Darren Glaude, Seminole County Watch columnist

There was a time, not long ago, when violence was considered the refuge of last resort.  The goal was a less-violent society that placed a premium on reducing senseless acts of violence.  Part of government's protection of its citizens included penalties for acting in a capricious manner with a wanton disregard for the safety of others.

The government, at least in Florida, now takes a different approach, and thinks it healthy to encourage acts of violence among its citizens.

Governor Jeb Bush signed on April 26 a new law that now allows people in public places to retaliate with force if they feel threatened.   The law previously read that a person acting in self-defense outside the home, workplace or car must use every reasonable means necessary to avoid danger before using deadly force.  That law was in effect for 30 years and came about in a successful effort to reduce unnecessary violence in public places.

The new law was fostered under the auspices of the National Rifle Association, and extended the legislation beyond its original intent.

When first introduced this spring, the legislation sought to allow a person to use deadly force when attacked inside their home.  At the urging of the NRA, the law was expanded to extend beyond the home.

The law now says:  

"A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be." A person who uses force in such cases and is not violating another law could not be charged with a crime or sued.

It also says a person has "the right to stand his or her ground and 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."

The bill was sponsored by Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala, who maintains "what this does is empower law-abiding citizens to stop violent crime in its tracks."

Maybe so, but it does much more than that.  It now gives literal license to anyone who feels threatened to use deadly force in response, even when the option exists to remove themselves from harm's way without resorting to violence.

As Rep. Dan Gelber, D-Miami Beach, said, "For a House that talks about the culture of life, it's ironic that we would be devaluing life in this bill, which is exactly what we're doing."

The original intent of the law was worthy and legitimate.  Even the concept that people in public places should be allowed to defend themselves is obviously sensible.  But the loose wording of the new law leaves it wide open to literally allowing someone to shoot first and ask questions later.  All they have to say is they felt "threatened."

That leaves far too much open to interpretation.  Of course, the first time  someone is killed at the hands of someone whose definition of feeling "threatened" is far looser than general society's, lawmakers will maintain they intended no such thing when they passed the bill.

Nonetheless, they knew of the potential when it was passed.  Some even voted for it out of political considerations, including 12 Democrats who said they voted for it for fear otherwise that they would be accused of being soft on crime.

Governor Bush described the law as "a good, common-sense, anti-crime issue."  Realizing the full and potential implications of what Bush has signed into law leads to a different view.

Email Darren at darrenglaude@seminolecountywatch.com