Flashermac Posted September 30, 2005 Report Share Posted September 30, 2005 The Scotsman 30 Sep 2005 Florida tourists warned that locals could shoot them ALASTAIR JAMIESON IT IS Britain's most popular transatlantic holiday destination, attracting more than 1.5 million visitors a year with its sun-drenched beaches, theme parks and wildlife. But Florida's £30 billion tourism industry is under threat from a campaign launched by a nutcase gun-control group which warns visitors they could be killed. A series of alarming adverts, to be placed in British newspapers, warns potential tourists about a new law allowing gun owners to shoot anyone they believe threatens their safety. It means thousands of British families who travel to the Sunshine State are now caught up in the ongoing political row over gun control in the United States. The Florida law, supported by the National Rifle Association, was approved by the state legislature in April. The state's governor, Jeb Bush - whose brother is the US president - described it as a "good, commonsense, anti-crime issue". Critics call it the "shoot first" law and say it allows gun owners to shoot if they engage in a simple argument in public. Supporters call it the "stand your ground" law and say criminals will think twice before attacking someone. Previously, gun owners could only use their weapons if they first attempted to withdraw and avoid a confrontation, and were permitted to shoot threatening individuals only inside their home or property. Now they can use "deadly force" if they "reasonably believe" that firing their gun is necessary to prevent a crime or serious injury. The law also effectively prevents civil legal action by victims of such shootings. The Brady Campaign to Control Gun Violence, based in Washington DC, has pledged to "educate" tourists by placing adverts in US cities, and in key overseas markets such as Britain. "Warning: Florida residents can use deadly force," says one of the adverts. Another reads: "Thinking about a Florida vacation? Please ensure your family is safe. In Florida, avoid disputes. Use special caution in arguing with motorists on Florida roads." The Brady Campaign -- named after Jim Brady, the spokesman for Ronald Reagan who was paralysed by a gunshot during the 1981 assassination attempt on the then-president -- promises to also run adverts in French, German and Japanese newspapers. The campaign officers also plan to hand out leaflets on roads leading into the state. Peter Hamm, the communications director of the Brady Campaign, said: "It's a particular risk faced by travellers coming to Florida for a vacation because they have no idea it's going to be the law of the land. If they get into a road rage argument, the other person may feel he has the right to use deadly force." Tourism officials in Florida are furious at the move. Bud Nocera, the executive director of Visit Florida, said: "It is sad that such an organisation would hold the 900,000 men and women who work in the Florida tourism industry, and whose lives depend on it, hostage to their political agenda." The Association of British Travel Agents yesterday said the posters were "a matter of concern", but said there was unlikely to be a drop in the number of visitors to Florida. It said 1.4 million Britons made the journey last year, attracted by the weather and resorts such as Disneyworld and the Kennedy Space Centre. A spokeswoman said: "We would offer the same advice about Florida as we would any other part of the United States. As far as we are concerned, nothing has changed." More than 80 million tourists from around the world visited Florida last year, boosting an industry that accounts for one-fifth of the state economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Posted September 30, 2005 Report Share Posted September 30, 2005 I'm moving to Florida! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khunsanuk Posted September 30, 2005 Report Share Posted September 30, 2005 Hi, "Now they can use "deadly force" if they "reasonably believe" that firing their gun is necessary to prevent a crime or serious injury." I'm speechless... What idiot could think this is acceptable in a civilized country? Sanuk! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh_Hoy Posted September 30, 2005 Report Share Posted September 30, 2005 khunsanuk said: Hi, "Now they can use "deadly force" if they "reasonably believe" that firing their gun is necessary to prevent a crime or serious injury." I'm speechless... What idiot could think this is acceptable in a civilized country? Sanuk! KS...I seriously doubt that this is the way the law is worded. Either somebody's intentional misinterpretation for political purposes or an inability to interpret the law correctly. HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khunsanuk Posted September 30, 2005 Report Share Posted September 30, 2005 Hi, Regardless the law sounds way over the top. Sanuk! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.. Posted September 30, 2005 Report Share Posted September 30, 2005 Hugh_Hoy said:KS...I seriously doubt that this is the way the law is worded. Either somebody's intentional misinterpretation for political purposes or an inability to interpret the law correctly. Well the exact text is: Protection of Persons/Use of Force: authorizes person to use force, including deadly force, against intruder or attacker in dwelling, residence, or vehicle under specified circumstances; provides that person is justified in using deadly force under certain circumstances; provides immunity from criminal prosecution or civil action for using deadly force; defines term "criminal prosecution", etc. Creates 776.013,.032; amends 776.012,.031. Effective Date: 10/01/2005 776.013 says 3. A person who is attacked in (a) place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if it is reasonably necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. 4. A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence. Another section reads: 776.012 Use of force in defense of person. --A person is justified in using force that is intended or likely to cause death or bodily injury against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat under the circumstances described in s. 776.013. Seems pretty clear to me. You can wack anyone for any reason if they are in your house, biz or car and for almost any reason if you are anywhere else (very light on what constitutes reasonable belief -- that could be anything!). Your GOP/NRA boys are just INSANE Hugh!!!! You go Brady Campaign! Shit like that is simply just another reason I choose to live abroad. Well that and uh, "friends" like the gal in my avatar . Regards, SD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limbo Posted September 30, 2005 Report Share Posted September 30, 2005 That's just inane and I completely support the ad campain. No reason to take it out on them, maybe some people will wake up now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh_Hoy Posted October 1, 2005 Report Share Posted October 1, 2005 Come on SD...re-read the section you quoted. Doesn't come close to saying you can whack somebody for ANY reason. Says : "A person who is attacked in (a) place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if it is reasonably necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony." This is, IMO, no different than France resisting the invasion of Germany...or the U.S. using deadly force against Japan. "Reasonable belief" is not a new concept; is easily determined by juries as to what is "reasonable". And, as the saying goes, "better to be tried by 12 than to be carried by 6". BTW, the same law has been on the books in California for decades. Not too long ago, a man and wife arrived at the drive-up window at a Burger King in Riverside, CA in their new SUV. As they sat waiting for their order, two assholes approached them from both sides of the vehicle with guns drawn and demanding they exit the vehicle (car-jacking in progress). The couple complied. As soon as the perps got inside the vehicle, the man and wife drew concealed weapons and sent the assholes to their maker. Bad luck for the perps; the man and wife were off-duty Riverside County Sheriff's deputies :: You're probably too young to remember a serial killer in the LA/Orange County areas dubbed "The Night Stalker" (Richard Ramirez). Ramirez would enter homes at night and rape, torture, and kill women. If they were with their husbands, he'd tie up the husband and then rape the wife. Total asshole. Gun sales in a two month period literally skyrocketed. Like 10,000 a month to homeowners and single women. Women were taking firearms classes as fast as they could. Interesting result: home burglaries plunged to all-time lows. Crooks, knowing that there were many new, trained potential killers among the citizenry, seemingly decided to find other targets. Finally, your new avatar is very nice HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BelgianBoy Posted October 1, 2005 Report Share Posted October 1, 2005 Hugh_Hoy said:BTW, the same law has been on the books in California for decades. Not too long ago, a man and wife arrived at the drive-up window at a Burger King in Riverside, CA in their new SUV. As they sat waiting for their order, two assholes approached them from both sides of the vehicle with guns drawn and demanding they exit the vehicle (car-jacking in progress). The couple complied. As soon as the perps got inside the vehicle, the man and wife drew concealed weapons and sent the assholes to their maker. Bad luck for the perps; the man and wife were off-duty Riverside County Sheriff's deputies :: wowowowow so thieves now get killed outright for stealing a car, and by cops ????? what an amazing country :( The rest of the free world really loves your attempts to export your democracy to other countries BB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh_Hoy Posted October 1, 2005 Report Share Posted October 1, 2005 BB...they weren't just "thieves"...they were armed robbers...duh. Probably just a matter of time before they killed somebody (if they already hadn't). Fuck em and forget em, so-to-speak. I suppose you'd not only hand over the keys, but offer to fill the tank for em and pay the insurance? HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.