"No duty to retreat" bill in FL

[Brother John]

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

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.

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.

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]

Same old song and dance.....

 

[arnisador]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[rmcrobertson]

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]

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]

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

 

[Tgace]

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]

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]

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

Amendment

 

[rmcrobertson]

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]

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

 

[Cruentus]

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]

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