Shoot first, ask questions later

15 States Expand Right to Shoot in Self-Defense.

These are called "stand your ground" laws by supporters and "shoot first laws" by opponents, and the National Rifle Association, no surprise, is lobbying for versions of the law in eight more states in 2007. What they amount to is a license to use deadly force in self-defense situations that in the past would have resulted in prosecution for murder.

Does this seem reasonable? No flipping way if you look at the law as implemented in the Sunshine State:

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 law allows people to kill other citizens in defense of property, not just self-defense.

That second paragraph quoted also leaves it wide open for 1) innocent people to be caught in crossfire; and 2) a hole large enough to drive through when it comes to interpretations of what is a perceived "threat."

I predict a rise in young minority men and gays and lesbians on the wrong side of the gun barrel when paranoid/bigoted folks feel free to open fire.

The insanity has already begun.

Jason M. Rosenbloom, the man shot by his neighbor in Clearwater, said his case illustrated the flaws in the Florida law. "Had it been a year and a half ago, he could have been arrested for attempted murder," Mr. Rosenbloom said of his neighbor, Kenneth Allen.

"I was in T-shirt and shorts," Mr. Rosenbloom said, recalling the day he knocked on Mr. Allen's door. Mr. Allen, a retired Virginia police officer, had lodged a complaint with the local authorities, taking Mr. Rosenbloom to task for putting out eight bags of garbage, though local ordinances allow only six.

"I was no threat," Mr. Rosenbloom said. "I had no weapon."

The men exchanged heated words. "He closed the door and then opened the door," Mr. Rosenbloom said of Mr. Allen. "He had a gun. I turned around to put my hands up. He didn't even say a word, and he fired once into my stomach. I bent over, and he shot me in the chest."

Shakes Sis has a post up on this pathological Wild West mentality:

Does this mean I get to shoot aggressive panhandlers? Can I shoot a guy at a bar who won’t leave me alone? It seems to me the defensibility of either of those acts is determined singularly by my own assessment of how at risk my personal safety is, giving jumpy, prejudiced fuckwits a rationale for shooting to assuage their own cultural anxieties. The same idiot knob-ends who feel compelled to lock their car doors when driving through a poor neighborhood now have carte blanche to shoot first and ask questions later.