Florida "No Retreat" law in action

AP Wire | 05/06/2006 | Jacksonville man fatally shoots robber; son injured in shooting

I understand that this article will remain available online for "a limited time", so here's the full text:

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. - A father fatally shot a man who tried to rob his family as they waited early Saturday in their sport utility vehicle for a summer camp enrollment to open, authorities said.

The alleged robber approached the driver's window, pointed a gun at the father and demanded money, Jacksonville Sheriff's Office spokesman Ken Jefferson told The Florida Times-Union.

He then ordered the family of five to unlock one of the SUV's doors, Jefferson said.

"The father, sensing something was wrong, decided to defend his family ... pulled out a gun and he shot and killed the suspect on the scene," Jefferson said.

It was not clear if the father was licensed to carry a gun, Jefferson said.

The father's 10-year-old son was somehow wounded during the shooting. Brevon Ricks remained hospitalized in critical condition late Saturday, officials said.

The names of the other family members and the alleged robber were not released.

The family had been parked at the entrance of McGirts Creek Park, waiting to enroll their children in a summer camp, authorities said.

Under a Florida law that took effect in October, people don't have to retreat before responding to an attack, and can use deadly force as long as they're in a place they legally have a right to be. It also gives immunity from criminal or civil charges to a shooter as long as the person shot is not a police officer.

I don't know at what point the father "[sensed] something was wrong", but it may have been when a stranger pointed a gun at him, and his family.

The article suggested that it was when the gun-wielding stranger "... ordered the family of five to unlock one of the SUV's doors."

Isn't that just like the press? They do tend to assume there's nothing wrong with pointing a gun at people, as if that is just everyday life. There's nothing happening here, folks, move along. Too much Television?

The reporter has obviously never had anyone poke a gun in his face. That seems like a first indicator that "something is wrong", but maybe it's just me.

Okay, we'll let the reporter slide on that one. It may be a telling commentary on the warped perspective of the media, but it's not the most important part of the story.

Nor is the fact that the father/potential victim had the foresight to carry a loaded firearm in what would ordinarily be considered a benign situation. Or that he had the courage (and the will to protect his family) to use it to avoid even more unpleasant circumstances.

Here's the important part of the story:

Under a Florida law that took effect in October, people don't have to retreat before responding to an attack, and can use deadly force as long as they're in a place they legally have a right to be. It also gives immunity from criminal or civil charges to a shooter as long as the person shot is not a police officer.

Put yourself in this man's place.

You're in a stopped car with your family. Some stranger points a gun at you. Is this the time to think about your legal responsibility to retreat before defending yourself?

I can imagine the father behind the wheel, his wife in the passenger seat, and perhaps a child between them and one or more (the story isn't clear on this) in the back seat.

Where was he going to retreat to? Would it have put anyone OUT of the line of fire?

Not hardly. Turning your back on a gun (which is the only way to 'retreat' in a car) won't protect you from taking a bullet. Interposing your body between the shooter and your family won't guarantee their safety, either. Anyone mad enough to assault a car-bound family is mad enough to kill them all. Passivity is not a workable solution, as Perry Smith ("In Cold Blood") could tell you. If he was still alive. As the Clutter family could tell you. If they were still alive.

There are enough examples in recent (50 years?) American History to establish the fact that passivity is a real good way to get yourself killed, and your entire family with you. Fighting back isn't a guarantee that you or your family will survive a potentially fatal encounter with a gun-wielding stranger, in whole or in part, but this story shows that it's at least a viable alternative.

What if the law in Florida required the victim to retreat before defending himself, and his family? He had no viable options, other than (a) trust in the good judgement of an armed assailant, and (b) trusting that The State would ignore current law and let him off the hook for ignoring the legal Catch-22 for defending his family without first 'retreating'?

The father may have effected the same immediate results, but he would still have lost. A vindictive state could have tied him up for YEARS with trials, motions and procedures. Lawyers aren't cheap; he could have lost much more the money in his pocket at the time, just defending himself for defending himself.

At best.

At worst, he might have dallied instead of acted. He could have been murdered, his whole family could have been murdered before his eyes before he was murdered, just because he wasn't sure he had a right to defend himself.

This is a vindication of the wisdom of the Florida voters, who gave him a clear right legally acknowledged his right to defend himself and his family.

In a situation where there is no clear solution, there now IS a clear solution.

No longer must we jump through legal hoops to defend ourselves.

No longer must we hesitate, wondering whether a situation which is painfully clear to the man on the spot will be as obvious to a jury, months or years later.

Today, in Florida, if you're threatened ... if your family is threatened ... you are legallly permitted to take the appropriate action and defend your family.

This seems like a situation which, in The Wild, Wild West, would have been a no brainer. Instead, in most states, the right to defend your family has been so clouded to the detriment of the honest citizen, the instinctual need to react has been put into a strangle-hold.

Here's a cheer for Florida, where somebody has realized that villains plot against good people, and the rest of us need the freedom to act.

I hope the rest of the nation will notice, and take heed.

No retreat. When bad men pull a gun on a family, they are a lawful target.

I may be a pollyanna, but I think that as carjackers learn that they run a serious risk of being shot, they may find a different business.

UPDATE:
Please note the strike-through above. Reader Austin Mike kindly pointed out that I had said Florida voters gave the father the right to defend himself. He already had that right.
Thanks again, Mike.