"No duty to retreat" bill in FL

[Flatlander]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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.

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

>>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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

>>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]

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

 

[ginshun]

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]

Right.

 

[rmcrobertson]

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.