"Unintended Consequences" My Fuzzy Butt!

One of my regular readers gave me a heads-up on this brewing controversy in Florida:

TALLAHASSEE - Some Florida legislators want to give people the right to shoot an attacker in a public place.

It would be a dramatic departure from current law, but supporters say people should be able to defend themselves without fear of being sued or charged with a crime.

Backed by the National Rifle Association, the bill was originally intended to codify a common-law principle known as the "castle doctrine," which allows people to use deadly force if they are attacked in their homes or cars.

But the version that surfaced in the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday went much further, and it is similar to a bill in the Senate (SB 436).

A House committee voted Wednesday to allow people to shoot to kill in self-defense if they are attacked "in any other place where he or she has a right to be."

State law defines deadly force as that which is likely to cause "death or great bodily harm," such as firing a gun at a person or a vehicle.

Florida courts consider deadly force a last resort and have held that a person being attacked has the "duty to use every reasonable means to avoid the danger, including retreat, prior to using deadly force."

But this legislation says a person who is under attack in a public place "has no duty to retreat."

Well there's a shocker! The St. Pete Times reporter goes on to quote to Democratic rep from Miami:

Rep. Dan Gelber, D-Miami Beach, suggested the bill could lead to "tragic" consequences if two people began arguing in a stadium or nightclub, and one person began shooting. An innocent bystander could be killed, Gelber said, yet the person firing the gun might escape criminal charges because he was under attack.

"They're going to have to address the unintended consequences of that," Gelber said.

The unintended consequences most likely is that people will be far less likely to be set upon by predators in public places. Not surprisingly, the St. Pete Times reporter is practically in a lather about the "tragic consequences." This is because the St. Pete Times is one of the most relentlessly antigun newspapers in America...I used to live in Florida, and I can't let you go without a couple of St. Pete Times stories from when I was down in the sunshine. Story One is I was at — of all things — a wine-tasting with one of the ranking city editors for the SPT. I marginally knew her — we had mutual friends — and my reputation apparently preceeded me. The conversation turned to guns; after a couple of wines the editor said, "Of course we talk about it, and we've very careful to make sure we never cover any story that might turn out to have a positive gun angle." I asked her if she had just said what I thought I heard, and she just laughed. "We're one of the most respected newspapers in America, Michael. You, on the other hand, are a known gun partisan. Who's going to believe who, and don't hold your breath for a good gun story."

Second SPT story. About a year after my wine-tasting, I get a call from The Big Cheese at the SPT who says he's got a question for me. I say sure...my ex once seriously hurled in his house, so I figure I owe him at least one. He tells me he's buying a sailboat, and since at that time nice sailboats were considered disposable delivery vehicles for drug runners, The Big Cheese needs my advice on what kind of AR-15 to buy, which are the best 30-round magazines, maybe some suggestions on ammo, etc.

I say not to sound trite, but I have this HUGE problem with the SPT's constant antigun drumbeat. The SPT has done everything short of suggesting that anyone who wants a gun for protection is psychotic, yet here's the Cheese out shopping for your proverbial assault weaponry. Well, he said, his opinions mirrored the SPT's editorial stance...guns in too many hands were dangerous. But a gun in his hand...blah...blah...blah.

I believe I suggested spitballs as a good non-violent alternative for pirate protection; I wish I could have remembered Bill Paxton's great line from Aliens when he was asked to turn in his ammo: "So what are we supposed to use? HARSH LANGUAGE?"