Menu Content/Inhalt

What is this?

CCW Training

Find CCW Instructors
Florida: Nine Months Later PDF Print E-mail
Written by Kim D. Campbell   
Saturday, 22 July 2006

It has now been a little over nine months since Florida's "deadly force" law went into effect with Governor Jeb Bush's signature - October 1, 2005 to be exact. And just what has been the result? Increased road rage? Disputes between neighbors erupting into gunplay? Tourists shot dead for looking at someone the wrong way? After all, these were among the dire predictions of the Brady Campaign and, in fact, they still sponsor the few lonely billboards warning tourists to exercise extra caution in "The Gunshine State."

Alas, the reality has been much more mundane. The sun still shines, the grass is still green, and the birds still chirp merrily away. There have been at most a couple handful of cases that might be considered to fall under the new law. One, a "car repo" company owner defending himself from an aggravated "customer" who managed to jump in his car and try to run him down, and an electronics repair store owner who felt he and his family were threatened by a six-time convicted felon. A far cry from the mayhem we were supposed to see.

The Jacksonville Florida Times-Union recently did an article on the law and its effects accurately entitled "Deadly-force law has an effect, but Florida hasn't become the Wild West." In part, the article states -
Predictions flew across Florida last summer that the deadly force law would turn the state into a Wild West environment where shootings flared during everyday confrontations. With the law on the books for nine months, prosecutors and defense attorneys say the changes have actually been more subtle.

Before we go on, let's review what the law does - and doesn't - do. As written in Florida Statutes Chapter 776, Justifiable Use of Force, the new law actually has three important provisions:

1. No "duty to retreat," i.e., one is able to meet "force with force" (776.012)

2. "Presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm" while in one's home or vehicle - to wit, "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." (776.013(4))

3. Relief from civil liability. This, arguably, may be the most important aspect of the new law, yet oddly receives the least attention from "all the usual suspects." Historically a person who's been involved in a self-defense shooting but cleared of any possible criminal wrong doing has only made it past the first hurdle. They were then looking at a second mortgage on the house to defend themselves against the (almost) inevitable civil suit for wrongful death or injury. Even if they win, they lose. No more. "It shall be a defense to any action for damages for personal injury or wrongful death, or for injury to property, that such action arose from injury sustained by a participant during the commission or attempted commission of a forcible felony. The defense authorized by this section shall be established by evidence that the participant has been convicted of such forcible felony or attempted forcible felony, or by proof of the commission of such crime or attempted crime by a preponderance of the evidence." (790.085) There are other provisions, not least of which that should a "victim" decide to pursue a civil case no matter what - loser pays. And that includes the lawyer that took the case.

What makes the third point so noteworthy is that it did not exist in any shape or form prior to October 1 of last year. The first two points, while not on the books, were generally accepted case law in Florida for quite some time - so all they did was codify what was already common practice.

What the new law does not do is authorize one to just use deadly force willy-nilly. The following provision is still present: "He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another..." (790.012(1))

Now - back to our article. Two local prosecutors were interviewed. One believes the law has made his job more difficult, the other sees no impact one way or another. This, from a criminal defense attorney:
"We expected the larger impact to be in trials, with people jumping into court because of shootings and lots of shouting from the rooftops. That's not happening," said Jacksonville lawyer Russell Smith, president-elect of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

And this, from a local prosecutor is interesting:
Shorstein, whose office covers Duval, Clay and Nassau counties, agreed that the law has hindered prosecutors. Although his office has only cited it a few times among this year's homicides, he believes it has had a wider influence that is prevalent, but difficult to document.

So, he's certain it's had an effect, he just can't prove it. Doesn't seem very "lawyer-like." And finally, another prosecutor chimes in:
State Attorney John Tanner, whose office covers Flagler, Putnam, St. Johns and Volusia counties, said he can't blame the deadly-force law for any increase in homicides in his jurisdiction.

"And I would notice it because I personally review all homicides in the 7th Circuit -- even vehicular," Tanner said.

But what do the people think of it? Funny you should ask. Because the Florida Times-Union did just that. At the end of the cited article they asked "What do you think? Was the 2005 deadly-force law a good idea? Has it created a dangerous expansion of Florida's self-defense laws or strengthened a valuable legal principle? E-mail brief comments to..." And the answer might - or might not - surprise you:
"T-YOU: It's unanimous, law is good for citizens, bad for criminals "

Good grief! Unanimous?!? They didn't get a single negative response? Well, if they did they certainly didn't print it. A few random comments from respondents:
"The passing of last year's self-defense law was way overdue. It should be every citizen's right and duty to protect himself and his family at home or away."

"The new law is a good law. No one should feel free to threaten others with impunity just because they are in public."

"The 2005 deadly force law is definitely a good law. Unfortunately, it was a little late in coming."

Keep in mind these are not "gun nuts." They're average folks that responded to an informal survey by the Times-Union. And, to their credit, T-U printed them. How many Ohio papers would do so?

No duty to retreat, presumption of fear or death during a home invasion/robbery, protection from civil liability - these are concepts that used to be taken for granted. Sadly, we now have to have laws passed to enact common sense. The gun control bunch like to make lofty statements like "violence never solves anything." Well, along with just about everything else they say (remember the "blood in the streets" predictions?), they're wrong about that, too. Sometimes, sadly, violence is the only solution - particularly when confronted with raw, naked violence.