"No duty to retreat" bill in FL

[oldnewbie]

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]

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

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

Nevermind.

 

[rmcrobertson]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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....

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

#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]

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]

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

Excellent advice.

 

[Tgace]

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]

Good things to mention Tgace...

and thanks guys...

 

[Tgace]

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]

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]

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.

Prior to 1940, New York's decisional law tended toward protection of life by imposing a generalized duty to retreat in the face of deadly force (People v Tomlins, 213 NY 240; People v Kennedy, 159 NY 346, 349 [1899]; People v Constantino, 153 NY 24 [1897]). However, in People v Ligouri (284 NY 309, 317 [1940]), this Court departed from what had been the traditional retreat rule and held that a defendant faced with felonious attack on a public street was justified "in standing his ground and, if necessary, destroying the person making the felonious attack." The Legislature responded in its 1965 revision of the Penal Law (see L 1965, ch 1030; see also Denzer and McQuillan, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 39, Penal Law § 35.15, at 64 [1967 ed]). Codifying what had been the common law of the state prior to Ligouri, Penal Law § 35.15 for the first time statutorily limited the use of lethal defensive force to circumstances when the defender cannot "with complete safety as to himself and others avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating." The Legislature also incorporated the castle doctrine — balancing the competing interests of protecting the home and protecting life — directing that the duty to retreat does not apply when the defender "is in his dwelling and not the initial aggressor" (Penal Law § 35.15 [2] [a] ).[FN2]

Thus, our current statutory recognition of the castle doctrine in Penal Law § 35.15 reaffirmed New York's traditional self-defense principles (see People v Hernandez, 98 NY2d 175, 182 [2002]). If the attack occurs in the dwelling, a defender need not retreat but may use reasonable force to repel it.

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