Comments on: Biden: Trayvon case could spur Fla. gun law debate
Add a Comment
- To get the laws out
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
776.012?Use of force in defense of person.
776.013?Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.
776.031?Use of force in defense of others.
776.032?Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.
776.041?Use of force by aggressor.
776.05?Law enforcement officers; use of force in making an arrest.
776.051?Use of force in resisting arrest or making an arrest or in the execution of a legal duty; prohibition.
776.06?Deadly force.
776.07?Use of force to prevent escape.
776.08?Forcible felony.
776.085?Defense to civil action for damages; party convicted of forcible or attempted forcible felony.
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force. ?
(1)A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term criminal prosecution includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant. ?
(2)A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful. ?
(3)The court shall award reasonable attorneys fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1). History.s. 4, ch. 2005 -27. - Reply to this comment
- It takes an extreme state government, corrupted by the NRA and with laws pushed by the Koch Brother ALEC to finally wake up to reality. It's too bad someone had to lose their son but if the feds will declare all those Stand Your Ground laws to be what they are (radical over reach of state authority), we will be on our way back to freedom.
- Reply to this comment
- So, Joe "5 Deferments" Biden wants to have a discussion on gun control ??!! How about the "Fast and Furious" fiasco. Fast & Furious is a boiling cauldren and it is set to explode in the wake of an administration conspiracy to arm Mexican drug cartels and cover-up the deaths of at least one American Border Patrol agent and hundreds -- or thousands of Mexican police, soldiers, judges, government officials and bystanders. This administration needs to "man-up" and stop it's whining and cowering. I think they already know that they are going to lose the WH and what is left of any progressive liberalism in the Senate. It is only now a matter of whether they leave with a tiny bit of dignity -- or get dragged out crying and groveling for mercy.
- Reply to this comment
- Who really killed Travon Martin.?? The criminal element did.!! If there were not an epidemic of crime in Forida and the Nation due to total disregard for law and order, then this would never have happened. So to the theives and criminals before him..You killed Trevon. They know who they are.
- Reply to this comment
- Fast a Furious didn't work, so nobama and biden are trying to use the death of a young boy to pass their socialist agenda. Typical Alinsky tactic, Never let a crisis go to waste. Hey joe ****!
- Reply to this comment
- Biden never knows when to keep his mouth shut. Conservatives are already in a tizzy trying to defend George Zimmerman because they are more worried about their guns than justice. Now it will get worse.
- Reply to this comment
- What exactly constitutes a threat of violence that justifies use of lethal force under an SYG law. Is it different for a 60 year old than a 30 year old? Is it different for a 200lb individual and a 98lb individual? Is it different for a man or a woman? Does a person need to make some observed aggressive action or can he be shot because his fashion sense clashes with what a permit holder considers appropriate and non-threatening?
- Reply to this comment
- by mikethep April 1, 2012 1:01 PM EDT
really_insane doesn't understand the problem. All he/she can do is expound on his/her unsubstantiated "stalking" theory and complain about gun laws.
----
Once again at what age does a child lose protection of stalking laws especially as it pertains to adults? Do you support pedophiles and others that would do harm to children BY NOT providing them stalker protection? - Reply to this comment
- Gun control NO. Gun licensing YES. Just like we license automobiles. With a points system to revoke gun licenses. Under the influence laws for those with carry permits. Mandatory training and proficiency tests for those desiring to hold carry permits. Use reviews that would involve determining acceptable use, teaching moments or revocation of licenses depending on the actions of the licensed individual.
- Reply to this comment
- Biden has the IQ of a potato. He is clearly offering his uninformed opinion about owners getting shot by their own gun.
Why does government try to con us with the line that they want to protect people from themselves?
We own GUNS because we DON'T TRUST GOVERNMENT!! - Reply to this comment
