"No duty to retreat" bill in FL

[OULobo]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[rmcrobertson]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[rmcrobertson]

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]

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]

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

 

[Tgace]

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]

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]

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]

No reply?



I thought so.....:shrug:

 

[rmcrobertson]

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]

>>>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.