19 December 2007

Florida Road Rage A Lesson In Need For Ohio Castle Doctrine/No Duty To Retreat

Here's what happens when idiots on the freeway go into road rage and attack an innocent driver.
And don't think it couldn't happen here. But the ramifications would be far different up north than in the Sunshine State.

These two clowns in Florida would probably love to sue the guy who defended himself and his daughter. The civil courts for years have worked that way, letting criminals exploit the courts to get a payday as a result of their violent actions. But Florida has a Castle Doctrine/No Duty To Retreat law in place. It became effective October 1, 2005.

The Florida Senate passed the bill by a vote of 39 YEAS to zero NAYS. In the Florida House of Representatives, the vote was 94 YEAS to 20 NAYS -- a four-to-one margin. When the Florida law passed, Alan Korwin of Gunlaws.com commented about how media nationwide started in immediately with "its 'Gunshine State,' blood in the streets, Dirty Harry, vigilante, irrational mass murder nonsense, mythologies, lies and blatant unethical behavior."

Guess what? None of that stuff happened. Nada . . . Nyet . . . Non.

Just as when CCW passed in Ohio, people like Ed Jerse and others in the Ohio General Assembly whined that there would be "blood on the grass at Cleveland Stadium" and other places where people gather. Guess what? It hasn't happened.

But the road rage scenario would have a different ending in Ohio. In the Buckeye State, advocates are trying to pass common-sense legislation, Senate Bill 184, that would prevent people from being sued for exercising their basic human right of self defense. And already the long-knives are coming out . . . being sharpened by those either who don't like a piece of the bill, who hate guns and gun owners (a recommendation, get HELP -- hate is a sickness), or who have a built-in bias.

In Columbus, there is a TV reporter who has been snooping around this week trying to find someone who either plans to testify in favor of the bill, or who already has testified to its importance, in order to do a story on what "event" pushed them to want Castle Doctrine in place.

Could his line of questions imply he has already made up his mind? Is he uninterested in certain interview subjects because there is no sensational event tied to support, or because he disagrees with the very idea that an ordinary person would think this is common sense legislation?

See? A built-in bias that he does not even recognize. It's sad. It's pathetic. And it is all too real in urban journalism today.

Florida has it right. Ohio needs to lead, as well. Ask Hygens Labidou in Florida. He was an ordinary person prior to being a victim. And it doesn't matter whether you live in Florida or Ohio, or somewhere in between.

Everyone is an ordinary person prior to being a victim. And those who make the choice to defend themselves rather than be a victim, should not suffer the indignity and costliness of being robbed by the civil court system for defending themselves.

1 comment:

DianaK said...

I read of the story about the young man from northern ohio I think, who is defending himself against a criminal's family in a costly lawsuit. This is insane. This law needs to be passed and I don't know why anyone could possibly argue against it. I'll defend myself no matter what and the idea of being sued for protecting my children is ridiculous.