Florida's new law

[dreampilot79]

OK, I know I should go get some gun training. Hubby is on my ass about it all the time. He only recently started working the weekend graveyard shift at a second job.

I don't like it and I really don't know if I would shoot it. I keep it out so hubby feels better. I personally just pray no one tries to enter my home and if they do that my very large dog will make them regret it.

The dog is probably a better choice of weapon!!!!!

 

[Op_Cit]

You having a firearm GURANTEES a gunfight if you confront a bad guy.

OK, that's not an ignorant statement, it is a stupid statement. (Ignorance is not a bad thing, it is ignorance of one's ignorance that is bad.)

Do some research. You will find that the majority of incidents end without a shot fired, and a significant percentage of those times the gun is not even drawn.

Perhaps you do not realize that you only (99.9999% of the time) hear about incidents on the news when the gun is fired.

There was a paper published last year in some scientific journal about gun violence that has been since totally discredited. They based all their figures defining a true statistics on only what got printed in the newspapers.

 

[dreampilot79]

OK, that's not an ignorant statement, it is a stupid statement. (Ignorance is not a bad thing, it is ignorance of one's ignorance that is bad.)

Do some research. You will find that the majority of incidents end without a shot fired, and a significant percentage of those times the gun is not even drawn.

Perhaps you do not realize that you only (99.9999% of the time) hear about incidents on the news when the gun is fired.

There was a paper published last year in some scientific journal about gun violence that has been since totally discredited. They based all their figures defining a true statistics on only what got printed in the newspapers.

OK.. I grant you that there is the possibility that an armed confrontation will not result in shots actually fired.. but rushing to confront an armed criminal VASTLY increases the odds of that situation.

I might also point out that in the vast majority of cases where shots are fired... everyone involved MISSES!

 

[Op_Cit]

OK.. I grant you that there is the possibility that an armed confrontation will not result in shots actually fired.. but rushing to confront an armed criminal VASTLY increases the odds of that situation.

I might also point out that in the vast majority of cases where shots are fired... everyone involved MISSES!

Yes, they do miss. (You'd be appalled at how bad most cops are at shooting.)

But so what?

It is your natural right as a lifeform to defend yourself or others in the best manner available to you. Government can only try to make you think that natural rights are privileges.

Everybody always harps on guns, but what percentage of people driving cars have not taken highschool physics (let alone a real driving course--the kind that never mentions laws of man)?

A friend's father is an airline pilot. I asked about his FAA reviews (every six months?). You know, the simulator time where they throw problems at them like engine out on take off? He said, "Yeah, you usually blow it the first time, but they give you another chance." Is that scary or what? What if the RL problem the pilot encounters is 5 months from his last review?

(My first rating was glider: You only get one chance--every time-- to get it right, there are no go arounds.)

 

[R. Richard]

Most of the very rare cases in which someone attempts a night time residential burglary in my area wind up with the perpetrator dead. The householder has heard a noise and gotten up out of bed and deployed in a previously prepared position. When the burglar attempts to enter a bedroom, the last sound he hears is the report of the householder's hand gun. When the police arrive, the obviously very upset householder tells them, "I thought he had a gun in his hand. I was afraid for my life!"

The local police are a bunch of mentally and visually challenged wimps who's basic skill involves defense of the local doughnut shop. I am a very good shot with a large bore handgun. I have usually been able to win the County Fair shootout wherever I am. Here, I am good, but there are a lot of people who are in that same lead pack. If the burglar survives a night time residential burglary, the locals start to spend more time at the shooting range.

 

[dreampilot79]

I too, have done a touch of shooting with a handgun... been 25 years since I did any competitions... but... I wouldn't dream of a fair fight... make them come to you from a prepaired position... and shoot to kill....

I was never a police officer... just a lowley reporter.. back when they trusted us...

been there.. I call it 1 1/2 times.. once discovering just how much damage a .30-30 rifle can do to a police car while I got to shoot at the sucker from about 10 yards or so... never woulda believed I could miss a man at 10 yards with a 12 ga. full of 00 buck... but I did.. mostly cuz I kept ducking I suspect....

Figure if I can miss with a shotgun at 30 feet.. I got no business in a gun fight with a damn handgun!!!!... Oh yeah... I'm a A class skeet shooter....

The other gun fight I got myself into was actually first... and didn't really count.. wasn't a real gunfight... just sounded like one. Suspect in a field.. bunch of damn farmers and a few cops chassed him.... and somebody blew the holy hell outa a rabit and everybody but me and the cops decided the air belonged filled with bullets... oh well.. no harm no foul.

All I'm sayin is been there... done that... don't wanna do it again.

 

[SeaCat]

I originaly posted this to show people how things are changing here in Florida. I did not mean for it to get on the rant-o-matic, but it's been trying to. Maybe I should clarify my position on this bill.

personaly, while I agree with it, it does manage to scare the living crap out of me. I can see a lot of inocent people getting injured because of this law. I say that because the next logical step the state can take is to make it even easier for a person to carry concealed than it already is. I know people who carry concealed who I persoanly think shouldn't be allowed near sharp objects, much less firearms. Many of these people own and are willing to use high caliber, high capacity firearms. (Pre ban magazines are easily available.) These people rarely go to the range, and when they do spend hundreds of dollars throwing lead down range at a high rate and rarely even hit the target boards.
My next door neighbor, an elderly oriental woman who might weigh as much as one of my boots became scared because of the recent rash of shooting nearby. When she asked me what she should get, and when she showed me she was determined to purchase a firearm for home defense I told her to get what I consider the best home defense weapon out there. A 410 Shotgun loaded with number ten dropshot. She also goes to the range with my wife and I on a weekly basis. (Close range targets only for her.) I feel that it is unfortunate that our society has come to this point where an elderly woman has to worry about things like this, but it has.

As for me personaly, in the mid eighties I was involved in more heated exchanges than I could have believed possible outside of a war zone. I still have nightmares from it. I don't wish this on anyone, but I do know that it can and does happen. I made sure my wife knows how to shoot, and shoot well. She also is well versed in firearms safety. I pray that she never has to face someone. (I would prefer to go through that hell for her thank you very much.)

My view on women learning to shoot is unabashedly sexist and I make no appologies for it. I believe every woman should be able to defend herself, but I also believe they should never have to defend themself. (That's a job for those of us who are so stuck in the past we still believe in things like honor.)

Cat

 

[SeaCat]

I forgot to add. My favorite personal firearm for home defense is a Navy .32. Yeah I know I'm a sick bastard.

Cat

 

[SeaCat]

I see now the United States Senate is going to discus where people can carry concealed. This should be interesting.

Cat

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

I see now the United States Senate is going to discus where people can carry concealed . . .

In the future, assholes won't just be shooting off their mouths, eh?*








* Picking up the local vernacular.

 

[ozymandiask]

Guns, security and what happens

This thread scares me.

I know how to use a gun.
I have been trained to kill people with one .
I have utilised that training, the people who gave me the instructions to do so would probably say I was successful.

The thing most of you guys do not appreciate is that it is one thing to own a gun ,it is a second to know how to use it (ie be trained) , it is quite another to point a gun at another human being and pull the trigger with the conscious intention of killing them.

Killing is a learned process , to do it you have to overcome your own conditioning which shrieks at you ."don't do it". It ain't the Movies.

When you first pull a trigger in those circumstances you will be shaking with fear, you might be crying , or even shitting or vomiting (though they are more frequent afterwards), pissing yourself is quite common. And Guess what, a significant number of our men in action for the first time or two never fired a shot These days the army teaches soldiers not just how to shoot but how to kill as well, they're totally different issues.

If you think a gun will give you security remember that chances are you will not (be able) use it even in the circumstances. Just for practice make a determined effort to kill an animal or pin a photo of your most loved up as a target. I'll bet most of you cannot - because you are decent human beings.

The worst discovery of killing is that done once , the next time is easier and so on.
At that point you have discovered the fact that there is a Sergeant Mold in all of us.

Please don't ever ever imagine that there is any security in a gun, if so you are deluding your selves.

Sorry to be quite so serious but this issue really gets to me.

 

[Pure]

what i haven't seen remarked in this thread is that the law--which no one has posted-- apparently encourages self help. so it's part of a move to put policing in private hands. i can see a person calling the cops, in FLA "There's a man in my house." "Well, shoot the motherfucker. THEN if there's a problem get back to us."

This is frontier stuff or medieval approach. Let each have his private army.

 

[Pure]

The Law

url for the FLA senate version

http://www.flsenate.gov/cgi-bin/vie...ate/bills/billtext/html&Tab=session&Submenu=1

 

[Boxlicker101]

what i haven't seen remarked in this thread is that the law--which no one has posted-- apparently encourages self help. so it's part of a move to put policing in private hands. i can see a person calling the cops, in FLA "There's a man in my house." "Well, shoot the motherfucker. THEN if there's a problem get back to us."

This is frontier stuff or medieval approach. Let each have his private army.

I don't see it that way. I read the proposed change in the law and what it seems to say is that people have the right to defend homes or vehicles against intruders who are bent on robbery or injuring the rightful occupants. It says that crime victims no longer have to put up with it or run away from an intruder, but can defend themselves, even if the intruder is not armed. I think it's a good thing.

This is not a matter of "policing" per se, just allowing persons to have the rights they should have had all along. The cops will, presumably, still respond to a call for help, but now a crime victim who has defended himself or herself no longer has to prove that a criminal intended to rape or kill. We all know it takes at least a few minutes for the cops to respond and that is more than enough time for a perp to do his dirty deeds. This should make the bad guys think more carefully before doing their dirty work.

 

[Kassiana]

This should make the bad guys think more carefully before doing their dirty work.

I doubt it. When there were public hangings of pickpockets, pickpockets worked the crowds at the hangings.

I don't think people go into committing a crime believing they won't get away with it. I think they commit crimes either in a state of emotional shock (i.e. not thinking at all) or believing they will get away scot-free. Crimes were still committed when people policed themselves; crimes will continue now that people have the right to shoot someone committing a crime in their homes.

 

[R. Richard]

This thread scares me.

I know how to use a gun.
I have been trained to kill people with one .
I have utilised that training, the people who gave me the instructions to do so would probably say I was successful.

ozymandiask:
You make some very good points, items that people in this thread should read an think about. However I would like to expand on some of the points you make.

R. Richard knows how to use a gun. He obtained one illegally and taught himself how to shoot it, mainly by dry firing because he could not afford to pay for practice ammo.
R. Richard was never trained to kill people with a gun.
R. Richard was forced to kill in an emergency, self-defense situation. The police came, investigated and agreed with R. Richard's assessment of the situation. R. Richard was offered counselling after the event. R. Richard asked, "Counselling for what?" When the counselling for guilt and stress was explained to him, R. Richard thought it was some kind of a joke and still thinks so. R. Richard was 12-years-old at the time of the incident.
If you decide to break into R. Richard's home at night, please have next-of-kin identification on you, they will need it.

Some years ago a man broke into the house of a lady who lived down the steet from me. The lady shot the man dead. The force of the shot drove the man through a window and drew the attention of several of us. The woman was going through near hysterics when we got there. After I determined that there were no more invaders, I asked the woman a single question that calmed her down immediately. My question was, "Instead of shooting the man, why didn't you just let him kill your children and rape you?" The woman sputtered for a few seconds and then spit out, "No one will kill my children!!!" I then suggested that she reload and then we would try to find something to tack up over the broken window.

I have been in several armies. I can testify to the fact that there are "trained soldiers" who cannot and do not fire their weapons in combat. None of my trained soldiers have ever had the the problem. Some of my Commanding Officers had problems with my methods, none of them had trouble with the capabilities of my men.

I lived in New York City for a time. In NYC a homeowner is expected to stand politely by while armed criminals kill his children, rape his wife and daughters and take all of his posssessions. Later, a court of law will make matters right. I hope that all of you will pardon me, but the people running NYC are insane! A Mayor named Dinkins coddled criminals to the point that NYC became the basis for a movie titled "Escape From NYC." A Mayor named Giulliani came in and began enforcing the law. Crime dropped dramatically and Giulliani was regarded as one of the better Mayors NYC has ever had. Even so, Giulliani still would not let the citizens of NYC have self protection weapons. It is not unusual to have an armed home invader with a long record of violence, rape and robbery shot by a home owner, only to have the home owner jailed for illegal possession of the weapon he used to defend himself.

Even the people who will not let a homeowner defend his home are willing to let some mentally deficient wimp who has maybe a weeks training in firearms and a badge shoot people down. I have asked why and the only answer I have ever received is "Oh, they are police!"

As I said before, I live in an area where it is not only legal to own a gun, but also legal to openly carry said gun. We do not have a lot of accidental shootings because the local have gun safety hammered into them from the time they are small children. We do have shooting deaths, particularly down in bumtown. Most of the shooting deaths (both killor and killee) involve convicted felons who are not allowed to possess guns. Most of the convicted felons involved in the shooting deaths are on probation. I have tried to bring the matter of probation of felons on probation who kill up before the City Council. I am always interrupted by one or more City Councilpersons jumping up and giving a stirring, canned speech defending home, motherhood and the, by damn, American way of life!

 

[Pure]

New Florida Law--Protection of Persons and Property

Senate Bill SBO 436

by Senator Peaden

2-361A-05

CODING: Words stricken [[and bracketed]] are deletions [[made by the Senate]]; words underlined are additions [[[by the Senate]].

{{Note by pure: this is clearly very close to the final version.}}


1 A bill to be entitled

2 An act relating to the protection of persons

3 and property; creating s. 776.013, F.S.;

4 authorizing a person to use force, including

5 deadly force, against an intruder or attacker

6 in a dwelling, residence, or vehicle under

7 specified circumstances; creating a presumption

8 that a reasonable fear of death or bodily

9 injury exists under certain circumstances;

10 creating a presumption that a person acts with

11 the intent to use force or violence under

12 specified circumstances; providing definitions;

13 amending ss. 776.012 and 776.031, F.S.;

14 providing that a person is justified in using

15 deadly force under certain circumstances;

16 declaring that a person is not under a duty to

17 retreat if the person is in a place where he or

18 she has a right to be; creating s. 776.032,

19 F.S.; providing immunity from criminal

20 prosecution or civil action for using deadly

21 force;

25 Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:

26

27 Section 1. Section 776.013, Florida Statutes, is

28 created to read:

29 776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force;

30 presumption of fear of death or bodily injury.--

31

2

CODING: Words stricken [[and bracketed]]are deletions; words underlined are additions.


Florida Senate - 2005 SB 436
2-361A-05


1 (1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable

2 fear of imminent peril of death or bodily injury to himself or

3 herself or another when using defensive force that is intended

4 or likely to cause death or bodily injury to another if:

5 (a) The person against whom the defensive force was

6 used had unlawfully or forcibly entered or attempted to enter

7 a dwelling, residence, or vehicle or if that person had

8 removed or attempted to remove another from the dwelling,

9 residence, or vehicle; and

10 (b) The person using defensive force knew or had

11 reason to believe that an unlawful or forcible entry or

12 unlawful or forcible act had occurred.

13

14 A person does not have a duty to retreat from a dwelling,

15 residence, vehicle, or place where the person has a right to

16 be.

17 (2) A person who unlawfully enters or attempts to

18 enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is

19 presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful

20 act involving force or violence.

21 (3) As used in this section, the term:

22 (a) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any

23 kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or

24 conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile,

25 which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to

26 be occupied by people lodging therein at night, together with

27 the curtilage thereof.

28 (b) "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person

29 resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an

30 invited guest.

31

3


Florida Senate - 2005 SB 436
2-361A-05


1 (c) "Vehicle" means any conveyance of any kind,

2 whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport

3 people or property.

4 Section 2. Section 776.012, Florida Statutes, is

5 amended to read:

6 776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person

7 is justified in using the use of force that is intended or

8 likely to cause death or bodily injury,[[ except deadly force,]]

9 against another when and to the extent that the person

10 reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend

11 himself or herself or another against the [[such ]]other's

12 imminent use of unlawful force. [[However, the person is

13 justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she

14 reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent

15 imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or

16 another]] or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible

17 felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person

18 is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

Section 3. Section 776.031, Florida Statutes, is

20 amended to read:

21 776.031 Use of force in defense of others.--A person

22 is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against

23 another when and to the extent that the person reasonably

24 believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or

25 terminate the [[such]] other's trespass on, or other tortious or

26 criminal interference with, either real property other than a

27 dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her

28 possession or in the possession of another who is a member of

29 his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose

30 property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the

31 person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or

4

Florida Senate - 2005 SB 436
2-361A-05


1 she reasonably believes that the [[such]] force is necessary to

2 prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person

3 does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place

4 where he or she has a right to be.

5 Section 4. Section 776.032, Florida Statutes, is

6 created to read:

7 776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil

8 action for justifiable use of force.--

9 (1) A person who uses force as described in s.

10 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such

11 force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action

12 for the use of such force.

13 (2) A law enforcement agency may use standard

14 procedures for investigating the use of the force, but the

15 agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it

16 determines that probable cause exists showing that the force

17 that was used was unlawful.

18 (3)(a) The court shall award attorney's fees, court

19 costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses

20 incurred by the defendant in defense of the criminal

21 prosecution if the court finds that the defendant is immune

22 from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

23 (b) As used in this subsection, the term "criminal

24 prosecution" includes wrongfully arresting, detaining in

25 custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant. The law

26 enforcement agency or state attorney that brought the criminal

27 prosecution is liable to the defendant for the payment of fees

28 and costs.

29 (4) The court shall award attorney's fees, court

30 costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses

31 incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action

5

Florida Senate - 2005 SB 436
2-361A-05


1 brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant

2 is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1). The

3 plaintiff and the plaintiff's attorney are jointly and

4 severally liable to the defendant for the payment of fees and

5 costs.

6 Section 5. Section 776.041, Florida Statutes, is

7 amended to read:

8 776.041 Use of force by aggressor.--The justification

9 described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not

10 available to a person who:

11 (1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping

12 after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

13 (2) Initially provokes the use of force against

14 himself or herself, unless:

15 [[ (a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably

16 believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or

17 great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every

18 reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of

19 force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to

20 the assailant; or]]

21 [[ (b)]] in good faith, the person withdraws from physical

22 contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the

23 assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the

24 use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use

25 of force.

26 Section 6. This act shall take effect upon becoming a

27 law..

 

[Boxlicker101]

I doubt it. When there were public hangings of pickpockets, pickpockets worked the crowds at the hangings.

I don't think people go into committing a crime believing they won't get away with it. I think they commit crimes either in a state of emotional shock (i.e. not thinking at all) or believing they will get away scot-free. Crimes were still committed when people policed themselves; crimes will continue now that people have the right to shoot someone committing a crime in their homes.

I have read about these pickpockets too but life was much harsher at that time and that place. For many, it was a matter of steal or starve. Thieves and other petty criminals knew they would get caught and be hanged eventually, but they went ahead because it was better than the alternative. Not that life is all that easy now but it is easier than it was then.

Most thieves and armed robbers expect to get away with it but they know there is a chance they will get caught. They plan and think about what they are doing. Seldom will somebody commit such a crime on the spur of the moment.The new law will add a very large additional element of risk and some potential criminals may well decide the risk isn't worth it. You are probably right that there will still be robberies and burglaries in Florida but not as many of them, especially after a few perps have been killed or injured.

 

[matriarch]

The problem with laws like that is you end up with cases like the one here where a guy caught someone breaking into his truck to steal his stereo and ran out to confront him. The would be burgler ran and the son of a bitch shot him in the back as he ran down the street. No charges were brought. "Self defense" and all. How shooting an unarmed man in the back from a distance can possibly be thought of as self defense is beyond me.

Wanna guess which one of them was white? Or wonder what the charges would have been if their races had been the other way around?

Exactly this scenario happened in UK, a farmer who had been the victim of many burglaries, laid in wait, and the next time, shot the burgler in the back - killed him - as he was leaving the house through the window. The farmer was arrested, charged with murder, ended up in prison. One of the others sued the farmer..........the whole thing was crazy.

Tony Martin - Norfolk farmer

 

[Pure]

R Richard

A nice Wyatt Earp speech, but a couple questions:

RR: A Mayor named Giulliani came in and began enforcing the law. Crime dropped dramatically and Giulliani was regarded as one of the better Mayors NYC has ever had. Even so, Giulliani still would not let the citizens of NYC have self protection weapons.
---

So the dramatic reduction did not depend on the FLA approach and putting a gun in the hands of every citizen. Sort of undercuts your arguement, doesn't it???

RRL It is not unusual to have an armed home invader with a long record of violence, rape and robbery shot by a home owner, only to have the home owner jailed for illegal possession of the weapon he used to defend himself.

As to 'not unusual'-- supply figures and source as to how many homeowners shooting invading felons were jailed. For the sake of argument, do you think it was more than one *per year*.? Any evidence or do you just kinda make things up?

What you ignore, is, given the present level of ownership in NY, absent carte blanche to possess: 1) how many kids per year die from playing with the gun in the home, and 2) how many persons person die when, in the dark, there is a mistake and they are shot by a family member.

 

[Pure]

Just to inject a note of reality to R Richards imagination of jailed homeowners, here's a brief summary of the famous 'subway vigilante' case, where Goetz shot four black youths who surrounded him and demanded money.

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Cohen1.html


Review of: A CRIME OF SELF-DEFENSE: BERNHARD GOETZ AND THE LAW ON TRIAL. By George P. Fletcher. The Free Press, 1988. Pp. xi, 253.

Lloyd R. Cohen*

[associate professor of law]

[begin excerpt]

On December 22, 1984 at one o'clock in the afternoon Bernhard Hugo Goetz entered the downtown IRT train at the 14th Street station in Manhattan with a loaded five shot 38 caliber Smith and Wesson revolver concealed in his belt holster.[2] There [Page 1262] were some twenty to twenty-five people in the car, including a group of four young black men: Troy Canty, Barry Allen, James Ramseur, and Darrell Cabey. Goetz sat down across from the youths. Moments later Canty and Allen, followed by Ramseur and Cabey rose and surrounded Goetz. Canty then demanded five dollars. Goetz, feigning a lack of understanding asked Canty to repeat his request. Canty responded, "Give me your money."[3] Goetz stood up, and while supporting himself by one of the poles, reached inside his jacket, drew his revolver, and fired in rapid succession from left to right at Canty, Allen, Ramseur, and twice at Cabey. All, save one of the shots at Cabey, hit their mark. The conductor, who was in another car, hearing the shots, pulled the emergency brake cord. As the train screeched to a halt mid-station, Goetz reassured two female passengers cowering on the floor, and after brushing past the inquisitive con- [Page 1263] ductor, climbed down onto the tracks through the opening between two cars and disappeared. So began the saga of New York's "Subway Vigilante."[4]

Professor George Fletcher's book, A Crime of Self-Defense: Bernhard Goetz and the Law on Trial, has provided us with an eminently readable account of the incident and its aftermath. The central theme of his work is a detailed discussion of the salient legal issues as they arose at various stages of the proceedings and how those issues were addressed by the attorneys, the judge, and the jury. [...]

II. VIGILANTEISM IN THE GOETZ CASE

That Fletcher's book is in so many ways so good makes it all the more frustrating that he all but misses the main issue of the Goetz case. That issue is the legitimacy or illegitimacy of vigilanteism in 1980s America. Fletcher apparently fails to see the centrality of vigilanteism to the course of the proceedings and to the outcome of the case because he has no sympathy for it. He has admitted that despite having been present at the entire trial including the private pre-trial screening of the jurors he grossly mis-predicted the outcome. Fletcher would have found Goetz guilty of some of the more serious charges and believed that the jury would do so as well.[5] The jury, however, found Goetz innocent of seventeen of the eighteen charges including all the more serious ones.
----
[end excerpt]

[Goetz ended up serving 8 mos in prison on the 'possession of a firearm' charge.']

 

[Poussin]

.....

 

[cantdog]

Another dead-on post from Poussin.

 

[Poussin]

.....

 

[BlackSnake]

One thought, buy a bullet proof vest.