Peter Orr

Imagine you are in line, waiting to get into a baseball game. You become engaged in an argument with the person behind you, and things get out of hand. He threatens your life. What do you do? Do you run? Call for help? Or do you pull out your concealed weapon and shoot him?

A new bill is on its way to being passed in Florida to ensure your right to shoot that person. The media has already dubbed it the "Kill Bill" and the "Stand Your Ground" bill, and it passed the Florida House in a 94-20 vote on Tuesday, April 5. The bill already passed through the Florida Senate, and Governor Jeb Bush has indicated that he plans to sign it as soon as it turns up on his desk (source: http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/news/11320274.htm).

To be precise, the bill doesn't create a new law, but rather changes the old self-defense laws in Florida. Up until now, if a Floridian feels threatened in public, they are supposed to do whatever they can to escape the situation or avoid conflict. Now, the law encourages each citizen to "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" (source: http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/04/05/deadly.force.ap/). The idea behind the law is to "stop violent crime in its tracks" by ensuring citizens the right to defend themselves -- with lethal force if necessary -- when they feel endangered, without fear of liability or prosecution.

How is encouraging violence supposed to cut down on violent crimes? After all, isn't "keeping the peace" the primary reason America has police? Also, if the government is encouraging its citizens to take things into their own hands, isn't this a step away from our criminal justice system and towards vigilantism?

The people who support the bill claim that by promoting citizens to take care of themselves, violent criminals will be discouraged. Also, the bill supposedly promotes people's rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In the words of Jeb Bush, the governor of Florida, the bill is all about self-defense and is "a good, common sense, anti-crime issue."

What is the reasoning behind the bill? The bill's sponsor, state Rep. Dennis Baxley claims, "If I'm attacked I shouldn't have a duty to retreat. That's a good way to get shot in the back" (source: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=642856).

The response? "It legalizes dueling. It legalizes fighting to the point of death, without anybody having a duty to retreat," says state Rep. Dan Gelber.

Hasn't anybody considered that this bill is basically promoting violence on the street? If nobody involved in an argument feels a need to back down, isn't it more likely to escalate to the point of violence? Innocent people die every year, caught in the crossfire between police and criminals. Now, the government is suggesting that we have more citizens firing guns at criminals, rather than police officers who have been carefully trained in marksmanship. Won't this just increase the number of innocent people who are put at risk?

Also, those who oppose the bill have raised the question as to who determines what a legitimate threat is. The law states the defendant can use deadly force if they feel their life is threatened or they are in danger of "great bodily harm." At what point does this occur? What if someone merely vocalizes their desire to kill another? Does that constitute a legitimate threat? Or, does a person actually have to come after another person with a weapon? The government is leaving far too much freedom of interpretation in the hands of its citizens.

All in all, this is a complete step in the wrong direction. The main result from this law being passed will be death. More criminals will die from getting shot by citizens, more citizens will die from getting shot by criminals, and more bystanders will die from getting caught in the crossfire. If Florida really wanted to help their crime problem, they would institute programs to help get low-income families back on their feet and move people out of projects. After all, violence only results in more violence.