NationStates Jolt Archive

I, for one, welcome this far-sighted legislation.

TALLAHASSEE, Florida (AP) -- Gov. Jeb Bush said Tuesday he intends to sign a bill that would allow people who feel threatened -- even on the street or at a baseball game -- to "meet force with force" and defend themselves without fear of prosecution.

Over recent years I've noticed a general lack of manners and courtesy in general society. Normal etiquette, once common, has gone by the wayside, and the hoi-polloi are now constantly threating to kick, beat or bust each other's 'asses' over the most trivial of reasons - parking spots, sneakers, lines in movie theaters and the like.

This general coarsening of society is indicitive of a loss of decorum which used to be the grease that let the wheels of society run smoothly, and, I believe, is the ultimate cause of much of the stress and anxiety many people suffer in today's America. If we could only return to the days where people scrupulously observed the rules of social intecourse, instead of constantly verbally abusing each other and engaging in rampant jackassery, then hopefully we could return to a society that manifested less strife and anxiety in general. After all the conection is clear; so much of life in the early part of the twenty-first century is confrontational, and naturally this turmoil spills over into our private lives and public discourse. It is inconcievable that a well mannered society would tolerate the type of shennangins that politicians regularly engage in. Moreover, the habit of politness, once inculcated, becomes habitual, leading us to a more tranquil domestic life with our families.

Because of this, I am happy to see that Florida is taking steps to enforce the habit of manners.


The bill says a person has "the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so, to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another."

Though it doesn't go quite as far as I would like, it surely is an important step in the right direction.

Of course, I expect there to be more shootings in the months immediately after the law first becomes effective. Neverthess, once those who are incapable of showing the proper manners have been permanently 'excluded' from society - and the gene pool - I believe that there will be a marked decrease in the number of public altercations as people regain the habit of proper manners.

I also expect it will have a positive effect in regards of domestic violence and mental health as well.

That is all.

I hope this does not degenerate into: "You looked at my funny, like you were going to try and kill me. I'll prevent this by harming you."

I hope this does not degenerate into: "You looked at my funny, like you were going to try and kill me. I'll prevent this by harming you."

Yes, I don't think that is covered. My point is though, if someone yells at you "I am going to beat/bust/break [delete as appropriate] your ass " - something that is all too common today - then you get to shoot them.

Frankly, many people today are deliberately rude and confrontational knowing that the law protects them. There is no reason to get in my face and shout: Ever! I welcome the fact that the next idiot who does that in Florida to someone may well get shot.

Yes, I don't think that is covered.
Well it's a very difficult issue to legislate because it involves a level of judgement, you have to use common sense and I find it dwindling in some people. :(

Holy moly, at last a solution to the Florida crisis. The state that gave us Anita Bryant, Dubya in the form of hanging chads, and the Terry Schiavo three-ring circus will finally take itself out.

Well it's a very difficult issue to legislate because it involves a level of judgement, you have to use common sense and I find it dwindling in some people. :(

Obviously, this is not carte blanche to shoot people, and there will always be review of any action. However, I believe the problem was originally that, under exsiting law, you always had a duty to retreat from any confrontation if possible, no matter how the provocateur was behaving. All this law does is remove that duty, allowing people the option to meet a threat with force if they choose.

Hopefully, it will encourage people to act in a more civilized manner.

Yay. Now when Florida helps to ruin America NEXT election, we can all go there for vacation.. get some flamers to start some arguments... muahahaha.

Yay. Now when Florida helps to ruin America NEXT election, we can all go there for vacation.. get some flamers to start some arguments... muahahaha.

This is exactly what I am talking about.

Just because your chosen candidate loses an election, doesn't mean that you should run around shouting at people and provoking fights. Rudeness has become so inculcated that we are not even aware of it.

Hopefully a few body bags will remind people to remind their P&Qs.

This is exactly what I am talking about.

Just because your chosen candidate loses an election, doesn't mean that you should run around shouting at people and provoking fights. Rudeness has become so inculcated that we are not even aware of it.

Hopefully a few body bags will remind people to remind their P&Qs.

1) I was kidding. I decided awhile ago to move to Canada or Australia if the country kept on voting in psychotic jackasses instead of the less-nasty sociopathic jackasses after this run. You want to ruin a beautiful country, you can do it without me.

2) You seem to be under the impression that people in Florida are all body building ninjas for some reason.

3) What in blazes do pints and quarts have to do with anything?

2) You seem to be under the impression that people in Florida are all body building ninjas for some reason.

No, but they have a lot of guns. ;)

This bill seems to legalize dueling, as each party in an argument could quite correctly and legally justify deadly force.

I think this is great. Unfortunately, this law comes too late to allow us to see a caged death match between Terri Schaivo and Elian Gonzalez.

I will settle though, for a gladiatoral combat between Don Johnson and that dreamy dude from CSI.

I suppose if I'm going to rob somone in florida i'll have to say "hey, do you have the time" and then shoot them to death instead of "hey, give me your wallet or i'll blow your brains out."

This bill seems to legalize dueling, as each party in an argument could quite correctly and legally justify deadly force.

I think this is great. Unfortunately, this law comes too late to allow us to see a caged death match between Terri Schaivo and Elian Gonzalez.

I will settle though, for a gladiatoral combat between Don Johnson and that dreamy dude from CSI.


They could have bill frist and tom delay do a death match, the loser hates terry schiavo.

Hmm...Not the most "culture of life" kinda stance I've ever seen.

As you say, an armed society is a polite society. Perhaps constant fear of leathal reprisals will prevent those public outbursts that inconvenince us with having to consider other people's feelings.

I wonder how this will effect riot control in Florida? Will riot police simply shoot and kill all the protestors who get unruly? It will be interesitng to see how they handle such newfound powers.

I for one, welcome such legislation. It will allow me to sharpen my skills and perfect my talents in the arts. Perhaps I shall take a trip, Disney World seems lovely; but god help anyone who threatens me after I take their parking spot.

No, but they have a lot of guns. ;)

Unless Florida is the hidden weapon license world record or something...

I was talking nice, non-deadly fist fights.

Otherwise I would have just said "Let's bring inner city LA" or something.

They should call this new law the Law of the Jungle.

what about delusional people? people on powerful medications that might promote paranoid episodes? What if a paranoid or disturbed person feels threatened? Do they have the right to be exonerated if they commit a murder in their altered state of mind?

Holy moly, at last a solution to the Florida crisis. The state that gave us Anita Bryant, Dubya in the form of hanging chads, and the Terry Schiavo three-ring circus will finally take itself out.
Don't forget, Florida is where Britney Spears and Limp Bizkit come from...

so let's encourage the destruction of florida.

Don't forget, Florida is where Britney Spears and Limp Bizkit come from...

so let's encourage the destruction of florida.


I ask this for the first time without a hint of sarcasm or irony.

When all the floridians are dead, should we put the bodies in mass graves or burn them in ovens?

but god help anyone who threatens me after I take their parking spot.

I actually have a very civilized method of dealing with people who rush in and 'steal' the parking spot I have been politely queuing for:

I smile and politely wave them in. I then park somewhere else. Manners cost nothing.

(Of course, I walk past their empty car ten minutes later and slash three of the tyres - a method which is most satisfying especially when the offender is a soccer mom in a vehicle packed with screaming children.)

what about delusional people? people on powerful medications that might promote paranoid episodes? What if a paranoid or disturbed person feels threatened? Do they have the right to be exonerated if they commit a murder in their altered state of mind?


They should never have been de-institutionalized in the first place. At least that's what the democrats tell me.

I ask this for the first time without a hint of sarcasm or irony.

When all the floridians are dead, should we put the bodies in mass graves or burn them in ovens?

I say dump them in the ocean. They'll provide good feeding for the bottom-dwellers.

They should call this new law the Law of the Jungle.

Hardly, I see it as a return to a more genteel time. Not initially perhaps, but once the dust settles.

I say dump them in the ocean. They'll provide good feeding for the bottom-dwellers.

Exactly. Shoot a Floridiot, save a Manatee!

Hardly, I see it as a return to a more genteel time. Not initially perhaps, but once the dust settles.


You're talking about *americans* lacadaemon.

They're all retirees or immigrants - meaning they're either old and weak or hungry and weak! We can take 'em!

You're talking about *americans* lacadaemon.

While there is no doubt that the adjusment period may, in fact, take longer than perhaps it would in, say, Norway, ultimately the worst offenders will be 'excluded' resulting in civilized social intercourse.

Okay... I was joking in my first post, but seriously:

Doesn't this law effectively legalize dueling? If two people are legally armed by permit, and they have a confrontation of some kind, could they not legally challenge each other to a shoot out? Or a sword fight? or a butcher knife duel? or a high speed demolition derby on the interstate?

I find this bill to allow for the homicides to be justified. I mean, how easy would it be for some schmuck in Jacksonburg to shoot someone and claim "he threatened me!"

What else do we expect from Jeb! though?

Okay... I was joking in my first post, but seriously:

Doesn't this law effectively legalize dueling? If two people are legally armed by permit, and they have a confrontation of some kind, could they not legally challenge each other to a shoot out? Or a sword fight? or a butcher knife duel? or a high speed demolition derby on the interstate?

Not quite, there has to be an active provocateur, and he or she would have no right to use force. This is quite unlike dueling, which is normally arranged through seconds in any case.

It will however impose penalties upon those who currently hide behind the letter of the law when engaging in blatantly rude and anti-social behavior. It will also give the general citizenry the right to shoot those who are abusive to others in public. I welcome it. I spend most of the year in NYC, and I am sick of the pseudo-macho uncouth behavior I regularly observe.

At least in florida, such unwelcome behavior will now carry a stiff penalty.

Though I can't imagine a high speed demolition derby on the interstate being condoned under any circumstances.

Though I can't imagine a high speed demolition derby on the interstate being condoned under any circumstances.

frickin' fascists. that'd be good. demo-derbs are my ethnic heritage and my rats should not be represt.

Not quite, there has to be an active provocateur, and he or she would have no right to use force. This is quite unlike dueling, which is normally arranged through seconds in any case.

It will however impose penalties upon those who currently hide behind the letter of the law when engaging in blatantly rude and anti-social behavior. It will also give the general citizenry the right to shoot those who are abusive to others in public. I welcome it. I spend most of the year in NYC, and I am sick of the pseudo-macho uncouth behavior I regularly observe.

At least in florida, such unwelcome behavior will now carry a stiff penalty.

Though I can't imagine a high speed demolition derby on the interstate being condoned under any circumstances.


You still dont realize that the national collective fantasy and high ambition of the united states is to find oneself in the position of "self defense" and therefore be able to kill a person legally.

I actually have a very civilized method of dealing with people who rush in and 'steal' the parking spot I have been politely queuing for:

I smile and politely wave them in. I then park somewhere else. Manners cost nothing.

(Of course, I walk past their empty car ten minutes later and slash three of the tyres - a method which is most satisfying especially when the offender is a soccer mom in a vehicle packed with screaming children.)

Hehe. The really sad one is the perfectly capable people who jump into handicapped spaces because they are "just running in". One of my friend's stepdad is a quadruplegic (thus they have the van, wheelchair lift, etc.). They were trying to go to the store once when they saw a woman with no handicap sticker/tag/etc. whip into the last handicap space and run inside. With nowhere to park, his wife parked the van directly behind the woman's car and went inside to do her shopping. She couldn't get him out without space, so he had to sit in the car. Imagine the look on that woman's face when her "quick run in" actually turned into "waiting for someone else to finish their entire shopping trip".

You still dont realize that the national collective fantasy and high ambition of the united states is to find oneself in the position of "self defense" and therefore be able to kill a person legally.

Yes, well they'll be dead soon enough, so I shan't worry about it.

Hehe. The really sad one is the perfectly capable people who jump into handicapped spaces because they are "just running in". One of my friend's stepdad is a quadruplegic (thus they have the van, wheelchair lift, etc.). They were trying to go to the store once when they saw a woman with no handicap sticker/tag/etc. whip into the last handicap space and run inside. With nowhere to park, his wife parked the van directly behind the woman's car and went inside to do her shopping. She couldn't get him out without space, so he had to sit in the car. Imagine the look on that woman's face when her "quick run in" actually turned into "waiting for someone else to finish their entire shopping trip".

I approve. Parking in handicapped spaces is disrespectful. I hope your friends really took their time.

I approve. Parking in handicapped spaces is disrespectful. I hope your friends really took their time.

Parking in a space reserved for handicapped people could easily be seen as a threatening act. Therefore you would be legally entitled to shoot them.

Parking in a space reserved for handicapped people could easily be seen as a threatening act. Therefore you would be legally entitled to shoot them.

I've often said that people who illegally park in a handicapped spot *should* be shot...

But no, I'll just keep calling parking on them.

Parking in a space reserved for handicapped people could easily be seen as a threatening act. Therefore you would be legally entitled to shoot them.

At the very least it is indicitive of a general lack of respect for the niceties of polite society. So yes, we would be better off without those people.

Frankly, I would find it immensly satisfying to see some troglodyte in 'joey-buttafucco' pants gunned down for parking his 'tricked out' Lincoln Navigator in a handicapped spot.

I've often said that people who illegally park in a handicapped spot *should* be shot...

But no, I'll just keep calling parking on them.

No, I think your first thought was correct. I am not the most, ummm..., munificent of people, shall we stay, but I do believe common decency requires things like handicapped spots and wheelchair access etc.

It really irritates me when selfish able-bodied people view them as some form of 'reserved' parking put their by the rest of us for their benefit. It just leads me to believe that they are the type of individual that looks as everyone else as suckers and that they view kindness as weakness.

No, we are clearly better off without them.

No, I think your first thought was correct. I am not the most, ummm..., munificent of people, shall we stay, but I do believe common decency requires things like handicapped spots and wheelchair access etc.

It really irritates me when selfish able-bodied people view them as some form of 'reserved' parking put their by the rest of us for their benefit. It just leads me to believe that they are the type of individual that looks as everyone else as suckers and that they view kindness as weakness.

No, we are clearly better off without them.

Well, maybe I should call you instead of parking when I see them then =)

Meanwhile, I have gotten all sorts of odd looks for checking people's cars for handicapped stickers - it's just that this is a particular pet peeve of mine. Most broken laws I just kind of ignore.

hmmm.... sticky situation.

to a certain extent i like it, i feel self defense is a very important right that we have gotten away from.

yet, i feel its a little too vague, and as was said above, there are too many people just waiting for someone to give them a reason to 'defend themselves' (basically, kill legally)

also, different people have very different ideas of threatening. im one of those people who doesnt smile much. im not scowling or anything, i just have a sorta neutral sorta look on my face. however, ive heard from many people that i look as if i am scowling, mad, etc. I also dont like talking to people i dont know(hell, i barely talk to those i do) mostly i just want to go about my business without being bothered. i cant count the number of times ive had some overly-friendly person say hello, or ask me some dumb question, and then get quite offended, or even irate because i just kept walking and ignored them.
now, i realize this is rude, but i dont feel i have any obligation to stop and say 'good morning' to everyone i meet. (besides, thats an oxymoron, theres no such thing as a 'good' morning)
anyways, most people are cool, just continue about there business. however, every now and then, i get the jackass whose ego is so fragile that they get so but-hurt cause some stranger didnt say 'good-morning' to them, that they have started to yell at me (which i also ignore, and keep walking away unless i here them approaching).

anyways, i guess what im getting at, is im willing to bet that these same sorts of jackasses would be one of the first people to start looking for perceived 'threats' and such.

again, not saying it should or shouldnt go through, just that a lot of thought should go into it, and it should be worded very carefully.

I, for one, welcome this far-sighted legislation.



Over recent years I've noticed a general lack of manners and courtesy in general society. Normal etiquette, once common, has gone by the wayside, and the hoi-polloi are now constantly threating to kick, beat or bust each other's 'asses' over the most trivial of reasons - parking spots, sneakers, lines in movie theaters and the like.

This general coarsening of society is indicitive of a loss of decorum which used to be the grease that let the wheels of society run smoothly, and, I believe, is the ultimate cause of much of the stress and anxiety many people suffer in today's America. If we could only return to the days where people scrupulously observed the rules of social intecourse, instead of constantly verbally abusing each other and engaging in rampant jackassery, then hopefully we could return to a society that manifested less strife and anxiety in general. After all the conection is clear; so much of life in the early part of the twenty-first century is confrontational, and naturally this turmoil spills over into our private lives and public discourse. It is inconcievable that a well mannered society would tolerate the type of shennangins that politicians regularly engage in. Moreover, the habit of politness, once inculcated, becomes habitual, leading us to a more tranquil domestic life with our families.

Because of this, I am happy to see that Florida is taking steps to enforce the habit of manners.



Though it doesn't go quite as far as I would like, it surely is an important step in the right direction.

Of course, I expect there to be more shootings in the months immediately after the law first becomes effective. Neverthess, once those who are incapable of showing the proper manners have been permanently 'excluded' from society - and the gene pool - I believe that there will be a marked decrease in the number of public altercations as people regain the habit of proper manners.

I also expect it will have a positive effect in regards of domestic violence and mental health as well.

That is all.
personally, i am quite sickened by this (and couldn't quite tell if you were joking or not - i'm going to assume not). it hardly shows a respect of the right to life, especially as it is undeniable that the system will be heavily abused to, literally, get away with murder.
you don't tell people who are threatening to beat up, or, worse, kill each other "do what you like (in self defense)" now do you? for a start, the victor is going to be the only one who can claim what threat they were defending themselves from (if lethal force is permitted) - and don't say "what about witnesses?" cos i'm sure the place this will be most abused is 'gangland warfare' (or whatever you want to call it) and people will stick up for their fellow gang member, or be intimidated into, shall we say, not being forthcoming with the truth... just like as happens already.

the fact that you say that abuse of the system - that lots of these people will be killing each other and thus will 'weed out the gene pool' - i find dispicable on moral grounds.

if i were american i would fight against this bill, and, being European, i feel relatively relieved (and sure) that nothing similar will be introduced over here.

while i may agree that society may be a better place if people had 'manners', i a) think that the stressses of the 21st century, as you described, are not just social problems, but correlate to the stressful and dog-eat-dog, competative world of modern business; b) i think that there is only a marginal portion of society that cause the majority of these social problems (townies/chavs in the UK, whatever you want to call them in the US) and letting everybody do what they want in self defense is NOT going to solve anything; and c) i think it is plain stupid and has, as i said, no regard for the (not necessarily religious) sanctity of human life - i actually think it will make Florida a much more dangerous place, not safer.
if you are saying (and i think i picked this up from your OP) that my objections above are what will happen in the short term, but in the long term society will change to have its manners back (the end justifies the means), then i don't think anything will change in the long term, and also many of my criticisms above still stand; plus, i don't like Machiavellism

what about delusional people? people on powerful medications that might promote paranoid episodes? What if a paranoid or disturbed person feels threatened? Do they have the right to be exonerated if they commit a murder in their altered state of mind?
The prosecutors can still try to show that you acted irresponsibly, but you no longer have to retreat if they're coming after you with a knife or somesuch. If you didn't do that before this was passed, than no matter how murderous your attacker you would still be charged with that stupid duty to retreat bullshit.

The prosecutors can still try to show that you acted irresponsibly, but you no longer have to retreat if they're coming after you with a knife or somesuch. If you didn't do that before this was passed, than no matter how murderous your attacker you would still be charged with that stupid duty to retreat bullshit.


generally, i think retreating/avoiding is the better option, but i dont really think it should be the _only_ option.

any ideas on why they just didnt remove the 'duty to retreat' bit?

just curious

Dude why are you referencing the CNS?

I, for one, welcome this far-sighted legislation.



Over recent years I've noticed a general lack of manners and courtesy in general society. Normal etiquette, once common, has gone by the wayside, and the hoi-polloi are now constantly threating to kick, beat or bust each other's 'asses' over the most trivial of reasons - parking spots, sneakers, lines in movie theaters and the like.

This general coarsening of society is indicitive of a loss of decorum which used to be the grease that let the wheels of society run smoothly, and, I believe, is the ultimate cause of much of the stress and anxiety many people suffer in today's America. If we could only return to the days where people scrupulously observed the rules of social intecourse, instead of constantly verbally abusing each other and engaging in rampant jackassery, then hopefully we could return to a society that manifested less strife and anxiety in general. After all the conection is clear; so much of life in the early part of the twenty-first century is confrontational, and naturally this turmoil spills over into our private lives and public discourse. It is inconcievable that a well mannered society would tolerate the type of shennangins that politicians regularly engage in. Moreover, the habit of politness, once inculcated, becomes habitual, leading us to a more tranquil domestic life with our families.

Because of this, I am happy to see that Florida is taking steps to enforce the habit of manners.



Though it doesn't go quite as far as I would like, it surely is an important step in the right direction.

Of course, I expect there to be more shootings in the months immediately after the law first becomes effective. Neverthess, once those who are incapable of showing the proper manners have been permanently 'excluded' from society - and the gene pool - I believe that there will be a marked decrease in the number of public altercations as people regain the habit of proper manners.

I also expect it will have a positive effect in regards of domestic violence and mental health as well.

That is all.

this law will be necessary...

a)So long as kids are not taught discipline, empathy, and respect for others by their parents... as long as kids continue to be unleashed upon society as spoiled brats who treat others like crap.

b)So long as there are such mental maladies as the various forms of schizophrenia and, worst of all, sociopathy.

(of course, we should feel badly for those with schizophrenia... it is terrible. Schizophrenics, when they are psychotic (that is, when they're out of it..), have no idea what's going on. Sociopaths, on the other hand, have no concern -- at all -- for others' rights and well-being, and are GENERALLY cogent enough to know what they're doing.)