tb: Yes. More generally, it does considerably increase the risk of rejection, doesn't it? Try and surprise your girlfriend with flowers on Valentine's day and if you end up picking the wrong kind you could get shot.
szerelem: Ha, I'm safer than you - I don't drink Soya Lattes either.
angry fix: Ah, but now your attacker doesn't need a gun. As long as he's intruding on your property you can shoot him even if he's unarmed.
anonymous: :-). Thanks for the link
astha: I doubt it. I'm not sure they read them even before writing them.
I'll have you know that as a Florida resident that I, as of yet, have fately wounded no one. Fately that is...
Post a Comment