# "No duty to retreat" bill in FL



## OULobo (Apr 6, 2005)

Figured I'd start a thread on the new bill that passed into law in Florida. This is a law, that if I have the gist of it, allows citizens to use lethal force within their home, without the stipulation that they must take any available opportunity to escape as the law stated previously. Some people say this is just giving people the right to blast away at anyone that steps foot in thier home, while others say that it is just a legalization of protection of home and hearth. Comments?


----------



## dubljay (Apr 6, 2005)

All things considered if I feel the need to defend myself using any means necessary I really don't give a big rats ### what any law says is acceptable at any location.  While I think this law has some merit, I really don't know enough specifics to make an accurate judgment call about how good or bad it is.  Does the law protect the person defending themselves in their house from a wrongful death civil suit from the attacker's family? 


 -Josh


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 6, 2005)

OULobo said:
			
		

> Figured I'd start a thread on the new bill that passed into law in Florida. This is a law, that if I have the gist of it, allows citizens to use lethal force within their home, without the stipulation that they must take any available opportunity to escape as the law stated previously. Some people say this is just giving people the right to blast away at anyone that steps foot in thier home, while others say that it is just a legalization of protection of home and hearth. Comments?



The Duty to Retreat laws in any state basically all say the same thing as far as I know: that you have the duty to retreat from an altercation (before resorting to physical force in a self-defense situation) unless retreating would jeopardize the safety of yourself or another innocent person. This is regardless of whether or not it is a lethal force situation or not.

This law is designed to clearly define if both parties are "mutual combatants" (both agreeing to participate in violence) or not. The idea behind it seems logical to me; if you are truly trying to defend yourself, your first option would be to run if you could.

In many states that have duty to retreat laws, you also have what is called the "Castle Doctrine." This states that you do not have to retreat if you are in your own home. Also, Castle doctrine laws are generally less applicable the further away from the core of the home that you are. In other words, if you engage someone on your front lawn, your arguement for self-defense is more difficult to make then if you retreated to the inside of the home, and the attacker followed you in and you had to engage him there. 

Now, some states do not have "Duty to retreat" laws; therefore they don't have the need for a castle doctrine either. I am not sure I agree with this as I believe it leaves Law Enforcement and the court systems with a difficult task of defining if both parties were mutual combatants. If it is determined that you are a mutual combatant, then your rights to self-defense are basically null. You can be facing the same charges as the other guy if you are a mutual combatant. If there is a duty to retreat law, then it is clear as stated by the law that to adequetly claim self-defense, you have to have attempted or considered retreat. Without this law, this is not clear, meaning that reasonable citizens could be charged as a mutual combatant.

Let me paint a scenario: I am walking around with my wife, and some guy starts making cat calls to my wife. So, I get pissed and I tell him to F-off. He stands up and goes to push me. I push him back and tell him to cut it out. He swings on me, then I beat the crap out of him. He sustains injuries. The cops come, and we both give our statements. He claims self-defense as well as I. Witnesses say different things, next thing you know...I am charged as a mutual combatant and all my rights to self-defense are null. I can stomp up and down at this point and yell that I wasn't required by law to retreat, but none of what I whine about will matter. If, however, I have to retreat by law, then I can find out clearly because the law states it clearly, and I am less likely to be a mutual combatant because I KNOW that I have to retreat first if I am able.

Eliminating the duty to retreat law does not mean that you can stand your ground, and shoot or kick anyones *** that try's anything on you, and claim self-defense. All states have what is called "The reasonable man standard." This states, "would a reasonable person act in the manner of the person claiming self-defense." With most cops who are writing the report, and with most juries, if you didn't try to retreat first, you are at serious risk as being considered a mutual combatant, or at risk of being blamed for violating the reasonable man standard.

I have to go know...I blew through this, and I hope it makes sense. I will check back later and see if I made sense.

Paul


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 7, 2005)

Sorry...I started a long response with little time to post. Let me touch on a few points:



> Let me paint a scenario: I am walking around with my wife, and some guy starts making cat calls to my wife. So, I get pissed and I tell him to F-off. He stands up and goes to push me. I push him back and tell him to cut it out. He swings on me, then I beat the crap out of him. He sustains injuries. The cops come, and we both give our statements. He claims self-defense as well as I. Witnesses say different things, next thing you know...I am charged as a mutual combatant and all my rights to self-defense are null. I can stomp up and down at this point and yell that I wasn't required by law to retreat, but none of what I whine about will matter. If, however, I have to retreat by law, then I can find out clearly because the law states it clearly, and I am less likely to be a mutual combatant because I KNOW that I have to retreat first if I am able.



What I was trying to illustrate with this scenario is that without a duty to retreat law, the lines become fuzzy as to what is a self-defense situation and what is a mutual combatant situation. This leads to misconceptions as to what the appropriate response should be in a self-defense circumstance. I have heard people (particularly ill informed "gun nuts" who are bad representations of gun aficionados) say before, "I don't have a duty to retreat law in my state, so I don't have to put up with someone who trys to start crap with me. I'll Just tell them to F-off, and if they want to try something, then I'm ready to defend myself!" Well, that person is more ready to be charged as a mutual combatant then anything else. Yes, it is important to be assertive. But it is more important to descalate a conflict rather then to inadvertantly escalate it because "You don't take crap from anyone." If you escalate a conflict, you may find yourself in big trouble, even if you were in "the right." In the scenario I illustrated, I was "in the right". That hypothetical guy had no right to make cat calls to my wife, and deserved to be told to F-off. He had no right to push me when I pushed him back. He definatily had no right to try to hit me, and deserved to get stomped into the ground. However, he is the one who is now injured and claiming "self-defense." Witnesses only remember seeing 2 guys pushing each other, and then fighting. Some may have heard me use the "F word" in an aggressive manner, and may think I am the assailent. Some may think I am the assailent because they remember me kicking the crap out of the guy, with no witness to the entire incident. And...that is what they report. That, added to my and my wifes (a biased witness) story NOT illustrating the idea that we tried to leave the area will cause me a world of trouble. The attacker could even try to sue me for damages when all is said and done, and I will lose that suit if it is determined that I was a mutual combatant.

However, if the laws were more defined in saying that I have the duty to retreat, then there is less room for me to have misconceptions about the appropriate responses to a self-defense situation. If I know that I have a duty to retreat by law, then perhaps I would handle that hypothetical circumstance differently. I perhaps would have told the attacker that his comments were inappropriate as I manuevered my wife and I to leave the area. I perhaps would have said nothing at all, but would have maneuvered to leave the area. If he got up and followed me, I perhaps would have continued to try to retreat. If he then caught up to me and jeaprodized the safety of my wife and me, then I could have engaged him. The witness accounts and my response would have been vastly different, and the chances are much better for me to not be considered a mutual combatant.

So the moral is, I would have "retreat if you can" as your first response to a self-defense situation. Just because the law says you don't have to, make no mistake that if you don't, you could be facing a world of legal problems. That aside from the fact that not engaging in a conflict at all is the safest option.

So as to whether or not this is a good idea for states to eliminate the law...I would have to say NO. Although I can see that it may reduce "red tape" in the system, I think it could lead to more misconceptions and problems, leading to non-criminals acting in the wrong way and being persecuted.

Paul


----------



## KenpoTex (Apr 7, 2005)

Here's a link to the actuall text of the bill.  Basically it consists of 3 actions.  

1) It extends the "castle doctrine" to include your vehicle.  In other words, if you are at home or in your car and someone either trys to enter unlawfully, or remove you against your will (kidnapping) then you are presumed to be in fear for your life and lethal force is justified.

2) It eliminates "duty to retreat." Basically it says that if you are somewhere that you have a right to be (basically any public place) and are targeted as the victim of a crime, you are authorized to meet force with force up to and including lethal force.

3) It grants immunity from prosectution/liability (criminal and civil) if the use of force was found to be justified.  


In my opinion, this bill is a great advance in the way self-defense laws are written.  We have seen too many examples of someone being crucified because they whacked some thug that broke into their house.  I also think the immunity from liability is a great idea.  It's pretty sad, actually it's absolutely disgusting, when you defend yourself; are found to have been justified in your actions; and in the aftermath get sued by the defendant or his/her family because you injured the SOB that attacked you.  
Go Florida!


----------



## ginshun (Apr 7, 2005)

From what I have heard/read about it, I like it.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 7, 2005)

Being pretty sure about the nature of the responses to this question, let me just ask out of morbid curiousity: what do ALL the martial arts teach about one's duty to retreat, as part of a general duty to avoid violence except as an absolute last resort?


----------



## ginshun (Apr 7, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Being pretty sure about the nature of the responses to this question, let me just ask out of morbid curiousity: what do ALL the martial arts teach about one's duty to retreat, as part of a general duty to avoid violence except as an absolute last resort?


 Agreed that retreat is always the best option, but we are comparing moral duty to legal duty then.  If I feel morally justified in my actions, it would be nice to have less worries about the legal ramifications of those actions.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Apr 7, 2005)

Let's think what would be better policy: requiring that the homeowner escape if they can, and then return to sue the guy later, and hence avoiding death of anyone, or allowing them to shoot the intruder, thereby causing death which wasn't necessary, and all the grief involved with that.  

Defending yourself and your family is one thing.  Shooting an intruder when you could have easily escaped unharmed simply because "damnit, this is my house" is quite another.  You preventing a guy from stealing your TV or jewelry isn't worth killing them when it's not needed.


----------



## ginshun (Apr 7, 2005)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Let's think what would be better policy: requiring that the homeowner escape if they can, and then return to sue the guy later, and hence avoiding death of anyone, or allowing them to shoot the intruder, thereby causing death which wasn't necessary, and all the grief involved with that.
> 
> Defending yourself and your family is one thing. Shooting an intruder when you could have easily escaped unharmed simply because "damnit, this is my house" is quite another. You preventing a guy from stealing your TV or jewelry isn't worth killing them when it's not needed.


 I guess I just don't really like the idea of *requiring* a homeowner to leave his own home in order to avoid a conflict with an intruder. Basically your telling me that an intruder has more of a right to be in my house than me and my family do. And that I should be worried about his saftey.

   I am a pretty good shot, what if I just wing him?


----------



## Tgace (Apr 7, 2005)

Legal...moral....in the end its about "reasonableness".


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 7, 2005)

Again: what do the martial arts teach about the duty to retreat if possible?

I'd add that most of these bills, and the claims they represent, are just plain dopey. Unless there's some rare circumstance that the cops just can't overlook, or some prosecutor's running for office, there isn't a chance in hell that you're going to be prosecuted for shooting somebody who kicks your door in and comes after you or your family.

Still, it doesn't surprise me. In a society that equates money with human life, of course deadly force will be OK to protect mere property.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 7, 2005)

Educate yourself..read this and get back to me later.

http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/ayoob89.html



> Your smart, professional burglars case their jobs carefully and hit empty homes. The ones who hit when you are there have to be considered dangerous. Either they know you and your loved ones are at home and are prepared to deal with you forcibly, or they are so incredibly stupid or spaced out that they are dangerous to themselves and others. You cannot, of course, use deadly force merely because the intruder is in your house. But, if he attacks you after forcing his way into your home, he is bought and paid for. The best thing, of course, is to keep him from getting in at all.


The fact that the person broke into an occupied home can be reason enough to fear for your life.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 7, 2005)

The site listed is a survivalist/homebuilder site. Admirable as that is, they have a vested interest in promulgating fear.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 7, 2005)

UUMMMM...Massad Ayoob is a respected Author, LEO, Trainer and instructor. The site just quoted his work. You need to get over the "bad site, bad info thing". The info is legit. The statement....



> Your smart, professional burglars case their jobs carefully and hit empty homes. The ones who hit when you are there have to be considered dangerous. Either they know you and your loved ones are at home and are prepared to deal with you forcibly, or they are so incredibly stupid or spaced out that they are dangerous to themselves and others. You cannot, of course, use deadly force merely because the intruder is in your house. But, if he attacks you after forcing his way into your home, he is bought and paid for. The best thing, of course, is to keep him from getting in at all.


Stands.

..and is the source for all "no duty to retreat" law within the home. How about you address the fact, instead of taking the lame "bad website" route??


----------



## ginshun (Apr 7, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Again: what do the martial arts teach about the duty to retreat if possible?
> 
> I'd add that most of these bills, and the claims they represent, are just plain dopey. Unless there's some rare circumstance that the cops just can't overlook, or some prosecutor's running for office, there isn't a chance in hell that you're going to be prosecuted for shooting somebody who kicks your door in and comes after you or your family.
> 
> Still, it doesn't surprise me. In a society that equates money with human life, of course deadly force will be OK to protect mere property.


 
 I don't know, its not really all that uncommon to here about the case where the burglar broke into somebodies home, the homeowner injurs him in some way and the burglar comes back and sues the homeowner for damages and wins.

 And who says I am woried about the property when sombody breaks in?  I don't really have anything all that valueble in my house anyway.  My saltwater aquarium probably has more money stuck into it that my TV/stereo/DVD/VCR stuff combined, and good luck carrying that thing anywhere. If I am talking about defending my home, I am (personally anyway) not talking about my stuff, I am talking about the lives of myself and my family.


----------



## OUMoose (Apr 7, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Still, it doesn't surprise me. In a society that equates money with human life, of course deadly force will be OK to protect mere property.


Have you had your house robbed, confronted the intruder, and have him stop and calmly say "I'm only here for your TV, bro, calm down"?  Possible, but not likely.  Someone breaking into your house is invading your space with the intent to do harm.  Will I be heartbroken if they get away with my DVD player?  Not really, that's what insurance is for.  However, if I woke up with someone in my house, and I was unaware of their ultimate intent with even the teeny tiniest idea that my wife/child/family would be injured, they had better be in for the scrap of their life.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 7, 2005)

No reply?



I thought so.....:shrug:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 7, 2005)

a) I did reply.

b) What do the martial arts teach about the duty to retreat when possible?

c) Did you NOT read the part where I said that you were very unlikely to be prosecuted for shooting somebody who broke in?


----------



## modarnis (Apr 7, 2005)

>>>Did you NOT read the part where I said that you were very unlikely to be prosecuted for shooting somebody who broke in?>>>

As a person who splits legal hairs for a living, there is a difference between something being legal under a statutory framework, and the likelihood of being prosecuted for it if it isn't legal, but people choose not to prosecute it.

Here in Connecticut, deadly force is not justified for defense of property, absent reasonable belief of imminent serious physical harm or reasonable belief that deadly force is about to be used against you.

Would someone be prosecuted for killing an intruder intent on stealing only property?  Maybe, maybe not.  Depends on which state's attorney's office is investigating in this state.

I've never prosecuted a cruelty to poultry case, but it is against the law to choke chickens here.  

If push came to shove in a self defense case involving me as the victim turned defender, I would want the law to be clear as to what I can and can't do, so my decisions were prudent.


----------



## oldnewbie (Apr 7, 2005)

It appears that some may have missed the point in the "new" bill.

 The major change in Florida is that it will NOW apply to your vechicle.
 Before, it was your home. Concealed wepons permit holders are applauding the change, as they will be "legal" to use deadly force "outside" the home.

 Those against are calling Florida the "new" Wild, wild, west....


----------



## OUMoose (Apr 7, 2005)

modarnis said:
			
		

> I've never prosecuted a cruelty to poultry case, but it is against the law to choke chickens here.


You know...........

Nevermind.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 7, 2005)

Good point. However, what idiot thought it would be a good idea to legalize carrying a loaded, easily-accessible gun in your car?

Bet the cops just LOVE this concept.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 7, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Unless there's some rare circumstance that the cops just can't overlook, or some prosecutor's running for office, there isn't a chance in hell that you're going to be prosecuted for shooting somebody who kicks your door in and comes after you or your family.


And I am stating that any burglary of an occupied dwelling contains great risk to the occupants. A violent home invasion not withstanding.

Am I implying that a homeowner should just "shoot first and ask questions later?" not at all. However if I had a burglar at gunpoint in my home, he better follow my every command to the letter......


----------



## Tgace (Apr 7, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Good point. However, what idiot thought it would be a good idea to legalize carrying a loaded, easily-accessible gun in your car?
> 
> Bet the cops just LOVE this concept.


As long as its legally owned and admitted to If I ask....I assume everybody is armed already.


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 7, 2005)

Thanks for linking the bill. Now that I have had the chance to read it:

#1. I still disagree with removal of the duty to retreat law for ther reasons I stated above.

#2. I like the fact that the castle doctrine extends to your vehicle though. This prevents someones reasonableness from coming into question in circumstances where someone retreats to their car, and the attacker follows, and driving away would put innocent lives in danger (trying to speed away into traffic, etc.).

#3. I REALLY like the fact that people found justified in defending themselves are not subject to paying litigation fees or attorney fees, and are not subject to being sued.

So overall...I think that this is a good bill. I think that you open up problems by not having the duty to retreat provision, but overall it is a great advancement for our rights to self-defense.

Also a note: In no way, in this bill or any other, is it justified to protect property. These laws are all designed to protect you or an innocent from HARM, and reasonableness and self-defense must be justified in each case. Defending property is never considered a reason to cause harm on another under the law.

Paul


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 7, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Good point. However, what idiot thought it would be a good idea to legalize carrying a loaded, easily-accessible gun in your car?
> 
> Bet the cops just LOVE this concept.



With a CPL/CCW...this is a good idea.

However, I don't believe that by extending the castle doctrine to the vehicle, that this means that you can carry a locked and loaded gun in the vehicle without the proper licensing. I believe you still have to abide by the states conceal and carry laws, meaning not carrying without the license.


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 7, 2005)

oldnewbie said:
			
		

> It appears that some may have missed the point in the "new" bill.
> 
> The major change in Florida is that it will NOW apply to your vechicle.
> Before, it was your home. Concealed wepons permit holders are applauding the change, as they will be "legal" to use deadly force "outside" the home.
> ...



News flash: it is always "legal" to use lethal force if it is justified, whether inside or outside the home. IT IS NEVER legal to use lethal force if it is not justified, and this is inside or outside of the home also.

You can't just shoot someone because they are on your property. You can't just shoot someone because they are breaking into your car. At least not legally. Period.

As I said before, none of this applies to property; it all applies to bodily harm.


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 7, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> And I am stating that any burglary of an occupied dwelling contains great risk to the occupants. A violent home invasion not withstanding.
> 
> Am I implying that a homeowner should just "shoot first and ask questions later?" not at all. However if I had a burglar at gunpoint in my home, he better follow my every command to the letter......



When in the home, the assumption of "intent" is much more easily justifiable if someone is invading your home while your in it. So....I agree.


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 7, 2005)

dubljay said:
			
		

> All things considered if I feel the need to defend myself using any means necessary I really don't give a big rats ### what any law says is acceptable at any location.  While I think this law has some merit, I really don't know enough specifics to make an accurate judgment call about how good or bad it is.  Does the law protect the person defending themselves in their house from a wrongful death civil suit from the attacker's family?
> 
> 
> -Josh



Well dude...if you train martial arts, you'd batter give a rats *** what is acceptable and what is not.

If you're in a cell getting pounded in the *** on a daily basis because of your "self-defense," then my opinion, your "self-defense" was not so good.

You don't want to just "survive" an attack. Surviving could mean peeing out of a bag for the rest of your life or other medical problems, or going to jail for your actions. In self-defense, you want to "win." Part of winning is not only going home safe, but being able to stay there instead of going to jail.

Paul


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 7, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Being pretty sure about the nature of the responses to this question, let me just ask out of morbid curiousity: what do ALL the martial arts teach about one's duty to retreat, as part of a general duty to avoid violence except as an absolute last resort?



For the record, we all have to duty to use violence as a last resort, regardless of what the law says. This means avoidence, and retreating as first options; unless doing so would put an innocent or yourself in danger.

I am sure you'll agree....


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 7, 2005)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Let's think what would be better policy: requiring that the homeowner escape if they can, and then return to sue the guy later, and hence avoiding death of anyone, or allowing them to shoot the intruder, thereby causing death which wasn't necessary, and all the grief involved with that.
> 
> Defending yourself and your family is one thing.  Shooting an intruder when you could have easily escaped unharmed simply because "damnit, this is my house" is quite another.  You preventing a guy from stealing your TV or jewelry isn't worth killing them when it's not needed.



I agree that in many cases, it is better for the person to escape their own home and call the cops. 

However, I'd say that most of the times this is not an option. In a persons home, one has to worry about the other residence in the home if there is a break in. If you have kids and a wife, you can't just book and leave them to fend for themselves. Plus, often people are sleeping or residing in an area where escaping the home is not a viable option. If your upstairs and he is downstairs, the last thing you want to do is go creeping around and trying to escape when he could catch you and harm you.

The most prudent thing one can do if there is a break in is not to go creeping around the house trying to escape. It is especially a dumb idea to go creeping around the house with a baseball bat or the shotgun looking for the intruder, as they do in the movies. 

The safest and best thing to do is as follows: 1. have good security in the home so that your alerted if there is an intruder in the first place. 2. have a safe room and a plan for your family to get to the safe room and lock it up. 3. have a firearm and a cell phone in the safe room: the cell phone to dial 9-11, and the firearm for the off chance that the intruder insists on coming into the safe room.

The safe room doesn't have to resemble that stupid movie "panic room" either. It can be any room where you can secure the entrance. The best option, usually, is the master bedroom.

Anyways, given what is the most prudent and best option for self-defense, requiring by law for you to retreat the home just isn't reasonable.

Remember: it's not about "your stuff"...it's about your safety!

Paul


----------



## Flatlander (Apr 7, 2005)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> #2. I like the fact that the castle doctrine extends to your vehicle though. This prevents someones reasonableness from coming into question in circumstances where someone retreats to their car, and the attacker follows, and driving away would put innocent lives in danger (trying to speed away into traffic, etc.)


Excellent point, Paul. :asian:


----------



## Tgace (Apr 7, 2005)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> You can't just shoot someone because they are on your property. You can't just shoot someone because they are breaking into your car. At least not legally. Period.


Exactly. However, (as you already know Paul) for the sake of this conversation people must remember that a person unlawfully in your home is a far different "on your property" than a person standing in your backyard. Many states Penal laws authorize the use of deadly force to stop a burglary. That however doesn't absolve you of the standard of "reasonableness". In the end its very important for the homeowner to be able to articulate the reason why he used deadly force. "Because the law said I could" isnt a good answer.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 7, 2005)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> I agree that in many cases, it is better for the person to escape their own home and call the cops.
> 
> However, I'd say that most of the times this is not an option. In a persons home, one has to worry about the other residence in the home if there is a break in. If you have kids and a wife, you can't just book and leave them to fend for themselves. Plus, often people are sleeping or residing in an area where escaping the home is not a viable option. If your upstairs and he is downstairs, the last thing you want to do is go creeping around and trying to escape when he could catch you and harm you.
> 
> ...


Excellent advice.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 7, 2005)

And in addition....good solid doors (solid core or steel/no glass), good locks, good exterior lighting, cut back plants and shrubs that could provide concealment, evaluate any basement windows (easy entrance there), dont leave ladders outside or in unlocked exterior tool sheds. 

If you have sliding patio doors pay extra attention to securing them, I have a method that I use on "welfare checks" that works a good 80% of the time....


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 7, 2005)

Good things to mention Tgace...

and thanks guys...


----------



## Tgace (Apr 7, 2005)

More...most/many burglars case a neighborhood before doing a job. They test to see who is home at what times. Your radar should be going off if you see a person you dont recognize in your neighborhood going up and down the street (car or foot), ringing doorbells, carrying a backpack, walking into backyards etc...if your bell rings and some guy with a suspicious story and a surprised expression is on the step call the police. You might have surprised a burglar who didnt think anybody was home.

An experienced burglar will "stage" his goods at the door. Sometimes even outside. If you see stuff piled up at a neighbors door or come home and find your DVD, jewelry box and other stuff stacked up in your foyer dont go in, call the police, hes very close....another warning is lights (house, street, porch, motion) suspiciously going out. Some burglars disable them as part of their pre-plan.

Oh..and lock that interior garage door to your house...just because the garage door is down doesnt mean you can leave it unlocked.

Excellent advice here...
http://www.crimedoctor.com/home.htm
http://www.kellerpd.com/burgprev.htm


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Apr 8, 2005)

I fail to see how starting a fight or shooting an intruder is better for securing your family than retreating.  As far as not having the option to do so, isn't that part of the requirement, requiring retreat WHEN POSSIBLE?  If you have no choice but to shoot the intruder in order to protect your family, sure I agree with shooting him.  But if you can get your family out ok, what's the purpose of instead harming or killing the guy?  

And no, requiring retreat when possible is not giving an intruder more rights over your home then you.  You still have the right to have him prosecuted, sue him for property damage and theft, etc.  I just think that when people opt to still attack the intruder when escape is an option, the reason for this is either to protect their property or just a desire for gratuitous violence.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 8, 2005)

Tell it to the Marines...or at least to the judges and the countless years worth of cases and legal precidence...
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2005/2005_02562.htm



> Historically, English common law justified deadly force only in circumstances where one was executing the law  effecting a legal arrest or preventing violent felonies (_see_ Perkins, _Self-Defense Re-Examined_, 1 UCLA L Rev 133 [1953]). When deadly force was reasonably used in self-defense it only excused  but did not justify  the homicide (_see_ Wharton, Homicide § 3, at 211 [1855]). The difference was more than theoretical, as the excused killer was subject to property forfeiture and, at times, even a penal sentence (_see_ Dressler, Understanding Criminal Law, [3d ed], § 17.01, p 205). However, with the enactment of 24 Henry VIII, ch 5 (1532), the justification defense was enlarged to include deadly force reasonably used in self-defense. This broader reading of the justified use of deadly force was further refined by cases involving attacks in the dwelling of the defender. Such a defender  even if the original aggressor  did not have a duty to retreat when inside the home, or "castell" (Lambard, Eirenarcha, or Offices of the Justice of the Peace, 250 [1599]). Our contemporary castle doctrine grew out of a turbulent era when retreat from one's home necessarily entailed increased peril and strife (_see_ Thompson, _Homicide in Self-Defense_, 14 Am L Rev 548, 554 [1888]). The rationale that evolved  now widely accepted  is that one should not be driven from the inviolate place of refuge that is the home. *"It is not now, and has never been the law that a man assailed in his own dwelling, is bound to retreat. If assailed there, he may stand his ground, and resist the attack. He is under no duty to take to the fields and the highways, a fugitive from his own home"* (_see_ _People v Tomlins_, 213 NY 240, 243 [1914] [Cardozo, J.]).
> 
> The home exception to the duty to retreat reflects two interrelated concepts  defense of one's home, and defense of one's person and family. "The house has a peculiar immunity in that it is sacred for the protection of a person's family," and "[m]andating a duty to retreat for defense of dwelling claims will force people to leave their homes by the back door while their family members are exposed to danger and their houses are burgled" (State v Carothers, 594 NW2d 897, 900-901 [1999] [Minn] [internal quotations and citations ommitted]). Yet somewhat at odds with this privileged status accorded the home is the state's general interest in protecting life. "The duty to retreat reflects the idea that a killing is justified only as a last resort, an act impermissible as long as other reasonable avenues remain open" (People v Jones, 3 NY3d 491, 494 [2004]). Indeed, requiring a defender to retreat before using deadly force may in [*4]fact be "the more civilized view" (LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law § 10.4 [e], at 155 [2d Ed]). Inevitably, then, a balance must be struck between protecting life by requiring retreat and protecting the sanctity of the home by not requiring retreat.
> 
> ...


_Start "requiring" that people flee their own homes and IMO the 4th Amendment isnt far behind._


----------



## Flatlander (Apr 8, 2005)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> I fail to see how starting a fight or shooting an intruder is better for securing your family than retreating. As far as not having the option to do so, isn't that part of the requirement, requiring retreat WHEN POSSIBLE? If you have no choice but to shoot the intruder in order to protect your family, sure I agree with shooting him. But if you can get your family out ok, what's the purpose of instead harming or killing the guy?


I think that everyone is in agreement with you.  I don't see anyone advocating unnecessary violence here.  


> And no, requiring retreat when possible is not giving an intruder more rights over your home then you. You still have the right to have him prosecuted, sue him for property damage and theft, etc.


Prosecution, yes.  _Right_ to sue for damages, perhaps.  I wouldn't expect to get paid much from that suit, however.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 8, 2005)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> I think that everyone is in agreement with you. I don't see anyone advocating unnecessary violence here.


Exactly, no duty to retreat doesn't equate to a "free fire zone". The use of force still needs to be reasonable. However I do believe in the absolute sanctity of the home. As the 4th Amendment of our Constitution affirms. 

Nobody should be mandated by law to think of fleeing their own home as their primary consideration. Because then, when force is necessary, the burden will be on the homeowner to prove that retreat was impossible.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 8, 2005)

I see that there isn't going to be a response to the question about martial arts and the duty to retreat. Oh well.

Dumb laws like this can have unintended consequences. For example, extending this, "castle," nonsense to a private car can easily mean that a) a cop can't arrest somebody she or he catches speeding with a loaded gun on the seat, b) drivers can start claiming a right to privacy in their cars--as a moron at a college I taught at once (a member of the student government!) did a few years back, when he got caught sitting across from a grade school, naked....claimed that seeing him and arresting him violated his right to privacy.

But beyond that, this is nuts. It's the fantasy that A Gun Will Solve Everything come back again--make it legal for fools to have loaded pistols at hand while they're driving, and guess what happens? 

Another embarassing question that won't get answered: what do martial arts teach about the reason to learn a martial art rather than simply getting a gun, a quicker and more-efficient road to self-defense?


----------



## OUMoose (Apr 8, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> a) a cop can't arrest somebody she or he catches speeding with a loaded gun on the seat,


Could you explain how you came to this conclusion?


			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> b) drivers can start claiming a right to privacy in their cars--as a moron at a college I taught at once (a member of the student government!) did a few years back, when he got caught sitting across from a grade school, naked....claimed that seeing him and arresting him violated his right to privacy.


False, and yes, he's a moron.  If I was in my car strangling someone in broad daylight on a busy street, I'd fully expect a cop to come arrest me.  Once again, I'm not sure what point your example makes to the topic at hand, however.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Another embarassing question that won't get answered: what do martial arts teach about the reason to learn a martial art rather than simply getting a gun, a quicker and more-efficient road to self-defense?


Nothing, until you have that gun taken away from you, or you don't have it on you.  Then what?  I don't see this law as a bad thing, however EVERY law in the books can be abused.  Should we do away with ALL laws?  I'm sure driving on the right side of the road infringes on someone because they're left-handed...


----------



## Tgace (Apr 8, 2005)

Dont even bother man...you know the drill here by now......

"Castle Nonsense"??? I guess some people here know more than anybody else in our justice system, and years worth of legal precidence and judicial review. Maybe they should become judges??:idunno:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 8, 2005)

Sigh.

1. If you are legally entitled to carry a loaded gun that is easily accessible in your car, then a cop cannot arrest you--or even search your car--if you have a loaded gun that is easily accessible in your car. At the moment, you are NOT allowed to have a weapon that is immediately accessible in your car, and this is illegal largely because it endangers police officers.

2. The point was that laws like this can have effects that are pretty wide--for example, a state with such laws on their books would have established that a car, LIKE A HOME, is a, "castle," that cannot be searched without a warrant or a very clear, immediate danger being presented. It might also establish that everyone has a reasonable, "expectation of privacy," in their car, just as they presently do in their home. I don't know; sorry, I thought we were discussing issues.

3. I see it remains easier to try and throw around accusations that the guy you're talking to is just a smarty-pants four-eyes knowitall than it is to simply discuss the question raised. 

What do the martial arts teach about the responsibility to retreat from violence wherever possible? What do the martial arts teach about the reasons for studying a martial art rather than simply going out aand getting a cheap gun?


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 8, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I see that there isn't going to be a response to the question about martial arts and the duty to retreat. Oh well.



Ummm???

My response wasn't sufficient?



			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> For the record, we all have to duty to use violence as a last resort, regardless of what the law says. This means avoidence, and retreating as first options; unless doing so would put an innocent or yourself in danger.
> 
> I am sure you'll agree....



I would say that this applies to all people, especially martial artists.



> Dumb laws like this can have unintended consequences. For example, extending this, "castle," nonsense to a private car can easily mean that a) a cop can't arrest somebody she or he catches speeding with a loaded gun on the seat, b) drivers can start claiming a right to privacy in their cars--as a moron at a college I taught at once (a member of the student government!) did a few years back, when he got caught sitting across from a grade school, naked....claimed that seeing him and arresting him violated his right to privacy.



Sorry sir, but you need to actually read the laws and how the castle doctrine applies to self-defense. It does not mean that a cop can't arrest someone for speeding with a loaded gun on their seat. If a cop has reason to believe that someone has intent to harm another, they can act on that belief. People still have to maintain "reasonableness" under the law. One could argue that speeding down the road with a loaded weapon on the seat violates reasonableness.

Also, drivers cannot start claiming a right to privacy in their cars. The castle doctrine has NOTHING to do with that. I couldn't drive naked in Florida any more then I could sit on my balcony naked in a hotel, or dance around naked in the window facing the sidewalk.

Not to offend you, but this is an incredably goofy and inacurate way of interpreting these laws, with absolutely no basis behind them. 



> But beyond that, this is nuts. It's the fantasy that A Gun Will Solve Everything come back again--make it legal for fools to have loaded pistols at hand while they're driving, and guess what happens?



Again, it goes back to reasonableness - people still have to abide by that standard. Not to mention, if your implying that more people are going to road rage open fire, I would argue not. I don't think that people need a law to limit their ability to open fire on the road. If someone is mentally unstable enough to open fire or brandish a weapon while driving, then they will do so regardless of what the law says. A reasonable person will not do this, regardless of what the law says.

And, I would argue that a mentally unstable person is more likely to be disuaded from brandishing a gun in their cars by the idea that other drivers may also be armed to fire back on them, not by anything the law says. It is a proven fact that sociopaths (and this is what we are dealing with when we are talking about the guy who would brandish a weapon or fire on the road) often have little concept of long term consequence. A law saying "you can't" and possible penalties if caught is to "far away" in the minds of a sociopathic criminal. However, they do understand immediate consequence. This is why a sociopath is more likely to think twice if he knows that there is a good chance that their fellow citizen could be armed as well; the consequence of an armed citizen defending themself is far more immediate then the possibility of going to jail if caught.    



> Another embarassing question that won't get answered: what do martial arts teach about the reason to learn a martial art rather than simply getting a gun, a quicker and more-efficient road to self-defense?



#1. The gun isn't the answer to everything, so other methods of combat need to be addressed.

#2. If you don't address the issue of firearms (both defense and use) in a day and age when firearms are commonly used by societies preditors, then your self-defense is insufficent, in my opinion.

#3. There are a lot of great reasons to take a martial art besides self-defense, like personal development and such.

That all said, I don't take the firearm out of my "martial art." For me this is a non-issue, as firearm training is a staple part of my martial arts training, and my training group for that matter. Beyond that, I am not sure how to answer that question.

But if you have a better answer, I would like to hear it.

I hope that adequetly addresses some of your concerns...

Paul


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 8, 2005)

Seemed pretty rational and thorough to me--though I would note that a) there's the thing about the arts teaching awareness, discipline, responsibility that are not taught by going out and grabbing a gun; b) laws, when passed, immediately become open to further development and interpretation by the courts. If they could take the Terry Schiavo case to courts 28 times despite the fact that the law seemed very, very clear, believe me--this one will be in the courts over and over and over.


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 8, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Sigh.
> 
> 1. If you are legally entitled to carry a loaded gun that is easily accessible in your car, then a cop cannot arrest you--or even search your car--if you have a loaded gun that is easily accessible in your car. At the moment, you are NOT allowed to have a weapon that is immediately accessible in your car, and this is illegal largely because it endangers police officers.



This is not true for a number of reasons. I'll address the castle doctrine aspect further down.

As to endangering police officers, that depends on who has the weapon in the car. If it is a criminal who would be a danger to officers, then guess what...he is going to have that gun in the car no matter what the law says. If it is someone with a CPL/CCW, then that person is required to state that they have a concealed weapons permit, and that they have a concealed weapon in the car, and they have to state where. This is a general requirement for most conceal/carry license. If violated, at minimum your fined, but often you have your CPL/CCW suspended or even revoked. This is general for all states. 

If they do not have a permit but have a firearm in the car...I don't know. I'll address that below as well.



> 2. The point was that laws like this can have effects that are pretty wide--for example, a state with such laws on their books would have established that a car, LIKE A HOME, is a, "castle," that cannot be searched without a warrant or a very clear, immediate danger being presented. It might also establish that everyone has a reasonable, "expectation of privacy," in their car, just as they presently do in their home. I don't know; sorry, I thought we were discussing issues.



The castle doctrine only applies to your duty to retreat in self-defense. All it says is that you don't have to retreat from your home if attacked, or in Florida, your car. This does not extend to these other facets that your mentioning. Those are covered by a completely different set of laws.

As to firearm use/carry privlige in the car, I am not so sure that the castle doctrine says you can have a firearm in the car (unless within the transport laws) without a permit to carry concealed. I didn't see that expressed anywhere in the florida law. I could be wrong on this part, but I don't think so.

The castle doctrine is only addressing your duty to retreat in a self-defense circumstance here...not the other issues you present.



> 3. I see it remains easier to try and throw around accusations that the guy you're talking to is just a smarty-pants four-eyes knowitall than it is to simply discuss the question raised.
> 
> What do the martial arts teach about the responsibility to retreat from violence wherever possible? What do the martial arts teach about the reasons for studying a martial art rather than simply going out aand getting a cheap gun?



Did I not address some of your concerns, even if you disagree?


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 8, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Seemed pretty rational and thorough to me



Thanks...I don't awlays succeed, but I try. 

[QUOTE
--though I would note that a) there's the thing about the arts teaching awareness, discipline, responsibility that are not taught by going out and grabbing a gun; [/QUOTE]

I do agree with you there. One of the things that fustrate me about certian people in the gun community...well, lets just call them "gun show commandos," is that they treat the gun as their security blankie. They don't train enough because they don't seem to think they need to train, and don't have the discipline. They don't talk about things like rational behavior, responsability, awareness, avoidence, and all the other things that go with prudent self-defense.

Instead they'd rather talk about stupid stuff like how to get a legal suppressor, or how to shave the pin on the AK to make it fully auto. These people need a reality break, I think.



> b) laws, when passed, immediately become open to further development and interpretation by the courts. If they could take the Terry Schiavo case to courts 28 times despite the fact that the law seemed very, very clear, believe me--this one will be in the courts over and over and over.



Possibly. The thing that I do think will keep coming up is the elimination of the duty to retreat laws. I think that Florida opened themselves with a host of problems for Law Enforcement and the legal system with that one.

But...we will  have to see how it all works in application...

 :asian: 
Paul


----------



## Tgace (Apr 8, 2005)

The Castle doctrine has NOTHING to do with the legal/illegal possession of firearms. If you defend your "castle" with an illegally owned M60 machine gun...you are going to be in a heap of trouble.....


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 8, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> The Castle doctrine has NOTHING to do with the legal/illegal possession of firearms. If you defend your "castle" with an illegally owned M60 machine gun...you are going to be in a heap of trouble.....



That's what I thought too...but I am not an attorney or a cop; so thanks for clearing that one up.  :asian:


----------



## modarnis (Apr 8, 2005)

>>1. If you are legally entitled to carry a loaded gun that is easily accessible in your car, then a cop cannot arrest you--or even search your car--if you have a loaded gun that is easily accessible in your car. >>

Can you elaborate on this, since it does not make logical senseon its face on the one hand and certainly doesn't fit with any existing caselaw on search or seizure on the other


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 8, 2005)

I was under the impression that the law being discussed would extend the, "castle," doctrine to one's car, and legalize carrying a loaded weapon where you could easily reach it when you drive. 

At present, I'd been pretty sure that this was illegal. So, if the law gets passed in Florida, then a cop can't arrest you just for having a loaded gun on, say, your front seat when you drive. 

I was also trying to point out that if you pass these laws, they usually change a whole bunch of similar laws--for example, the "traditional marriage," laws recently passed in some states have had the effect of outlawing domestic partner arrangements altogether, and they may very well affect things like insurance coverages. Not the intent, but the consequence all the same.

The intent here is to enable self-defense, grounding that on the idea that the car is like the home. If you do that, there may very well be consequences for all sorts of other things--for example, search and seizure of a suspect vehicle. Or, it's my understanding that at present a cop who stops you for a reasonable reason has the right to search enough of your car to make sure that you don't have a weapon right to hand (for example, they can search an open glove box, but not a locked one); the Florida law might very well make that impossible.

Come to think of it, such a law might even make a DUI checkpoint impossible--that whole concept has been to the Supreme Court several times, and hasn't got the very solidest foundation in law anyway.

I dunno. Just wondering.


----------



## ginshun (Apr 8, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> What do the martial arts teach about the responsibility to retreat from violence wherever possible?


 Nobody is denying that retreat is not the best option, but in a house full of loved ones, it may not be possible. To me I like this law because it protects the person that didn't retreat from having to prove that he couldn't and from getting sued for not trying hard enough to retreat.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> What do the martial arts teach about the reasons for studying a martial art rather than simply going out aand getting a cheap gun?


  I don't think that martial arts say that I should study them *rather than* owning a gun. I know mine doesn't. To me, training with a gun, and applying the same principles to them as I do to the rest what I learn is actually an integral part of martial arts. Although, I can't vouch for all arts, I wasn't aware that many of them discouraged the knowledge of firearms. I know that I would never study a martial art that told me firerms were bad, and to stay away from them, but to each his own I guess.




			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I was under the impression that the law being discussed would extend the, "castle," doctrine to one's car, and legalize carrying a loaded weapon where you could easily reach it when you drive.


 I don't think that the "castle doctrine" or this law has anything to do with where you can carry firearms. I am not a cop or a lawyer though. Maybe someone can clarify?


----------



## modarnis (Apr 8, 2005)

>>Come to think of it, such a law might even make a DUI checkpoint impossible--that whole concept has been to the Supreme Court several times, and hasn't got the very solidest foundation in law anyway.>>

Still not following you.  If one is allowed to have a gun in their car, then police are precluded from having any contact with them?  I doubt this Florida law, allowing you to extend the castle doctrine to a car for self defense purposes would negate, or even erode 80 years of fairly well established search and seizure law vis a vis the automobile beginning with Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925).  Factors like mobility and significant and pervasive regulation of cars and their operation give cars a lesser expectation of privacy than a home.

There is a necessary distinction to be made to address your DUI checkpoint argument.  Seizure is different than search.  People are seized when there is probable cause to arrest them.  The DUI checkpoints fall under the broad heading of Terry Stops (see Terry V. Ohio and a huge list of cases that follow)  They deal with brief encounters that police have with citizens.

Not sure how allowing people to possess guns in there cars would prevent the DUI checkpoint brief encounter that is typically Hello, how are you, have you had a drink, is your vehicle registration up to date?  Of course there are other criteria like what pattern of vehicles being stopped etc.  During the first 30 seconds, the officer either has some reasonable suspicion that warrants further inquiry and may ultimately lead to probable cause for an arrest, or the motorist is sent on their way

Not sure how this law would impact that


----------



## Tgace (Apr 8, 2005)

Yes..I would need PC to search a vehicle regardless of where the "castle doctrine" began or ended.


----------



## ginshun (Apr 8, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Yes..I would need PC to search a vehicle regardless of where the "castle doctrine" began or ended.


 I was wondering that too.  Regardless of "castle doctrine" or whatever else, the police can't just search my car for no reason, can they?  I mean, not that it would be tough to say they saw somethig or other, but technically they need to have a reason to search it right?  I don't think having a tail light out or doing 5mph over the speed limit is probable cause to search someones vehicle.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 8, 2005)

Right.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 8, 2005)

1. I hadn't known these were trick questions. The martial arts--all of them--teach that violence, while sometimes essential, is always an absolute last resort. And the martial arts--kenpo, anyway--insist that the problem with going out and merely buying a gun is precisely what Michael Crichton and other pop writers say it is: a) it's power without responsibility; b) you won't get at it when you really need it.

2. Beyond the pious claims that no, never, perish forbid, a police officer would NEVER, EVER under any circumstances commit a bit of a stretch and pull you over for, say, a license plate light being out, then claim probable cause fairly speciously and go through your car or impound, tow, get a warrant and search (and if I were a cop, I'd most likely do it too on occasion), the fact of the matter is that until now, the legal status of a home and a car have always been different. Very generally speaking, the idea is that when you're at home, you have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and what's more you are not out in public endangering others--while in a car, you don't have any such expectation and you are very much in a position to endanger others. In other words, smoke crack at home and wave a gun around with the blinds closed, cops can't kick your door down; pull alongside a cruiser with a crack pipe between your lips and a .25 in the cup holder, you are going away for a while.

3. My point has simply been that laws like this aren't very bright: not only are they dangerous to the public, but they are usually pushed by politicians without the slightest concern for their legal and practical consequences. In other words--and why I should have to explain this to grownups is a mystery--beware of laws promulgated by pandering politicians, whatever their political persuasion. (I mean, half the reason I didn't want to vote for Gore was that his wife pushed those stupid warning labels on CDs.)

4. Again--at present, if a cop pulls you over and wants to go through your car, they pretty much are going to go through your car one way or another. And if they find trouble, you are going bye-bye--and mostly, you can squack all you want, but baring a videotape or some monumentally stupid piece of cop behavior that is seen by witnesses, you are going bye-bye. And before anybody starts up, most of the time you SHOULD go bye-bye. Laws like this might (I say again, MIGHT) be a problem for cops, because they make your rights in a car a lot like your rights at home.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 8, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 4. Again--at present, if a cop pulls you over and wants to go through your car, they pretty much are going to go through your car one way or another. And if they find trouble, you are going bye-bye--and mostly, you can squack all you want, but baring a videotape or some monumentally stupid piece of cop behavior that is seen by witnesses, you are going bye-bye. And before anybody starts up, most of the time you SHOULD go bye-bye. Laws like this might (I say again, MIGHT) be a problem for cops, because they make your rights in a car a lot like your rights at home.


How:idunno: 

The debate over the general need to retreat is a valid one and, once outside the home, one I agree with. If you can, in complete safety, retreat or avoid danger I believe its common sense that you do so. This law only applies to the issue of use of force however, I dont see it really impacting search and seizure whatever. And I note that an attorney on this thread is of the same opinion. Perhaps its not us who are confused on this issue.....extending the Castle doctrine to a vehicle only means that you have no "duty to retreat" from your vehicle while, for example, being carjacked. And if you have fled to your car to escape you wont be expected to flee any further. It has nothing to do with altering any search and seizure law as I understand it....

Also..I like many of my brethren have little problem with our fellow citizens owning legal firearms. Follow the law and I have no problem with CCW holders...


----------



## Tgace (Apr 8, 2005)

modarnis said:
			
		

> >>Come to think of it, such a law might even make a DUI checkpoint impossible--that whole concept has been to the Supreme Court several times, and hasn't got the very solidest foundation in law anyway.>>
> 
> Still not following you. If one is allowed to have a gun in their car, then police are precluded from having any contact with them? I doubt this Florida law, allowing you to extend the castle doctrine to a car for self defense purposes would negate, or even erode 80 years of fairly well established search and seizure law vis a vis the automobile beginning with Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925). Factors like mobility and significant and pervasive regulation of cars and their operation give cars a lesser expectation of privacy than a home.
> 
> ...


Like he said....


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 8, 2005)

One last time--then, sock puppets.

If you pass a law that extends the idea that your home is your castle to the idea that your car is your castle, there may be unintended consequences.

If you trust politicians who suddenly see a need for such laws all the time, you're asking for trouble.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 8, 2005)

Welcome to the justice system "sock puppet" ...theres unintended consequences in everything in that arena. Case law is what finds the balance point. Do I agree with "no duty to retreat" on the street? Not really...but some states have had that for years already so the ground isnt trembling under my feet.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 8, 2005)

At a cursory glance, retreat does not APPEAR to be required (as a standard) in:
WA,CO,NV,CA,AZ,NM,GA,MO,VT,MT,MS,MN,OK,IL,ID,IN,KY,SD,TN,OR,UT,WI,KS.

Some have been that way for many years, so another state wanting to change their law isnt very earth shattering.

http://www.inmm.org/topics/contents/pdfs/State.pdf
Its about nuclear power plant defense, but theres a nice little chart about 1/2 the way down the document....

BTW:

CALIFORNIA: If circumstances would lead reasonable person to believe that he is in danger of death or great bodily harm, retreat is not necessary before killing in self-defense against an attack. _People v Turner_, 269 P. 204 (Cal. 1928). 

California courts long ago rejected the common law principles underlying a duty to retreat. See People v. Zuckerman, 132 P. 2d 545, 549-0 (Cal. 1942) ("California courts have definitely rejected the antiquated doctrine that a defendant will be justified in killing his assailant in self-defense only after he has used every possible means of escape by fleeing, [including] `retreating to the wall.' ").


Isnt Cali. your own state Robert?


----------



## Gray Phoenix (Apr 8, 2005)

Although I understand the need for a "Duty to Retreat" law, I'm not sure I agree with it. I am all too familiar with another catch phrase: "The only thing required for Evil to rule, is for good people to do nothing".  I believe our society has swung to far away from the age of the chivalrous Knight. Instead of good people standing up and defending someone or something, we let the bad guys have their way until the "Boys in Blue" become available or if they decide to show up at all. (Police have no legal obligation to come at all.) I believe this is the reason I can drive down the street and see people trying not to look in the drug dealers direction. Gangs congregate on neighborhood street corners intimidating anyone they choose. Neighborhood Watch is impotent. We hope that some one else will take care of it. So we expand laws and take away freedoms in hope that Evil will comply with yet another law. As I have said on the 2nd Amendment threads, only good people obey laws of any kind.

The fact that Florida is now saying its ok to "stand your ground" is a step in the right direction. 



I also need to address the fact that there are a great number of people that think I should not protect property. Its ok for someone to disregard me and mine, and treat my life as less important, than their own, but should I try to stand up to them, I am now in the wrong... I believe that should someone come on to my property and take from me, their life is now forfeit. I think I am a reasonably good person and a decent martial artist, so I would not activley try to take someones life, but I wont have too many sleepless nights if that is the end result either. 

Sometimes Natural Justice is the only justice available.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 8, 2005)

"Duty to retreat" laws dont really mean "stand back and do nothing". Most state laws provide use of force statutes for dealing with crime. Duty to retreat is predominantly about "lethal force", which I believe should be a last resort. That being said, Im in agreement with my own State statute where it qualifies that "retreat must be able to be done in complete safety". And ends in your home.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 8, 2005)

Uh...which part of what you just wrote is it that you think I disagree with? Based on what?

Ah, the knight theory. By all means, let's go back to a set of principles that rest upon, and derive from, the charming notions that some people are better than others by blood, that God ordained kings and nobles to rule over the serfs, that women are to be idolized and kept locked up, that Jews and Muslims are of Satan.

And, to bend back to the law--that if she floats, she's a witch. 

By the way, the medieval world was infinitely more dangerous than ours.

As for "standing your ground," well, I believe that's been tried. A lot. In places like 1970s Beirut. Where exactly is it that you folks are living that's worse that four different places I've lived, so much worse that you want to put a gun in every car?

OK, the facts of life then. When a politician loves getting re-elected very, very much, he takes a token of his love to his beloved voters...


----------



## Tgace (Apr 8, 2005)

So Florida wants to change their use of force law to more closely match the law in what... 20-23 other states? Most of them havent turned into war zones as far as I know. Some have no "duty to retreat" whatsoever. I guess the whole state is a Castle. Whats the big deal besides it being Jeb's state?

None of this means a "free fire zone"...any use of force still has to be reasonable. Could there be an initial glut of cases where people make bad shoots when the law takes effect? Possibly....Probably. But after some cases get attention things will balance out...


----------



## tshadowchaser (Apr 8, 2005)

I think from what I have read of the law it is a good law that should have been made years ago.
As A point of reffrence to a bad law I would say that any law allowing an intruder to sue you because you defended you home, property, family or because he broke his leg while stealing your TV is a bad law.
If we can not protect oursleves in our own home (or car, truck,etc) then the criminal has won and we might as well put up a sign on the front door saying "steal all you want I can't stop you according to the law"


----------



## Phoenix44 (Apr 8, 2005)

It's part of that Bush "Culture of Life."


----------



## Tgace (Apr 8, 2005)

Thats relevant....:shrug:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 8, 2005)

Yes, it is.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 8, 2005)

What about states like your own, or Nevada that has never had one? Bush responsible for those too?


----------



## OULobo (Apr 9, 2005)

Okay, I'm going to play devil's advocate here, or maybe I just really feel this way. What if I don't want to retreat when possible and decide that I don't want to let some punk criminal trash my place and take my valuables. What if I am armed and want to protect what I worked hard for. Should I not have the right to protect my property if the criminal is in the wrong in his actions of trespassing, vandalism, burglery or worse, especially if local law enforcement isn't immediately available or able to solve the situation. If I choose to take the risk of confronting the perp armed, isn't that also my right if I choose to take responsibility for the possible consequences to my well being, dire as they may be. While I'm not one for the "be pushed, push back harder" principle, I can only be pushed so far and out of my home is too far. Besides while I generally agree that avoidance is a good strategy it is not always the best one, and not all arts or instructors teach it as the first and best in every circumstance.


----------



## KenpoTex (Apr 9, 2005)

Wow, I forget this thread for a couple of days and it takes off...

A couple of thoughts on some of the different issues that have been raised:

1) Castle doctrine in the car:  
  To my knowledge, and from carefully reading the bill, I see nothing that in any way affects search & seizure; expectation of privacy; probable cause; the right to carry a weapon w/o a CCL; or any other issue.  In other words, it ONLY applies to use of force.  The type of force used is a separate issue.  This is not gun-control/gun-rights legislation, it's use of force legislation.

2) Martial-Arts and use of force:
  I would venture to say that most MA instructors (including mine) heavily emphasise the concept of "violence as a last resort" and "retreat if it's an option."  For the most part I agree, I think that unless you feel that you are in imminent danger, you should make every effort to avoid a physical confrontation.  In other words, don't beat up the drunk guy at the frat-party.
  As far as martial-arts and guns, I find it amusing that people who say that they are in the business of teaching self-defense often dismiss or even condemn firearms as being ineffective or in some way immoral.  I find this especially humorous when said instructor teaches a system that utilizes other weapons: spear, knife, tonfa, nunchaku, etc.  Those weapons were all that were available at the time that those arts began.  I'd be willing to bet that if firearms were in existence or available to the people that used these other types of weapons that they would have bagged the chucks and started doing the gun-kata.
Like someone else said, there is the "armchair commando" mentality that a gun is a talisman that will solve all your problems.  The correct mindset would be that a firearm is just another tool in the toolbox, or another rung on the use of force continuum.  

3) Duty to retreat?  Many places have laws that require you to retreat before force can be used.  While part of me can understand the idea behind these types of laws, theoretically there should be fewer fights this way, the other part of me disagrees.  I realize that my views on SD are a little more extreme than those of many people.  As far as I am concerned I shouldn't be required or even _expected_ to retreat if I'm somewhere that I have a right to be.  To me there is a principle at stake, my rights vs. his desires.  He wants my wallet, is the $20 worth dying or killing over?  Is it really the $20 or the idea that what is really happening is that he is saying "my desire for your property supercedes your right to keep what is yours."  To me this principle is worth fighting for.  Some might consider this ideal to be old-fashioned or barbaric (I don't particularly give a S***) but I think it's definately preferable to the current situation where the ciminals have more rights than the decent law-abiding citizens and god forbid that we infringe on those rights or hurt their feelings by not allowing them to victimize us today.
There are times that I might be willing to just give in and walk away, the whole "discretion is the better part of valor" thing, however, I will only go so far.  When it comes to my home, I am NOT going to retreat.  Admittedly, this is because of my belief that no one has the right to enter my home illegally and if anyone chooses to do so he is taking his life in his hands.  I have had discussions on this issue with many people (including, incidentally, at least one of my current instructors) who feel that even in your home, your first goal should be to retreat.  Sorry, If that's the way you feel, more power to ya.  Nobody is going to run me out of my own house.  I might not shoot him immediately but if I don't he's only going to have one chance to follow my instructions immediately and completely otherwise, sayonara.

Just my take on the whole thing.  I know there are some of you that have posted in this thread that aren't going to agree with me.  I don't mind discussing it if said discussion is kept objective and mature.  I will not respond to personal attacks or attempts to discredit my statements by making jokes or quoting stupid movies.


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 9, 2005)

OULobo said:
			
		

> Okay, I'm going to play devil's advocate here, or maybe I just really feel this way. What if I don't want to retreat when possible and decide that I don't want to let some punk criminal trash my place and take my valuables. What if I am armed and want to protect what I worked hard for. Should I not have the right to protect my property if the criminal is in the wrong in his actions of trespassing, vandalism, burglery or worse, especially if local law enforcement isn't immediately available or able to solve the situation. If I choose to take the risk of confronting the perp armed, isn't that also my right if I choose to take responsibility for the possible consequences to my well being, dire as they may be. While I'm not one for the "be pushed, push back harder" principle, I can only be pushed so far and out of my home is too far. Besides while I generally agree that avoidance is a good strategy it is not always the best one, and not all arts or instructors teach it as the first and best in every circumstance.



It is never legal to resort to violence soley to protect property. This has been firmly established in all states. The Florida Law does not change this.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Apr 9, 2005)

_It is never legal_

but is it wrong?


----------



## FearlessFreep (Apr 9, 2005)

I think I tend to be more in mind with Matt's idea abut self-defense in that if I'm where I should be and doing what I should do and someone is trying to rob me or rough me up, I think it should be a judgement call on my part in how to properly respond.  I think 'duty to retreat' is often the wisest move anyway, but I'm not sure I'm thrilled that it's a legal requirement.  I think a cetain amount of 'reasonablness' or 'rationality' should go into it.  If a guy is shoving me around, maybe I should retreat but maybe a quick wrist lock with some pain or even solar plexus punch  will get him to back down whereas retreating will just encourgae him "hey, guy's a wimp..I can keep bullying him". I would hate for someone to start getting nasty on me in bar and my only choice would be to keep retreating around the bar, but if I do a quick move and he hurts his arm, I get sued for damages or charged with assault or something.  Sure, breaking a guys knee with a side kick is probably not 'reasonable' (or maybe it is in the situation?  who knows?) 

It just seems that we've gotten to a situation where it's very difficult for people to be even reasonable in defending themselves and this has also sorta made it difficult to actually get involved to help each other out (remember the video of the big guy in the burger king?  Maybe nobody got involved because if someone else stepped in, they might be charged with a crime or sued or something)  I can understand that the police and the justice system don't want a bunch of civilian vigilantes or something and you don't want a situation where a blustery, testosterone-boosted shoving leads to someone getting killed, but it seems to me that there is a lot of ground between doinging nothing and getting killed that people should be allowed to use their judgement in.  Our justice system today does not seem to handle 'grey areas of reasonableness' too well; I think there are too many lawyers making too much money off of exploiting those grey areas.

Maybe for self-defense, we don't need martial arts classes, we need law degrees


----------



## Cryozombie (Apr 9, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> What about states like your own, or Nevada that has never had one? Bush responsible for those too?


 Of course it is.  He Killed Jesus on the cross, He Burned the Great Library, he led the mongol hordes to victory, he sailed his viking longboats and pillages europe...  He was responsible for the fall of rome, and he made Florida decide that you have the same, if not more rights than the piece of **** that tries to kill you.

 I don't care what ANYBODY else says, in MY mind the most important piece of this whole issue is the one that says YOU CANT BE SUED by the attacker or his family.  The rest is window dressing as far as I am concerned.  More states need to adopt at least that much of the policy.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 9, 2005)

One point that apparently needs making is that you retreat rather than use force, if at all possible, because it's likely to be SAFER than getting into it--it isn't just,"do you value your TV set more than a burglar's life," but, "do you value a TV set more than YOUR life, or your family's?"

It's one of the differences between cops and the rest of us, and one of the reasons that "uses of force," doctrines are different for cops and for civilians--cops must protect the public in general as well as themselves and their families.

And again, there are two practical issues that keep getting sluffed off here: a) the unintended consequences of politicians' passing these kinds of laws; b) the actual reality that, back here on the planet, you are already very unlikely to be prosecuted for defending yourself in anything like a reasonable fashion.

What has Bush contributed to the problem? Nothing direct, of course. But his faux macho posturing doesn't help, and neither does his heartfelt promulgation of the notion that the world is filled with threats and is getting worse, his heartfelt attacks on any program (money for cops, for Head Start, for vets, for Medicaid, etc.) that might help leave people less crazy--and above all, its happy promulgation of that great, sick-minded post-modern American idea that it's a dog-eat-dog world out there, and you better screw the other guy and get yours as fast as you possibly can.

Incidentally, you can ALWAYS be sued. No matter what law gets passed.


----------



## OULobo (Apr 9, 2005)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> It is never legal to resort to violence soley to protect property. This has been firmly established in all states. The Florida Law does not change this.



Actually I believe that there is case precidence in TX of use of force (ie Violence) and even lethal force solely to protect property. I will see if I can find the case history, but I doubt it. There is also the issue of definition. Violence doesn't necessarily mean lethal force. Forcibly tossing somone off my property is resorting to violence to protect property and I don't think that is illegal. Security guards that forcibly remove people from businesses resort to violence to protect property and I don't believe that is illegal either. Who knows I'm not a lawyer.


----------



## OULobo (Apr 9, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> It's one of the differences between cops and the rest of us, and one of the reasons that "uses of force," doctrines are different for cops and for civilians--cops must protect the public in general as well as themselves and their families.



Not true. It isn't technically the duty of any LEO to protect the public in general. Just the property of the municipality. Many take on the role as safety officers by policy, not legality.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 9, 2005)

OULobo said:
			
		

> Actually I believe that there is case precidence in TX of use of force (ie Violence) and even lethal force solely to protect property. I will see if I can find the case history, but I doubt it. There is also the issue of definition. Violence doesn't necessarily mean lethal force. Forcibly tossing somone off my property is resorting to violence to protect property and I don't think that is illegal. Security guards that forcibly remove people from businesses resort to violence to protect property and I don't believe that is illegal either. Who knows I'm not a lawyer.


True. Many states laws spell out what level of force may be used to, for example, protect property. In NY you can use "physical force" but not "deadly force" to protect property, prevent petty crimes etc. In my state few people realize that the penal law states that the operator of a "common carrier" (bus, train, boat, etc) is authorized to use deadly force to stop the actions of a person that could place his passengers at risk of death or serious physical injury.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Apr 9, 2005)

Where's a good place to find out what's legal in your state?  I'm curious to know the exact laws for my home (New MExico)


----------



## Tgace (Apr 9, 2005)

Google your State name and "Penal Law", "use of force", and/or "defense of justification" for a start....


----------



## Tgace (Apr 9, 2005)

An interesting point....use of force laws are many times termed "defense of justification". Meaning that ALL use of force is illegal, but in some circumstances you have a "defense" that it was justifiable.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 9, 2005)

http://www.legallawhelp.com/legal_law_channels/criminal_law/codes_by_state.html

Good source for State laws of varoius types.


----------



## KenpoTex (Apr 10, 2005)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> I think it should be a judgement call on my part in how to properly respond. I think 'duty to retreat' is often the wisest move anyway, but I'm not sure I'm thrilled that it's a legal requirement. I think a cetain amount of 'reasonablness' or 'rationality' should go into it.


 Pretty much what I was trying to say.



			
				FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> Maybe for self-defense, we don't need martial arts classes, we need law degrees


 LOL, sad but true


----------



## MJS (Apr 10, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> One point that apparently needs making is that you retreat rather than use force, if at all possible, because it's likely to be SAFER than getting into it--it isn't just,"do you value your TV set more than a burglar's life," but, "do you value a TV set more than YOUR life, or your family's?"






> Incidentally, you can ALWAYS be sued. No matter what law gets passed.



I havent read every post here, but I have to say that I agree 100% with Roberts comments above.  Making sure that you exhaust every other option you have before you use your final option, in this case a gun, is the best way to go IMHO.  We do live in a very sue happy world, and in an instance like this, its almost a given that someone will be getting sued.  Even if the guy dies, you can bet his family will file a suit on their sons behalf.  

Mike


----------



## Cryozombie (Apr 10, 2005)

MJS said:
			
		

> I havent read every post here, but I have to say that I agree 100% with Roberts comments above. Making sure that you exhaust every other option you have before you use your final option, in this case a gun, is the best way to go IMHO. We do live in a very sue happy world, and in an instance like this, its almost a given that someone will be getting sued. Even if the guy dies, you can bet his family will file a suit on their sons behalf.
> 
> Mike


 The body of the law reads that if the "system" determines that you were justified in using force you cannot be sued.  I suppose you COULD be, but with that clause I dont think it would make it into court, let alone you pocket.


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 10, 2005)

OULobo said:
			
		

> Actually I believe that there is case precidence in TX of use of force (ie Violence) and even lethal force solely to protect property. I will see if I can find the case history, but I doubt it. There is also the issue of definition. Violence doesn't necessarily mean lethal force. Forcibly tossing somone off my property is resorting to violence to protect property and I don't think that is illegal. Security guards that forcibly remove people from businesses resort to violence to protect property and I don't believe that is illegal either. Who knows I'm not a lawyer.



Sorry, I meant deadly force. Some states let you use physical force if it is "reasonable"; but no state justifies deadly force to protect property.

And about "reasonableness;" what is considered reasonable is a judgement call. And, if you use force, your going to be relying on a jury and a legal system to determine your "reasonableness." Essentially, this means, you could be relying on a bunch of unreasonable people to determine your reasonableness.

So...regardless of what the laws are...I would advise erring on the side of caution, because the more your reasonableness comes into question, the more of a chance you have to be persecuted for your self-defense.

Paul


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 10, 2005)

> the actual reality that, back here on the planet, you are already very unlikely to be prosecuted for defending yourself in anything like a reasonable fashion.



I don't know about that. The appearance seems to me that if you defend yourself, the laws do not work in your favor. There is too much risk of having "reasonableness" jeaprodized, and you being considered a mutual combatant even if that is not the case. Also, if you "win" the self-defense encounter and the other guy is injured, there seems to be a far greater chance that you'll be considered at fault and subject to legal reprocusions, and that there is way too much of a chance that you will get sued.

I am all for laws helping good people who are justified in defending themselves. But at the moment they are subject to at the very least $1000 in court costs, time, and lost wages. The actual attack is just the beginning of the nightmare...

That said, this is why I am for having a duty to retreat law except where castle doctrine applies. I feel that it helps to better define for a potentially moronic jury (or even potentially moronic LE who is doing the report) that "he tried to retreat, so he was the victim," or even "he tried to retreat, but could not because his childs safety was in jeaprody, so he was the victim." If the duty to retreat laws help define when someone is a mutual combatant, then in this situation it seems to work conversly as well in that it helps define when someone was really trying to defend themselves.


----------



## Brother John (Apr 10, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Being pretty sure about the nature of the responses to this question, let me just ask out of morbid curiousity: what do ALL the martial arts teach about one's duty to retreat, as part of a general duty to avoid violence except as an absolute last resort?


I'd think that if there were an intruder in my home, with my family home (wife, two very young children) I'd have scant few 'resorts' left but to take immediate action.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Brother John (Apr 10, 2005)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Defending yourself and your family is one thing.  Shooting an intruder when you could have easily escaped unharmed simply because "damnit, this is my house" is quite another.  You preventing a guy from stealing your TV or jewelry isn't worth killing them when it's not needed.


MOST in home murders are the result of domestic violence. In a close second are murders that occured when there was a burglary. 
Action will always beat reaction...
I'm not going to wait around and find out what their intentions are. 
IF a person breaks into your home you know One thing and can infer others from that:
#1: They are a criminal. 
Inferences: 
They have no scruples.
Most criminals, especially burglars, arm themselves.
Most criminals are repeat offenders and thus have a Great deal to lose if they are caught and/or identified...thus making them desperate to take the offensive toward those in the home.
Most criminals, by the very nature of being a criminal, have little to no moral objection to violating and harming others, especially when they feel it's in their own best interest.

I'm NOT going to wait to see what their intentions are. 
I may feel a great deal of remorse for taking the life of a person who broke into my home. That's very true. I'd feel a GREAT DEAL MORE if they violated, harmed and/or KILLED my family members.

I'll act.

Your Brother
John


----------



## shesulsa (Apr 10, 2005)

On the topic of retreat, here is a site about imprisoned battered women who were convicted of murder even when they either aided and abetted or were forced at gunpoint to tie up victims, or shot in self-defense and missed.

  This is only one small example of victims who have been charged with criminal activity and punished.


----------



## Brother John (Apr 10, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Again: what do the martial arts teach about the duty to retreat if possible?
> 
> I'd add that most of these bills, and the claims they represent, are just plain dopey. Unless there's some rare circumstance that the cops just can't overlook, or some prosecutor's running for office, there isn't a chance in hell that you're going to be prosecuted for shooting somebody who kicks your door in and comes after you or your family.
> 
> Still, it doesn't surprise me. In a society that equates money with human life, of course deadly force will be OK to protect mere property.



The martial arts do (over all) teach that we must seek peace instead of violence. BUT: they also teach that when greater things are at stake...life...etc. that Violence is appropriate. Why do we train to be effective fighters if there was never a need to fight? I don't WANT to fight!! But if I must do so, I want to be very very good at it.
You said:


> Unless there's some rare circumstance that the cops just can't overlook, or some prosecutor's running for office, there isn't a chance in hell that you're going to be prosecuted for shooting somebody who kicks your door in and comes after you or your family.


Man!! Wish that were true. But it's not. There are just too many cases of the opposite for me to take your claim seriously. That's why bills like this are even created and considered in the first place.

You comment about our society "Equating money with human life" is increadibly silly Robert. 
Nobody is saying "Use deadly force if someone is taking your stereo." They are saying that if you and/or your family are in your home and there is good reason to believe that you are in danger...you can legally take whatever action needed to insure safety. 
It's equating life with life. You seem to really rail against the American Economic system and want to blame all of our ailments on it. It's not a 'one size fits all' issue. This is an issue about our rights to protect ourselves and our loved ones.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Brother John (Apr 10, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I see that there isn't going to be a response to the question about martial arts and the duty to retreat. Oh well.


I gave one Robert.
No need to keep sighing.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Gray Phoenix (Apr 10, 2005)

I'm not going to quote any previous posts. I dont want to overtly dent the soft, cute and cuddly sensibilities of any one here. 

My chivelraous Knight analogy was not meant to advocate a rewinding of our society. It was meant as a point of extreme and that we have swung too far to the other extreme where we are encouraged to pull the covers over our heads and hope the bad men go away. 

Living in California, I fully expect to get sued for jsut about anything. It wasnt long ago, when someone broke into a house, slipped on a toy, broke his leg, sued and won. 

If I catch somebody raping my wife, I know that I will end him. I also know that his family will sue me with the full support of the ACLU.

My "Duty to Retreat" come into effect when other people realize they have a duty not to steal, or cause bodily harm to others. I am all for Live and Live right up to the point where somebody else feels its ok tread on me or mine.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 10, 2005)

I continue to be surprised that I have to explain capitalism to its advocates--my suspicion is that folks believe that capitalism is the, "natural," way for people to live, so there is nothing there that needs understanding--but OK. 

See, the way our economic and social system (and all economic systems carry a particular formation of society along with them) works, what's absolutely central to our lives is the production, exchange, and accumulation of money--capital--in all its forms.

Because this is the way our system works, our laws (and our legal system) constantly entangle individual rights and private property: an attack on one is an attack on the other. If you read what people are writing here, or listen to discussions on similar topics, that is exactly what they're saying: they'd shoot somebody to protect their property, because they believe (and they're quite right, in this society) that their life and their possessions are intimately connected.

If you think this isn't true, let me ask: what happens if you do not have money? does money determine your health care, your kids' education, your relationship with the law? Of course it does.

I'd be very interested to see some chapter-and-verse on exactly who, where, when and why somebody got sued for shooting a home invader. This stuff is mostly just mythology and ideology--it can happen (as I've already mentioned more than twice on this thread), but it is unusual. I'd also be interested to see the exact stats which put "home invasion," assaults and murders anywhere near the assaults and murders of domestic violence.

That's why FOX news and the tabloids and Michael Savage always trumpet this stuff, on the rare occasions it actually happens: they're invested in promulgating the fantasy that our society is a) collapsing under the weight of them wacky liberals, b) filling up with dangers that can ONLY be handled if the good white right-wingers take over.

You shouldn't be worrying over getting to carry a gun. That won't protect you very well at all--quite the contrary, despite the NRA propaganda. Why? BECAUSE MOST OF THE REAL DANGER COMES FROM YOUR OWN FAMILY AND YOUR FRIENDS. What'll protect you is a decent society, whose members aren't scared to death of each other, whose politicians don't constantly lie about threats in order to get elected, whose money gets invested in schools and housing and medical care rather than weapons and jails.

Of course, one of the things I haven't mentioned is that there are genuinely dangerous pockets in our society--they're occupied by the poor, and by minorities. And because we refuse to face up to poverty and racism (poverty is worse), yes, these folks are endangered.

The fact that AGAIN any discussion (let alone contradiction!) of the whole gun-waving thing gets called ranting is a good sign of the trouble we're in. My, "soft and cuddly sensibilities," whose existence is apparently intuited from the notion that anybody who says that gee, maybe it's not a great idea to have people driving around with loaded guns in their cars or gosh, maybe you shouldn't shoot anybody unless you absolutely have to, and darn, maybe self-defense is more important than posturing, wouldn't be there if you'd actually read what I wrote.

But speaking of, "soft and cuddly," I must admit I find it a touching expression of faith that anybody believes without question that a politician in Florida is, gee whiz, just trying to help the poor, beleaguered voters when he pushes a law like this.


----------



## Brother John (Apr 10, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I continue to be surprised that I have to explain capitalism to its advocates
> 
> See, the way our economic and social system
> Because this is the way our system works
> ...


You don't "Have to" explain a thing.
I'm not 'advocating' capitalism.

The issue isn't economics.
The issue isn't capitalism.
The issue isn't Right wing this and left wing that.
The issue isn't FOX news or Savage.
The issue isn't Gunsor the 'waving' of them.
The issue isn't about 'race'. 
The issue isn't Property.
The issue isn't politicians.

The Issue IS about the defense of oneself and loved ones.
The issue IS about a persons right to defend the life and wellbeing of themselves and their loved ones in their home in any way they see fit without fear of huge legal reprocussions if they do.

I don't need to see stats on home burglaries that result in murder. I have seen them in the past, and they are real.

I don't have to look up line and verse on people who've been sued by burglars, I'm related to people who have. It's an injustice and it's wrong. 

I say that a person should be able to defend themselves and their loved ones when they percieve a threat. Period.
That's the issue of this bill.
That's the issue of this thread.

Your sermon on correcting what ails this country is Your rant and nobody brought it here but you.


Your Brother
John


----------



## Tgace (Apr 10, 2005)

Same old song and dance.....


----------



## arnisador (Apr 10, 2005)

No duty to retreat sounds reasonable in principle, but...I foresee overaggressive "defenses" where people could have just given up their car or what have you and things would've worked out better.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 10, 2005)

Thats where you enter into "reasonableness". While I too have no problem with "duty to retreat" either, many states have never had it and they haven't descended into anarchy. IMO, at its root its designed to prevent "mutual combat" more than its designed for defense against criminals, however it can get twisted into shifting the burden of liability onto the victim of a crime which is where laws like this one are sprouting from.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 10, 2005)

Generally speaking, one wonders if the, "My mind's made up, don't confuse me with the facts," approach is a good one for a martial artist.

Among other things, it tends to make us miss the point--which was that getting sued by some criminal is not the greatest of our worries, and neither is a home invasion by strangers, and which was not that these things never happen.

Another problem is that the approach tends to make us ignore contexts. For one thing, I happened to be responding to a post imediately before my last one. For another, I guess I'm just a liberal wacko--I suspect that a) politicians sometimes push for bad laws to score brownie points with the voters; b) Americans tend to feel threatened a lot more than they really are; c) creeps like Savage are a fair chunk of the reason that we feel that way; d) when several writers on a thread claim that property is just as important as life, that probably says something about the world they live in.

As for the rant bit, BroJo--has it every occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, some of us find the paeans to violence and guns appearing on these threads, as well as some of the flag-waving, the announcements that America Is Doomed Because of Liberals, the claims that anybody who is a right-wing Christian is going to hell, well, has it ever occured to you that maybe, just maybe, these things are a little bit ranty themselves?

It ain't my tone, or my hobbyhorses, that bother you. It's the fact that I see things differently, and that I have an inconvenient habit of asking folks to look at reality. Sorry--maybe I should recite the politically-correct party line more often.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 10, 2005)

Generally speaking, one wonders if the, "My mind's made up, don't confuse me with the facts," approach is a good one for a martial artist.

Among other things, it tends to make us miss the point--which was that getting sued by some criminal is not the greatest of our worries, and neither is a home invasion by strangers, and which was not that these things never happen.

Another problem is that the approach tends to make us ignore contexts. For one thing, I happened to be responding to a post imediately before my last one. For another, I guess I'm just a liberal wacko--I suspect that a) politicians sometimes push for bad laws to score brownie points with the voters; b) Americans tend to feel threatened a lot more than they really are; c) creeps like Savage are a fair chunk of the reason that we feel that way; d) when several writers on a thread claim that property is just as important as life, that probably says something about the world they live in.

As for the rant bit, BroJo--has it every occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, some of us find the paeans to violence appearing on these threads, as well as some of the flag-waving, the announcements that America Is Doomed Because of Liberals, the claims that anybody who isn't a right-wing Christian is going to hell, well, maybe, just maybe, these a little bit ranty themselves?

It ain't my tone, or my hobbyhorses, that bother you. It's the fact that I see things differently, and that I have an inconvenient habit of asking folks to look at reality. Sorry--maybe I should recite the politically-correct party line more often.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 10, 2005)

> More to the point, based on Appellant's testimony, when she walked behind the decedent's vehicle, saw the decedent approach with the same gardening tool, then withdrew to her own car to retrieve the weapon, she lost the right of self-defense. It is true a party has no obligation to retreat from a confrontation; she can stand her ground and defend herself. Perez v. State, 51 Okl.Cr. 180, 300 P. 428, 429 (1931). Nonetheless, there must be a distinction between retreating to avoid a confrontation and withdrawing a short distance to obtain a tactical advantage  here, the acquisition of a deadly weapon. See State v. Health, 237 Mo. 255, 141 S.W. 26, 30 (1911); Jackson v. State, 2 Ala.App. 55, 56 So. 96, 98 (1911). Appellant was able to reach her vehicle; yet when she did, she grabbed a weapon, turned and confronted her attacker instead of escaping. While we do not overrule our earlier holdings that a party has no duty to retreat from a confrontation, we believe the possibility of escape should be a recognized factor in determining whether deadly force was necessary to avoid death or great bodily harm. See State v. Freeman, 447 So.2d 1145 (La. Ct. App. 1984), writ denied, 449 So.2d 1356 (La. 1984).



Yes..states with no "duty to retreat" laws are like the wild west.....


----------



## Tgace (Apr 10, 2005)

http://federalism.typepad.com/crime_federalism/2005/04/liberal_crimina.html


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 10, 2005)

Uh...who exactly was it that argued that Florida had become a font of anarchy?

I note, incidentally, that the cited decision came down on the side of saying that, a) the woman had a right to defend herself, but b) she did NOT have the right to go get a weapon and come back rather than walking away--and the Court explicitly said that one's ability to escape was a primary consideration in the use of force.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 10, 2005)

Exactly...Oklahoma has no "duty to retreat" law. However as that case noted, the use of deadly force still needs to be reasonable. The whole argument that removing a "duty to retreat" law from a states penal code is going to result in anarchistic "unintended consequences" has no basis. Many states dont have them....

Perhaps if Jeb fell on the other side of the issue this whole debate may not have occurred.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 10, 2005)

http://www.gulf1.com/columns/gaetz/0323a.htm


----------



## Tgace (Apr 10, 2005)

And if anybody is interested in the actual bill vs. the decline of the USA due to capitalism and radio/TV show hosts here it is.

http://www.flsenate.gov/data/session/2005/Senate/bills/amendments_Com/pdf/sb0436am191782.pdf

Unless you prefer to have your "reality" explained to you by some anonymous internet poster....


----------



## MJS (Apr 10, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> The body of the law reads that if the "system" determines that you were justified in using force you cannot be sued.  I suppose you COULD be, but with that clause I dont think it would make it into court, let alone you pocket.



Thats correct, and I'm certainly not disputing that.  I would just think that it would be important to use every other option you had before deciding to shoot, due to the fact that what the court thinks is right and what the victim thinks is right can greatly differ.

Mike


----------



## Tgace (Apr 10, 2005)

Here Robert..now you cant say Ive never given you anything...

Amendment


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 10, 2005)

1. Gee, thanks for the left-wing, "Sesame Street," song on legislation. Do remember that some of the guys you're citing are the ones who constantly complain that they're too liberal, and that their funds need to be cut.

2. Hey, here's the first two paragraphs of the cited editorial:

A New York Supreme Court judge once warned, Nobodys life, liberty or property are safe while the Legislature is in session. 

While generally true, that admonition may have an exception if the Florida Legislature allows the castle doctrine to shield citizens seeking to protect their own lives, liberty and property against unlawful intruders.

Two companion bills (Senate Bill 436 and House Bill 249) would allow Floridians to use deadly force to resist attacks in their homes or vehicles. Proponents say current case law is fuzzy, especially in the hands of liberal judges, when someone breaks into your house or car. 

I cannot express my dismay at being utterly wrong in saying that, a) in this society, people link, "life, liberty and property," automatically, b) the extension of the, "castle doctrine," from the home to the car in order to justify using, "deadly force," may raise some issues, c) that, "liberal judges," get blamed for everything.

Oops, my...hey, wait a minute.

Incidentally, "anonymous," means that you don't use your real name. I thought I had--musta been wrong about that, too.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 10, 2005)

That was "schoolhouse rock" dude...sheesh.


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 11, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Because this is the way our system works, our laws (and our legal system) constantly entangle individual rights and private property: an attack on one is an attack on the other. If you read what people are writing here, or listen to discussions on similar topics, that is exactly what they're saying: they'd shoot somebody to protect their property, because they believe (and they're quite right, in this society) that their life and their possessions are intimately connected.



Amen. I absolutely agree with this. I will add though, that I believe that the right to own or not own property is essential to a free society. That said, it is extremely problematic that we are a property/asset centered society. And, this is a major contributing factor to our culture of violence.



> You shouldn't be worrying over getting to carry a gun. That won't protect you very well at all--quite the contrary, despite the NRA propaganda. Why? BECAUSE MOST OF THE REAL DANGER COMES FROM YOUR OWN FAMILY AND YOUR FRIENDS. What'll protect you is a decent society, whose members aren't scared to death of each other, whose politicians don't constantly lie about threats in order to get elected, whose money gets invested in schools and housing and medical care rather than weapons and jails.



I believe that this is absolutely correct as well. This is why I think that we should be focused on solving these problems rather then creating new ones by hindering peoples rights to self-defense. If we solve these problems and start to undo our violent society, then people will no longer need (or feel that they need) to carry firearms or be paranoid over defense from violent assaults and crime, thus trumping any need for "weapons bans or restrictions," or intrusive laws that attempt to deter bad behavior.


----------



## KenpoTex (May 1, 2005)

It's official.  Gov. Bush signed this bill into law on April 26th.  Hopefully other states will eventually follow suit.  Go Florida!


----------

