Another Solution?

The Governor of Florida is proposing a new law. The new addition would expand the “right” to self defense to include defense in the face of mob violence. I’m not against it. I’m just not sure it is necessary. Here is the rhetoric as reported by the press.

Here is the actual language of the proposed legislation.

It is almost like the media didn’t bother to read the proposed legislation.

I’m going to try and differentiate the concept of property crimes and crimes against persons in the simplest manner. I’ll start by paraphrasing that old philosophical sophomoric question: “If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it fall…does it make a sound?”

If an ANTIFA turd throws a rock or a firebomb at a building while shouting “Burn Baby Burn” and there is nobody around to hear it is that a property crime? Yes. Is it a crime of violence? Yes. Is it a crime against persons? Probably not. Is it an inherently dangerous felony involving a destructive device? Yes. Should the ANTIFA turd be shot? As a practical matter who is around to do the shooting?

How about if there is somebody around to hear and object. If the building is occupied, the actions above become a an inherently dangerous felony, involving a deadly weapon, directed against the building and any occupants. It doesn’t matter whether the ANTIFA turd knew it was occupied. It is a crime against the people within and they have no obligation to retreat and every right to defend themselves.

The building occupants don’t have to wait for the bomb to be thrown. Merely lighting the wick coupled with the shouted slogans should be enough to justify the use of deadly force.

What about the other rioters? I don’t know how Florida feels about accomplices. In Texas there is no such thing. All of the people acting with the bomb thrower are principles in the offense.

This sets up another scenario. The ever popular roadblock. Again compare and contrast. A carjacker runs up to a car at a stop light, breaks the driver’s window, jerks the driver out of the seat and the car jacker and friends drive off.

BLM terrorists surround a car, restrict its movement while shouting threats and beating on the car.

In each case the car sustains damage. A property crime? Nope. The car is an inanimate object under the control of the occupants. Carjacker or BLM terrorists, the objective is to confront the occupants. The determining factor in establishing the appropriate use of force comes down to the imaginary “reasonable man.”

With the election of Soros sponsored District Attorney’s the “reasonable man” as was commonly understood is soon to be on the endangered species list. But until that time, the test is how would a reasonable man perceive the current situation and how would he respond? Fear of scratched paint work? Nope. Uncouth behavior? Nope. Late for an appointment? Nope. How dare they… Wrong again.

Try this. Out numbered? Custer had better odds. The presence of weapons. Clubs, don’t forget skateboards. Damaging the vehicle demonstrate a willingness to use violence and break the law. Shouts and threats to do bodily harm or kill? It is reasonable to take rioters at their word. They have never lied to you previously. A promise of future violence, or do harm that is clearly impossible and doesn’t make it. Given the high number of sexual deviants a threat to: “fuck you until your nose bleeds may be viable.”

In case the reader is unaware there is a “how to” video on the Internet describing how to swarm a vehicle, gain entry, disable seatbelts and drag the occupants out of the car. Here is an example of what happens when you leave your vehicle during a riot.

The final point is that all of these rioters are acting in concert towards a common goal. The guy breaking the driver’s window can only accomplish that task because of the people surrounding the vehicle. If a reasonable man would be in fear for his life then drive on! No fair backing up and doing it a second time.

Who can forget Reginald Denny

It is understandable why Gov. DeSantis would consider such legislation. He is faced with prosecutors who refuse to enforce existing law and lie to the public.

“It also allows for death to be the punishment for a property crime — and that is cruel and unusual punishment. We cannot live in a lawless society where taking a life is done so casually and recklessly.”

former Miami-Dade County prosecutor Denise Georges

First the ban on cruel and unusual punishment is one directed towards government, after a trial and upon conviction. It has nothing to do with preventing the completion of a crime under circumstances where the use of deadly force is authorized. In a liberal world throwing a Molotov cocktail is “peaceful protest”, but shooting the bomb thrower is reckless violence.

In popular culture the good guy has to say, “Freeze, Stop or I’ll shoot, or Make my day” prior to shooting the bad guy. The reality is that the penal code does not require any such warning. The fact that the bad guy engages in specified prohibited conduct justifies the use of force. Ever hear a police sniper shout drop the gun, prior to taking the shot?

When I began working as a cop there was the story of a Fort Worth cop who had been commended and fired for the same act. Back then a common police tactic was to put out “shotgun squads.”

These officers were deployed to locations in response to an uptick in armed robberies. Prime locations were Mom and Pop convenience stores, liquor stores and pharmacies. The Christmas season usually saw an increase in robberies. Officers would stake out the stores and wait for a robber to arrive and announce a stick up. The clerk would duck, the cop would step out, announce his presence, the robber would turn in response to the announcement. The cop would take the turn as an aggressive act and the short career of the armed robber would come to an end.

In this instance the robber didn’t die. While in the hospital recovering from his wounds the robber admitted to a series of robberies. The cop got a commendation.

Months later, at trial, the officer testified that he announced his identity and presence, the robber turned pointing the gun in his direction, fearing for his life the officer fired and the suspect went down. Out of pure meanness the defense attorney put the defendant on the stand. He asked the defendant if the officer’s testimony was correct.

The bad guy admitted it was mostly true, but for the part about the officer’s announcement. The robber stated that he didn’t recall the cop shouting police. He related that what he heard was the cop shout, “Merry Christmas motherfucker!” then he shot me.”

The police Chief having no sense of humor fired the officer. The officer challenged the firing and was subsequently reinstated.

The point is that the decision to live or die is vested in the actions of the felon. He/she knows that the conduct that they are engaged in goes against the law. They likely have an appreciation of the consequences of their actions. It is their rejection of societal rules that set the whole chain of events in motion. I’m of the opinion that blowing these assholes up is cause for celebration. After all they died doing what they wanted to do.