[Bulldog Six]

I just saw the same information posted to a list sponsored by one of the people I train with. Unbelievably irresponsible (not to mention the sloppy reporting, e.g., "....especially now that Florida law allows the use of deadly force if someone feels their life or property is being threatened.") [Empasis mine]

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony...

I will provide the station with the above citation, along with a letter of disappointment and criticism for extremely poor judgment. What possible benefit in the public interest is served by publishing a list of law-abiding people who are now known to the world at large to own firearms?

Addendum: Decided not to wait until tomorrow. Below is the text of the note I sent via the WFTV website. I'm sending the statute citation, which lays bare thier incorrect portrayal of our law, separately.

For the General Manager:

Dear Sir/Madam,

The purpose of my note is to express my deep disappointment at the poor judgment exercised by WFTV its sensational publication of the by-name list of concealed weapon license holders in Central Florida.

In so doing, you have done nothing to serve the public's interest or right to know, both of which could have been amply addressed in citing the number of licenses by county. I wish that were the extent of the potential damage you've caused.

Unfortunately, in calling attention to the names and addresses of people who lawfully own and sometimes carry firearms in Central Florida, you have endangered each of them by making this information much more readily available to criminals who could use it in the planning and execution of burglaries and/or home invasions for the express purpose of stealing firearms.

Please don't attempt to justify this bad judgment by saying that the same information is available from the state of Florida, which is true. WFTV's needless, by-name disclosure of licensees makes it that much easier for those law-abiding firearms owners to be targeted by criminals.

I ask that you remove this information from your website immediately, since it serves no legitimate public interest, and may even place citizens at risk for their personal safety.

You are more than welcome to call me to confirm or discuss this, but you do not have my permission to use my name, phone number or address in conjunction with any public citation of my letter, in whole or in part.

Sincerely,

....................................................

 

[Bulldog Six]

Kjhof: I am going to take this up with both my State Senator and Representative, as well as Governor Bush's office.

Rhino465: The lists are simple Excel spreadsheets (although they are rather large, over 14,000 names in Orange County alone), one for each of six Central Florida counties. It's not the entire state's worth of names.

 

[Bulldog Six]

kjhof - point well taken, and no offense previously, brother.

I sent the station General Manager a follow-up note this morning via the station website.

----------------
For the General Manager:

As a followup to my note to you last night about publicizing the list of concealed weapon license holders, it's important that you also know that your reporter made a gross mis-statement of fact concerning Florida's so-called "no duty to retreat" law. The gross mis-characterization of the law is sloppy reporting and editing at best, and a blatant bias against the lawful bearing of arms for self-protection at worst.

In making the statement, regarding the number of legally authorized persons carrying concealed weapons in Central Florida, "That worries many people, especially now that Florida law allows the use of deadly force if someone feels their life or property is being threatened," the reporter made a factual, inflammatory mis-statement about the law. This may serve to generate needless fear and anxiety, but nothing of useful value.

The section of the relevant Florida statute says:

"Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if...he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony..."

In leaving your audience with the impression that the law allows the use of deadly force for mere property crimes, WFTV has made a mis-statement of fact that begs for correction.

I would ask that WFTV air (and publish on its website) a correction about its reporter's mis-characterization of Florida law.

As before, you are more than welcome to contact me for clarification or discussion, but not to use my name, address or any other identifying information in any public context, broadcast or print.

Sincerely,
----------------------

Naturally, I'm not exactly holding my breath waiting to see the correction appear....

 

[Bulldog Six]

Much to my surprise, I got to spend about ten minutes on the phone this afternoon with the general manager of WFTV.

He was genuinely solicitous of my input, heard me out at length without any of the "I've heard this all day long, thanks, goodbye" that I might have expected, and thanked me at the end of the conversation for the feedback. He said that he had definitely received a new appreciation for the views of law-abiding gun owners as the result of the many conversations he had today. Highlights:

1) He and his newsroom have been virtually inundated today with feedback from CWL holders in FL, expressing their objection, as I did, to the publication of the by-name lists on the WFTV website.

2) He does not agree with the assertion that in so doing, the station has made everyone on the list a potential target of burglary or home invasion for the sole purpose of stealing firearms. I obviously respectfully disagree. He made a point of saying that there was no effort on the part of the station to promote an anti-gun/anti-protection agenda, despite some allegations to that effect.

3) He said that they felt that they could have handled their story better, in the sense that what they were trying to do was respond to legitimate concerns on the part of parents who wanted to know whether there were guns in the homes of the people that their children played with. He also said that of all the gun owners he talked to today, no one objected to that. I don't, but if it's something I wanted to know, I'd ask directly.

4) He was very interested in the point I made about his reporter's erroneous (and inflammatory) assertion that the new "no duty to retreat" law allowed the use of deadly force for simple property crimes, when in fact it's plain that deadly force can be used only to prevent grievous bodily harm, or in limited cases, in the prevention of what Florida calls a "forcible felony." He even gave me his personal email address, and asked me to send him the Florida statute extract, which I have done. It will be interesting to see whether a correction is issued once the station has this information.

5) Finally, while it's clear that WFTV doesn't intend to pull down the lists and the article on its website, he did say that stories typically stay up for only a day or two as a function of making room for others.

My inference is that if he had been aware of all the above beforehand, the story would not have aired the way it did.

To his credit, the general manager listened to my (our) concerns, and seemed genuinely interested in getting his hands on the correct information regarding the "no duty to retreat" law.