[Dotagious]

I just read the following in my local newspaper:

Bills would shield gun owners in self defense cases
By MICHAEL PELTIER, [email protected]
February 24, 2005

TALLAHASSEE — Florida homeowners would be given explicit authority to shoot first and ask questions later, under measures working their way through the state Legislature that would also allow gun owners to use deadly force outside the home if they felt threatened by violence.

Citing the need to allow Florida residents to "stand their ground," members of two key committees on Wednesday approved measures backed by the National Rifle Association and others that would codify and expand court rulings that now allow homeowners to defend themselves without first trying to get away.

"You ought to be able to protect yourself and protect your family," said David Murrell, a lobbyist for the Florida Police Benevolent Association. "We agree with that."

Critics say they have little problem with homeowners having a right to defend themselves but worry the measure would give gun owners a license to kill that could mean the deaths of innocent people, including law enforcement officers, emergency responders, repo men and unexpected guests.

"The problem with this bill is that it will embolden gun owners to act," said Arthur Hayhoe, representing the Coalition to End Gun Violence.

Despite those concerns, members of the House and Senate judiciary committees, in separate votes, unanimously approved the measures that have been cosigned by a majority of members in each chamber including Sens. Burt Saunders, R-Naples, and David Aronberg, D-Green Acres. House sponsors include Reps. Mike Davis, R-Naples, Rep. Trudi Williams, R-Fort Myers; Rep. David Rivera, R-Miami; Rep. Jeff Kottkamp, R-Cape Coral; and Rep. Denise Grimsley, R-Lake Placid.

"It's a glitch in the law when you have to prosecute law-abiding citizens who are merely protecting their own homes and their own lives," Aronberg said.

Like many states, Florida courts have ruled that homeowners have a right to defend themselves in their homes. Florida courts have expanded the so-called "Castle Doctrine" to include employees in their workplace and drivers who are attacked in their automobiles.

In other cases occurring outside the home, however, courts have ruled that most victims must at least attempt to escape before using deadly force, a provision gun advocates say puts victims at greater risk.

Both proposals explicitly protect home and car owners from prosecution if they shoot, even killing an intruder who breaks into their house or vehicle.

The proposals, however, go further by removing a state law requiring victims to at least attempt to escape when confronted by violent criminals outside their homes. The bills allow victims who face the reasonable possibility of a slate of crimes from rape to murder to use deadly force immediately.

"(Under current law) you always have a duty to retreat unless you are in your home," said Sen. Alex Villalobos, R-Miami. "What this does is say that if it is more dangerous for you to flee you can stand your ground and defend yourself."

While committee members expressed little about the ability of homeowners and drivers to use deadly force, Sen. Steve Geller, D-Hallandale, expressed concern that street arguments could turn deadly.

"That's the only part of the bill I have concerns about," he said.

NRA lobbyist Marion Hammer said the legal cloud over homeowners is real. She cited the case of a Perry, Fla., man who on Tuesday was charged with manslaughter after killing an acquaintance who broke into his home after he refused to meet him outside to fight.

"Law-abiding citizens should not be forced to retreat, to run from a place they have a right to be in the face of an unlawful attack," Hammer told Senate panelists.

"You should not have to worry about being arrested or prosecuted if you use force to defend yourself or your family," she said in conclusion.

 

[Dotagious]

So I looked for a copy of the proposed bill. You can view it here:

http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/loadD...ocumentType=Bill&BillNumber=0249&Session=2005

 

[Dotagious]

After reviewing it, I found that there is more to the new bill than is stated in that newspaper article. This bill goes beyond allowing citizens to "stand their ground"... if you focus on F.S. 776.012 "Use of force in defense of person" you will notice that you may now use deadly force in response to any unlawful force. The way I read it, any battery would permit a citizen from responding with deadly force. That's almost scary... even with my being a long time pro-gun advocate. What are your feelings.

NOTE:

This bill has not passed yet, but it's almost guranteed to at this point.

 

[BeardXXXd]

i think it will take a couple incidents of hot headed tuff guys playing highschool at age 30 and picking on people.. and the bullies getting laid to rest...

i think people will start thinking about their actions from then on..
back in the wild west.. u didnt have to like every man.. but u had to respect them or give them their own space..

i remember too often in highschool the tuff guys (under 18 ) going up to grown men and messing with them.. also letting the gentlemen know if u touch me your going to get sued..

sometimes i wish darwin was around more

 

[whtvrsclvr]

I say good luck to you folks in florida. If I read that bill right, it sounds like the way it is in PA. And that is truly a good way to be.

 

[therooster]

that sounds a lot like texas's laws.

after reviewing it, it looks like they took all of the subjectve wording out (like everytime you see such stroked out) and made it less restrictive for the gun owner.

 

[Delija]

This law, like most, will only prove to be effective or abused after (and if) it is put into effect.

This sounds like the law that was passed (guessing late 1970s) when I lived in Colorado. They called it the "Make My Day" law.

The problem came IIRC with the interpretation. When is a threat no longer a threat?

I believe that at the time in Colorado if someone illegally entered your home, you had the right to "shoot first, ask questions later". A questionable issue, but not entirely unreasonable...just seemingly dangerous in cases of mistaken identity. I can't begin to even guess how many times I (or my friends) sneaked into my parent's house when we were teens.

But the Colorado law actually gave the OK to a homeowner who not only stopped a robbery/break in, but actually gave the homeowner the right to shoot after the threat retreated. I believe a bad guy could have broken into a house, gotten confronted by a homeowner with a gun, run out the front door, and the homeowner had the right to chase the bad guy down the street and put a bullet in his back.

To me, that is excessive. To some, it would make perfect sense,and they will have their explanations. But can a cop do that? No. So it seems that a law that gives that kind of "right" to shoot a perpetrator does away with any thought of consequences.

On the whole, if this law passes in Florida (no, I did not read the entire bill), it's fine with me. BUT, I think that gun owners who expect to take the expansion of the "Castle Doctrine" to this extreme should be required to take some kind of basic training in armed home defense. As Florida law stands now, anyone can use a gun in their own home. No training, no licensing, nothing but the money to buy a gun.

The CCW course is a joke in Florida. An hour of being told that if you show your gun, you'd better shoot it. If you shoot it, you better shoot to kill. If you shoot to kill, expect to be sued in civil court with certainty, and very possibly tried in criminal court. In other words....here's a permit; carry a gun. Just never use it, because if you do, you are in a world of trouble.

I think everyone should have the right to protect themselves, their loved ones and their home. But I cannot see just letting people own and use guns with no requirement to know how.

I go to the shooting range and I see some awfully uninformed people using weapons they have no idea how to use. But they pay their money and they shoot their hand cannons because they can afford to. I'm not talking about gang-bangers. (Yeah, they are there too occasionally impressing their girlfriends and shooting their guns held horizontally). I'm talking about wealthy professional men (and women) who will spend $1000+ on an expensive handgun, but not $50 on a lesson on how to use it. And there is no requirement that they do.

Peace,
D.

 

[Dotagious]

The CCW course is a joke in Florida. An hour of being told that if you show your gun, you'd better shoot it. If you shoot it, you better shoot to kill. If you shoot to kill, expect to be sued in civil court with certainty, and very possibly tried in criminal court. In other words....here's a permit; carry a gun. Just never use it, because if you do, you are in a world of trouble.

Sadly, this is truly how it is.... almost verbatim. In fact, I'm a licensed private investigator and recently went to a 28-hour Class G Firearms License course, which permits me to carry while on-duty. It wasn't much better than the concealed carry course, except that I had to qualify. I strongly agree with the "there needs to be more stringent training requirements" comment.

 

[Paladin]

Actually, I had a great CCW training experince as I documented in http://www.hs2000talk.com/viewtopic.php?t=16909&highlight=. I think it depends greatly on the instructor. Yes, I receive the basic message per Deliga but I sure learned a whole lot more.

As to the proposed legislation, I'm all for it. However, no matter what law we pass, someone will figure out a way to game it.

 

[unggio]

i was talking w/ a (former)anti -gun buddy of mine, about the requirements for CCW permits. im in CA.

i proposed that all CCW permit holders should be at least 25 yrs of age(similar to driving instructor requirements), w/ no felony convictions ever (not even if its expunged from ur record)
also to take some sort of month long safety course for handguns.

this should cover all the shootings done by hotheaded late teens and early twenties groups at the bars and clubs. although it sucks for ppl from 22-24, since they wouldn't be able to carry. yet i believe it's the best balance between safety for the majority of law abiding citizens and acceptable risks for the relative minority (ppl ages 22-24). id be wiling to bet most ppl ages 22-24 dont really get mugged neways, just dont stroll alone.
also it would probably prevent gangbangers from legally acquiring handguns and CCWs, since by the time their 25 they're probably dead or in prison. (troubled kids usually go bad around 16 or 17)

and this to be federal shall issue law. (valid in all 50 states)

again this is just an idea, i just dont trust ppl. under 25 packing heat. (im 21) i'll probably get flamed for writing this thread.

also i know this topic doesnt really pertain to Florida CCW, but i didnt want to start a thread on just one of my personal opinions.

 

[Delija]

Actually, I had a great CCW training experience as I documented in http://www.hs2000talk.com/viewtopic.php?t=16909&highlight=. I think it depends greatly on the instructor. Yes, I receive the basic message per Deliga but I sure learned a whole lot more.

I read the post you put your link to. You had a great experience. You were lucky to have had the opportunity.

But living in Florida, you know that the course you took was far more than what was required.

I thought my course was completely inadequate. We had virtually no mention of safe gun handling. It was really almost exclusively about liability.

However, because I took the course at a shop/range, we did get to fire our guns. The instructor had us fire five shots with each hand, and five shots with a two handed grip. He wanted us to know that it is possible that you may be limited to shooting one handed (calling 911 with the other hand, injured, whatever).

That course lasted less than two hours. It cost $60.

Two weeks ago, I was at the West Palm Beach gun show. They had the CCW courses going continuously. They charged (I think) $35. There was no range, so no shooting. I mentioned this in another post: the instructor could barely be heard.....the course was set up in the middle of the floor with gun, knives, and all kinds of weapons being hawked. I looked at the "students"....I would say there were 40-50 at each seating. Half were on their cell phones. All they had to do was sit there, get their little diploma, get fingerprinted, photographed at Walmart, and send their diploma, their photo, their print card, a form swearing they are not a felon or under indictment, and a check to the Florida Dept. of Agriculture.

Shall Issue....What about "shall have a clue"?

I firmly believe anyone of age (and without a criminal record) who wants a CCW permit should be able to obtain one. But I also feel that they should have some degree of safety training and be able to demonstrate some degree of proficiency. I feel the same about just owning a handgun. The only states I have ever purchased handguns had the exact same requirements for the purchase of a gun. (Florida and Colorado). That requirement was cash or a credit card that got approved. No knowledge of safety is required at all. Pay your money, take your gun.

Is it the same everywhere?

Peace,
D.

 

[Jailer1J]

Okay here is your first flamer. Well not really. I mostly agree with you or at least your rational. 25 seems a little arbitrary but I see where you are going with it. However, I am about a week away from 24, have a wife, a ten month old daughter and spend eight hours a day working with criminals that as it turns out don't like it when I enforce rules. I know someone is going to say that I may be an exception but even if that is the case do I not have as good a reason as the next guy to carry. I agree wholeheartedly with having to be trained to carry but as with all things governmental the training will invariably be about as comprehensive as testing for a drivers licence. (no disrespect to those that didn't pass the first time) Even with testing/training there are a whole lot of down right dangerous drivers out there. Besides who is going to pay up for the training. The individual? Sounds spendy. Taxes? yeah right like that is a good use for them. It is a difficult subject with no clear answers. The only good answer would be expecting humans to be more than they are and take responsibility to a new level. 8)

 

[MonkeyWithAGun]

I have a Florida CCW, but didn't take my course in Florida. The one thing that was said to us right at the beginning of our class was that it was not the intention of the course to teach us HOW to use a gun it was to teach us WHEN to use a gun (or more correctly WHEN NOT to use one). I do agree, however, that atleast half of my class needed more handling experience than what they obviously had and our instructor did recommend that people take a firearms course.

I agree with Delija that anyone of legal age to own a handgun and does not have a record should be allowed to own one. Where I disagree with some people is that I don't feel a person should have to ask for permission to carry; if I can buy then that should be all I need to carry. If I can't be trusted to carry, then why should I be trusted to own? Remember, owning firearms is a right, not a priviledge no matter what anti-gunners or some politicians try to tell you. The only people that right does not apply to are minors and those who have given up those rights by showing they cannot be trusted.

I realize that does not fix the problem of people who need more instruction, but we need to be careful about legislating what people must do to own/carry because then it becomes a priviledge rather than a right and priviledges are more easily taken away.

Also, not a flame, but I would doubt many gangbangers have CCW's (or even own their guns legally) regardless of their age.

I agree with the Florida bill, I don't think you should have to wait until someone is beating you to death to defend yourself wether you are at home or not. A person only has to hit you once to kill you.

 

[one-eyed-fatman]

I have a Florida CCW, but didn't take my course in Florida. The one thing that was said to us right at the beginning of our class was that it was not the intention of the course to teach us HOW to use a gun it was to teach us WHEN to use a gun (or more correctly WHEN NOT to use one). I do agree, however, that atleast half of my class needed more handling experience than what they obviously had and our instructor did recommend that people take a firearms course.

I agree with Delija that anyone of legal age to own a handgun and does not have a record should be allowed to own one. Where I disagree with some people is that I don't feel a person should have to ask for permission to carry; if I can buy then that should be all I need to carry. If I can't be trusted to carry, then why should I be trusted to own? Remember, owning firearms is a right, not a priviledge no matter what anti-gunners or some politicians try to tell you. The only people that right does not apply to are minors and those who have given up those rights by showing they cannot be trusted.

I realize that does not fix the problem of people who need more instruction, but we need to be careful about legislating what people must do to own/carry because then it becomes a priviledge rather than a right and priviledges are more easily taken away.

Also, not a flame, but I would doubt many gangbangers have CCW's (or even own their guns legally) regardless of their age.

I agree with the Florida bill, I don't think you should have to wait until someone is beating you to death to defend yourself wether you are at home or not. A person only has to hit you once to kill you.

Well said!

 

[Delija]

Seems we agree pretty much. But the one point you made about the CCW "training" (which was very accurate) seems pretty important. And that is that you (we) were taught "WHEN NOT to use a gun". Which is virtually never. At least we like to hope in each of our cases it will be "never".

But then you say:

Where I disagree with some people is that I don't feel a person should have to ask for permission to carry; if I can buy then that should be all I need to carry. .

And here again, I would have no argument. Except we get back to the problem (problem as I see it at least) of anyone being able to buy a gun with no safety training and no proof of proficient use of a gun.

So....without the very rudimentary CCW course, you would have absolutely no information on which to base your use (or preferably non-use) of a carried weapon. If you take away even that small requirement (the CCW course), then you are left with exactly nothing. For "nothing" is what is required to purchase and take possession of a gun.

So do you mean to say that requirements to own a gun should be more stringent, and then if you wish to carry it, you are ok? Or do you think that anyone who can buy a gun under todays system (pay and go) should also be permitted to carry a gun?

I think somewhere between not owning a gun, and carrying a gun there has to be SOME kind of training....some kind of gun and law education.

I agree if you can buy a gun that you should be able to carry it. I just think it's too easy to buy a gun the way it is now, so the CCW course (as weak and almost entirely useless as it is....it's still something) is the only thing between knowing nothing, and knowing something.

Knowledge is power. The knowledge of how to use a gun is power. The knowledge of when to and when not to use a gun is power.

Don't fool yourself into believing that the majority of people who don't have criminal records are competent to carry a loaded gun on their person with no training. It just isn't so.

You LEARN not to pass a stopped school bus. You LEARN not to cross railroad tracks when the lights are flashing.

It doesn't take a vast majority of people who are not sensible enough to know that using a gun is a means of last resort. Give everyone a gun, and don't clearly make them LEARN what is expected of them, and people will die needlessly.

I have NEVER seen a "no firearms" sign in any bar in South Florida. Not ever. But everyone who has taken the CCW course knows that you are not permitted to take a gun to a bar (and other places where it would be inappropriate). But without some kind of training, would you find it hard to believe that people would not take their (unrestricted as far as they know) guns to a bar? Are some people just born "mean drunks"? I assure you they are. I owned a bar for eight years. I shudder to think what it could have been like if even a small fraction of my patrons carried guns in my place.

So learn the rules before you get a gun, or after. But the rules have to be learned. I cannot imagine just being able to go into a gun store, buy a gun, buy a holster, buy ammo, and walk the streets armed and dangerous. No training, no licensing, nothing? Is that what you suggest? (I know you don't...I just don't see where you think proper training would fit in).

Peace,
D.

 

[unggio]

Okay here is your first flamer. Well not really. I mostly agree with you or at least your rational. 25 seems a little arbitrary but I see where you are going with it. However, I am about a week away from 24, have a wife, a ten month old daughter and spend eight hours a day working with criminals that as it turns out don't like it when I enforce rules. I know someone is going to say that I may be an exception but even if that is the case do I not have as good a reason as the next guy to carry. I agree wholeheartedly with having to be trained to carry but as with all things governmental the training will invariably be about as comprehensive as testing for a drivers licence. (no disrespect to those that didn't pass the first time) Even with testing/training there are a whole lot of down right dangerous drivers out there. Besides who is going to pay up for the training. The individual? Sounds spendy. Taxes? yeah right like that is a good use for them. It is a difficult subject with no clear answers. The only good answer would be expecting humans to be more than they are and take responsibility to a new level. 8)

then i should revise it to say ppl between 22-24 who are likely to need a firearm for protection in public (CCW) should receive a permit under the discretion of the local sheriff or police chief. ( you said u deal w/ bad guys on a daily basis, if you're a LEO you are exempt from all restrictions), again i stick to what i said, that you are probably the very small exception, but if u have a valid reason to need a permit (i.e. you are more likely to be target than the average 22-24yr old) you should absolutely be able to get one, at the discretion of the police chief or sheriff.
to substantiate further, auto insurance companies give lower rates to older drivers w/ good records. statistics show that younger individuals are less responsible. (DUI's)

to the issue concerning the cost of training the individual. i think the individual should pay. If he or she can not or will not pay, they definitely should not be able to carry in public. If the CCW holder is not proficient in shooting & safely handling a firearm (as well as when to shoot), they are endangering the public everytime they carry.

hypothetical scenario:
a woman who is not proficiently trained in shooting and handling her firearm decides to shoot a mugger in public, but instead of hitting the mugger she misses horribly and hits an innocent bystander (perhaps a child). (and by misses horribly i mean shoots worse than a person w/ proficient skills in shooting and handling a firearm)
outcome:
woman eliminates threat on her own life, but at the cost of an innocent bystanders safety or possibly life. (basically she traded her life with one of the bystander) i sure would not want to trade my life for her.

monkeywithagun said "anyone of legal age to own a handgun and does not have a record should be allowed to own one. Where I disagree with some people is that I don't feel a person should have to ask for permission to carry; if I can buy then that should be all I need to carry. If I can't be trusted to carry, then why should I be trusted to own? Remember, owning firearms is a right"

Legally at 14 i can drive on my own property w/out a drivers license. also i can own the vehicle w/out a license, as long as i drive on private property.
HOWEVER w/out a license i am not permitted to drive on public roads. the requirements for this license require that i be of at least 16 yrs of age, completed a 6 wk drivers ed course, pass a written test. (this is the safety part that i learned first)
then i got to learn the physical aspect of driving (proficiency part), i received 15 hrs of training from a licensed instructor and then an addition 50 hrs from my parents. Then i passed an actual "driving test" to get the license.

my point? a car in the wrong hands is potentially very deadly to the driver and everybody within proximity of the vehicle. (wrong hands = someone whos not knowledgeable about safety and is not proficient in handling the car)
this analogy should apply to CCW's as well.
we are all allowed to own firearms & carry on our property in all 50 states, but not all states allow us to carry in public for fear of public endangerment. not at least w/out a CCW.

owning a firearm in the home generally does not endanger the public.
but carrying and possibly using a firearm in public , while not properly trained in the handling of the firearm does endanger others.
therefore having the same requirements for carrying and owning a gun, is not necessary, but i'm not against raising the safety and proficiency requirements for owning a gun.

sorry for the long post, i just wanted to cover all the pts you were questioning,
again this is only my opinion

 

[MonkeyWithAGun]

unggio, This is only my opinion as well, but what makes these forums fun to read is the difference of opinion. In your post, you quoted me, but I'm not sure you get my point. Your driving analogy is well taken, but the point to remember is that driving is a priveildge, not a right. There's nothing in the Bill of Rights about the right to transportation. As a priviledge the state can revoke your driving privs for any number of reasons. But in your description of what it takes to get a license you kind of help show my point that even with all that licensing, practicing and testing going on, drivers still manage to kill more people every year than shooters with guns. Passing a test doesn't mean you're any good at it; especially if you only do it once in awhile.

Delija, I appreciate your points and I'll try to be as well spoken with mine.

I'm OK with the CCW class, not as a regulatory method, but as a method to let people know that just because you are carrying a gun it isn't a license to kill and it doesn't make you a LEO; it isn't rocket science. That and a few things like "don't take a gun into a bar" are really all you have to remember. To me, it would probably make as much sense (if not more) to do this on a person's first gun purchase rather than for CCW since the majority of the laws apply regardless of CCW. All CCW does is say that you can carry concealed; contrary to what some may believe, it gives you no other rights. CCW does not give you the right to defend yourself, it does not give you the right to defend someone else, CCW does not apply to defense of your home. My problem is in making too many things legal requirements to own or conceal; remember, I wasn't only responding to your post.

Like I said in my original post, my thoughts didn't fix the issue, but neither (in my opinion) will forcing people to take an 8 hour (or whatever) gun safety class. Over half of the people in my class had obviously not touched a gun before that day and probably haven't touched one since. Wether you first learn safety in a class or from your father or grandfather the fact is you only become safe/compotent with a firearm by using it and using it regularly. Anything those people learn in a mandated safety class will be gone in the 12 months between the class and the next time they touch the gun when they're cleaning their closets. Sure, they'll pass the course, but in the end forcing those people to take the class will be nothing more than a feel good measure.

There's rights and there's responsibility. It's your right to own a gun and it's your responsiblity to be safe/compotent with it. It's the same responsibility (yours and mine) carrying it or not and that's my point. I don't put a different responsibility level on owning than I do on carrying. People who take it seriously will learn to be safe and compotent by being responsible and taking a class or otherwise, but they'll stay safe and compotent by doing; those who don't take it seriously will never be safe having taken a class or not. Unfortunately, the majority of people who take CCW classes will never carry. In Missouri they estimated that 10% of the gun owners in the state would apply for CCW and of that 10% only 1% will actually carry. The numbers have actually turned out to be a bit higher, but still in the low percentages. I would bet that those 1% that will carry are the people that are serious about gun defense and already know more than they would learn form a mandated safety course. My point being that the vast majority of gun owners (especially the casual gun owners) aren't going to carry anyhow.

The fact is that with or without mandated safety courses, there will be people out there that have no business with guns, and if they're gonna kill someone, accidentally or otherwise, they're going to do it CCW or not. But, like almost everything else, until they demonstrate their incompotence it's still their right. Just look at how many people out there have no business behind the wheel of a car, but they took the class and passed the test so there they are. *the rhyme was unintentional*

 

[Figgy1682]

well as far as the new law in florida thats crazy they will have vigalanties all over the place trying to protect there homes and other thing but hey this is florida. i took a ccw course not to long ago and i was a joke to but it didnt bother me really cause i work in nuclear security and i already had to take a g and d liscence class at work and i been here for some time and learned alot from LLE and different ex military people we've trained with so yes FL CCW courses are jokes but there was one good thing i got out of it there was this book i belive the title is Florida Firearms ownership, use, and defense . its a very good book and i suggest if you live in florida pick up that book very knoledgeable people wrote the book (a lawyer a judge a guy at the batf ) so its worth the money cause the law that started this thread i wouldnt go by it for nothing its just to me crazy i know when to and when not to shoot to me it seems that the way they wrote that law to the wrong person including my self may read to shoot any one that comes in your house and tells the cops you were scared for your life and your off the hook to me thats a little crazy

 

[Figgy1682]

yeah by the way im a good talker not a writer so if i went of track alot frogive me :lol:

 

[ElrodCod]

After reviewing it, I found that there is more to the new bill than is stated in that newspaper article. This bill goes beyond allowing citizens to "stand their ground"... if you focus on F.S. 776.012 "Use of force in defense of person" you will notice that you may now use deadly force in response to any unlawful force. The way I read it, any battery would permit a citizen from responding with deadly force. That's almost scary... even with my being a long time pro-gun advocate. What are your feelings.

NOTE:

This bill has not passed yet, but it's almost guranteed to at this point.

Here's a scenario.....You're 60 years old and on heart medication including anti-coagulants. You're being threatened by someone 50 pounds heavier and 30 years younger. He asks for your wallet and hits you to make his point. What would you do? Take a beating and risk serious injury or death? I'd shoot the SOB.