TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The Castle Doctrine

The Castle Doctrine

Why, oh why can't we have this here in Canada!
No more hiding behind the lawyer after you've majorly fucked up.

There so many punks I see in our newpapers getting off on lame ass excuses for murders, bludgeoning, etc. especially here in Toronto.
Mind you, Toronto is like Elysium when compared to the crime rates in any city in the States but that doesn't make it right.

I'm curious as to everyone's views on self-defence here...

quote:

Hey Florida scum . . . it's time for you to run! By Doug Giles ". . . if you do that which is evil, be afraid." - Rom.13.4 As of this Saturday, October 1, 2005, the law abiding citizens of Florida have been "given back" the already God-given, Constitution-given and no-duh-right to defend themselves, and if need be, use deadly force in so doing. That's right . . . if you decide to rape, rob, car jack or accost a Floridian, you might want to think twice about that brain fart, as that may be the last thing you do before your soul wings its way to Hades. If you're the little weed contemplating these things, you should reflect a bit longer on the wisdom of this course of violent action, because we the people can now wale on you and be protected from criminal prosecution and/or an inane civil suit. Here's what Floridians are now afforded via >>The Castle Doctrine<<. This beautiful new law basically gives the average Joe who gets criminally assaulted while minding his own beeswax three essentials things: 1. It establishes, by law, the presumption that if a moron has the moxie to forcibly enter my home or vehicle that he is probably not there to borrow sugar, rather to cause death or bodily harm. Therefore, I can either impale said dipstick, on a sword, or dust him with 00 Buck, or unload my Sig in his surprised face, or double tap his center mass with my .450/400-3 � Nitro Express double rifle I bought to hunt Africa's most deadliest game. Yes, beginning this Saturday, good Floridian men can put down bad foolish men who violate the sanctity of our Castles. 2. It removes my duty to turn the other cheek and runaway when I'm being attacked. Look, if bloggers, columnists and radio show hosts want to have fun at my expense, I have no other recourse but to absorb their personal insults, laugh it off and not go postal, i.e., to turn the other cheek. However, if my family, or I or others in my vicinity are being physically assaulted in a place in which we have a perfect right to be, then I can stand my ground and drop the assailant to the pavement if I have reason to believe he intends to do us bodily harm. Matthew 5:39 does not apply to rapists, burglars, attempted murderers, gangbangers, terrorists or similar stooges. 3. In addition, after the deceased violent aggressor's spirit is tooling its way to Dante's slow roast BBQ and I'm comforting my family and friends as I wipe gun powder residue off my hands, thanks to The Castle Doctrine, I can rest assured that I am protected from a therapeutic culture and the soulless lawyers it has spawned. Imagine that . . . a law on the side of a law abiding person. It's crazy! You know, it's not a cheerful thought, but think of the reverb that'll shoot through criminal communities in the Sunshine State when one of their ilk gets killed by a good citizen for trying to be tough guy. What do you think the still living idiot friends of the deceased punk are going to think when they learn that their 19-year old Darwinian-holdover buddy got Glocked by a young woman who refused to be raped by him? Think of the empowerment that this theoretical babe will give to other chicas minding their own business, as she leads the pack by not taking any crud from criminals�Castle Doctrine style! Imagine the laughter of the cackling fools ceasing when instead of bringing home video footage of their friends beating and kicking an old man in the parking lot of a Target for fun, they have on their memory stick a 35 second blip of a retiree laying one of their multi-tattooed lads to rest with a Smith & Wesson 686. Oops! Now you little wannabe criminals didn't plan on that happening this evening, did you? In addition, won't it be a relief to see bloodless lawyers no longer having a psychobabble, legalese, this-is-why-my-client-robbed-raped-burgled-or-murdered leg to stand on? Won't it be liberating to not hear on the local news that the perpetrator was actually the victim, and the one who defended himself is evil? Aren't you getting sick of hearing how the felon was not responsible for his crime because he had low blood sugar, abnormal peer pressure, societal oppression, or that he didn't get enough attention during his delicate years, was off his meds and was not aware of the ramifications of such criminal mischief because George W. Bush under funded his education? Isn't it freeing to now know that you can protect your person and property instead of helplessly running from bad people, bad judges and bad lawyers? Yes, thanks to Sen. Durrell Peaden and Rep. Dennis Baxley, the law's sponsors, and Gov. Jeb Bush, who signed the bill into law, The Castle Doctrine has now gone into effect, and I guarantee we will begin to see the sun set on those who would do harm in the Sunshine State. Only those who do evil need to be afraid.

>>Source<<

Alright, where to begin?

Firstly, the author of that article doesn't seem to be quite all there mentally. I'm not saying that flippantly either: he genuinely comes across as little more than a big bundle of hateful neuroses. I mean look at the language he uses:

quote:

That's right . . . if you decide to rape, rob, car jack or accost a Floridian, you might want to think twice about that brain fart, as that may be the last thing you do before your soul wings its way to Hades. [...] If you're the little weed contemplating these things, you should reflect a bit longer on the wisdom of this course of violent action[.] [...] I can either impale said dipstick, on a sword, or dust him with 00 Buck, or unload my Sig in his surprised face, or double tap his center mass with my .450/400-3 � Nitro Express double rifle I bought to hunt Africa's most deadliest game. [...] In addition, after the deceased violent aggressor's spirit is tooling its way to Dante's slow roast BBQ and I'm comforting my family and friends as I wipe gun powder residue off my hands, thanks to The Castle Doctrine, I can rest assured that I am protected from a therapeutic culture and the soulless lawyers it has spawned. [...] You know, it's not a cheerful thought, but think of the reverb that'll shoot through criminal communities in the Sunshine State when one of their ilk gets killed by a good citizen for trying to be tough guy. What do you think the still living idiot friends of the deceased punk are going to think when they learn that their 19-year old Darwinian-holdover buddy got Glocked by a young woman who refused to be raped by him?

Those just simply aren't the words of someone who holds a sensible, rational grasp of the world around him. You can almost sense the self-righteous glee he feels at the possibility of violently remonstrating with someone who he perceives as having done him wrong. I'm reminded of Vincent's words from Pulp Fiction, after someone keys his car - "It'd been worth him doing it just so I could've caught him doing it". I get the impression that this author feels the same way: he'd almost relish the feeling of being mugged or having his house broken into, just to have the pleasure of catching him and then "dust[ing] him with 00 Buck". There is a case that can be made for violent methods of self-defence, of course, but if enacting these sorts of laws means that wannabe-viglilante douchebags like this guy can just start unloading rounds of lead into someone at the first sign of trouble, then I really doubt that such laws can really amount to much good. I, for one, wouldn't feel comfortable with someone like this owning a gun, let alone owning a gun that he could use in any way he wanted without fear of criminal prosecution.

The religious "hellfire and brimstone" overtones don't bode well for his grip on reality either. The fact that he could think, even for a second, that the act of "impaling" an unarmed sixteen year-old who had broken into his home "with a sword" is morally justified by the teachings of Christ, or - indeed - that it would be the underage transgressor whose soul would be placed in eternal danger as a result of the event, demonstrates to me that he's your fairly typical, right-wing, conservative Christian: picking and choosing the Biblical laws he wishes to live by, acting with an unassaiblable (yet completely misguided) sense of self-righteousness and completely intolerent of anyone who doesn't fit into his narrow, absolutist world-view. I mean, look at the Bible verse he quoted, in context:

quote:

38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. 41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. 42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. 43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

(Matthew 5:38-44)

For me, at least, there isn't a great deal of ambiguity in what Christ is saying here. It is made clear that the old Jewish law of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" (i.e. proportional retalition) has been transcended by his own doctrine of "turning the other cheek" and "loving thine enemy" and that this new doctrine is universally applicable. I don't see any "Oh, excepting rapists, burglars, attempted murderers, gangbangers, terrorists or similar stooges, obviously" in parentheses anywhere, or a "Disregard all this if your enemy has broken into your home - in that case you are clearly free to waste them with a 450/400-3 � Nitro Express double rifle". If this guy claims to be a Christian (and judging from the religious allusions, I'm guessing that he does) he definitely doesn't seem to have a very solid grasp of Christ's teachings.

Anyway, as for the laws themselves, I think it should go without saying that I'd oppose them. I'm not too sure what the laws in Florida were like prior to the introduction of this "Castle Doctrine" but I'd imagine that were already provisions made for those who commit an otherwise "illegal" act (i.e. assaulting, shooting or killing someone) in the name of self-defence. In Australia, for instance (and I hope this is right because it's been a while since I did Legal Studies at school), the legitimacy of the "self-defence" doctrine as a legal-defence for these more serious crimes, is bound up with the idea of "proportionality" - that is, you may use as much force as is absolutely necessary to prevent a crime being committed against your person. If the use of force is "excessive" and it can be demonstrated that the threat could have been seen off with the use of more "reasonable" force, then you will have to answer to criminal charges. Australian law, thus, protects those who use violence in self-defence, but does not protect those who use an unnecessary degree of force while seeing off a threat.

With regards to this new Floridian law, it seems that it removes any sense of "proportionality" with regards to self-defence and it empowers citizens with the permission to use excessive force, even to prevent more minor crimes.

From the site cited in the article:

quote:

This bill REMOVES the "duty to retreat" in the face of attack; it creates the presumption that an attacker or intruder intends to do great bodily harm and therefore force, including deadly force, may be used to protect yourself, your family and others in the face of attack; it prohibits prosecution for defending that which you have a right to defend and prohibits civil lawsuits by criminals or relatives of criminals when criminals are injured or killed while attacking law-abiding people.

I'm particularly worried about this aspect:

quote:

it creates the presumption that an attacker or intruder intends to do great bodily harm and therefore force, including deadly force, may be used to protect yourself, your family and others in the face of attack

What this bill is saying, essentially, is that if an unarmed sixteen year old transgresses onto your property for a laugh, or an unarmed drug-addict breaks into your home to steal a VCR, then you are to treat them as though they were highly-trained, professional, violent killers, whose sole aim is to cause you harm. I'd imagine that, in the case of most individuals who break into your home or try to steal your wallet, the very last thing they would want is a physical confrontation. You would (or should) have the legal right to use proportional violence to prevent these crimes from occurring, but there is no rational justification for using a gun on someone, as a first instinct, just because they are encroaching on your property or your person. This paranoid belief that all criminals have an identical motivation and pose an identical risk (that is, a very large one) to your life is demonstrably ridiculous. A man who enters onto your property without your permission does not deserve to die, unless it is clear that he is intent on causing you physical harm. Any individual who believes they have the moral, god-given right to take a life away as retribution for any crime, no matter how minor, deserves to be charged with murder and thrown in front of a jury. I really don't think I'm irrational in saying this, either: there is enough crime in our societies as there is without the legalisation of violent, excessive force.

I think you're letting the writer's style/beliefs/inflections interfere with what's really being said.

quote:

What this bill is saying, essentially, is that if an unarmed sixteen year old transgresses onto your property for a laugh, or an unarmed drug-addict breaks into your home to steal a VCR, then you are to treat them as though they were highly-trained, professional, violent killers, whose sole aim is to cause you harm.

It's not saying that at all.
Read it again.

quote:

Law-abiding citizens should not be victimized by the state/courts for failing to retreat (RUN) from their own property or any place they have a right to be in the face of attack by an unlawful intruder. Nor should they be victimized for using deadly force against a perpetrator who unlawfully intrudes -- regardless of whether the victim knows what kind of force the perpetrator intends to use. Any victim should be able to presume that an unlawful intruder is there for the purpose of doing great bodily, and subsequently places the victim and the victim`s family in great imminent peril.

If somebody (regardless if it's a kid or not) breaks into your home and they intend to use force while in your home you have the right to defend yourself, your property, your family.
What's wrong with that??

quote:

I'd imagine that, in the case of most individuals who break into your home or try to steal your wallet, the very last thing they would want is a physical confrontation. You would (or should) have the legal right to use proportional violence to prevent these crimes from occurring, but there is no rational justification for using a gun on someone, as a first instinct, just because they are encroaching on your property or your person. This paranoid belief that all criminals have an identical motivation and pose an identical risk (that is, a very large one) to your life is demonstrably ridiculous. A man who enters onto your property without your permission does not deserve to die, unless it is clear that he is intent on causing you physical harm. Any individual who believes they have the moral, god-given right to take a life away as retribution for any crime, no matter how minor, deserves to be charged with murder and thrown in front of a jury. I really don't think I'm irrational in saying this, either: there is enough crime in our societies as there is without the legalisation of violent, excessive force.

Totally agree.
The article wasn't suggesting otherwise.
Of course there will have to be discretion; if the thief is taking off and doesn't have any of your stuff, you don't shoot them in the back.
If they happen to grab that priceless family heirloom off the fireplace however; fair game in my books.
Again don't be put off by the author's flashy .450/400-3 � Nitro Express double rifle (although that's cool) response.
Take it for what it is, not a literal translation! Did you think this guy was actually serious??? Wow...

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r If somebody (regardless if it's a kid or not) breaks into your home and they intend to use force while in your home you have the right to defend yourself, your property, your family. What's wrong with that??

It leaves any action that is "perceived" as having the "intent" of causing bodily harm by the "victim" open to lethal retribution with no burden of proof.

In this scenario, a man walks up to a girl he thinks he knows in a bar who is facing the other way (by her haircolor and clothing, etc. she looks just like someone he knows) and grabs her arm to get her attention. She could turn around and stab him in the eye with the swizzle stick in her martini glass because she "perceived" he had the intent of assaulting her.

It is a exaggerated case, but it is exactly what this article conveys this law condoning, and in fact, encouraging.

It is an open invitation for vigilantes to take away the rights of others to due process under the law and hide behind the curtain of percieved agressive intent.

There is bound to be some ya-hoo who is going to shoot the UPS guy for opening the door to his garage to drop off a package as they consistently do in many places.


MrS

Agreeably the author is a big douche.



Dunno if I like the law or not. I would support a law that reinforces civilians right to protect themselves.

I'm not sure this law is crossing over bounds as some have suggested.

From the link in the article here in entirety:

quote:

Florida - HB-249/SB-436 "Castle Doctrine" Bills Pass Thursday, February 24, 2005 The Florida House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on HB-249 by Rep. Baxley and others today, Wednesday, February 23, 2005 at 9:30AM HB-249 PASSED UNANIMOUSLY (13-0) The Florida Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on SB-436 by Senator Peaden and others today, Wednesday, February 23, 2005 at 2:00PM SB-436 PASSED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0) THANK YOU for sending your emails to the members of these two committees. IT MADE A DIFFERENCE. We will need your continued help as the House bill moves to the next Committee and when the Senate bill moves to the floor of the Senate. We will notify you as soon as additional hearings are scheduled. Below is a list of the email addresses of Committee members so you can thank them for their support. THANK THE FLORIDA HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE FOR SUPPORTING HB-249 by Rep. Baxley (To email these members all at once copy and paste the list below in your email client`s "To" field: [email protected][/email], [email protected], [email protected][/email], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected][/email], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], THANK THE FLORIDA SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE FOR SUPPORTING SB-436 by Sen. Peaden (To email these members all at once copy and paste the list below in your email`s "To" field: [email protected], [email protected], [email][email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email][email protected], [email][email protected] BACKGROUND: SB-436 corrects a serious problem for citizens who chose to protect themselves in the face of attack by violent criminals. This bill REMOVES the "duty to retreat" in the face of attack; it creates the presumption that an attacker or intruder intends to do great bodily harm and therefore force, including deadly force, may be used to protect yourself, your family and others in the face of attack; it prohibits prosecution for defending that which you have a right to defend and prohibits civil lawsuits by criminals or relatives of criminals when criminals are injured or killed while attacking law-abiding people. The Courts in Florida have clearly eroded the rights of law-abiding citizens by imposing a "duty to retreat" (leave your property and RUN) when attacked. Law-abiding citizens should not be victimized by the state/courts for failing to retreat (RUN) from their own property or any place they have a right to be in the face of attack by an unlawful intruder. Nor should they be victimized for using deadly force against a perpetrator who unlawfully intrudes -- regardless of whether the victim knows what kind of force the perpetrator intends to use. Any victim should be able to presume that an unlawful intruder is there for the purpose of doing great bodily, and subsequently places the victim and the victim`s family in great imminent peril. The Castle Doctrine is an ancient common law doctrine with origins going back at least to Roman law that provides that a man`s home is his castle and, hence he may use all manner of force including deadly force to protect it and its inhabitants from attack. The Florida Constitution Article I, Section 2 guarantees basic rights to all natural persons including the right to defend life and protect property. The citizens of Florida have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes or vehicles and to be able to use all manner of force against and unlawful intruder/attacker.

I think common sense still applies. All it is saying you no longer have to run away from the property (i.e. if someone does intrude your house with skimask and uzi submachine guns in the middle of the night, you no longer have to worry about shooting the guy. Something which under the previous Flordia law you would, as you frist must attempt to flee before you can defend yourself).

What I want to know is: how did Fir3start3r write that massive rebuttal and still get first post?

quote:

Originally posted by CleverName What I want to know is: how did Fir3start3r write that massive rebuttal and still get first post?

You mean Renegade? =)

It's because he is teh man Good post renegade, pretty much summed up what I thought too

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew Good post renegade, pretty much summed up what I thought too

quote:

Originally posted by MrSquirrel It leaves any action that is "perceived" as having the "intent" of causing bodily harm by the "victim" open to lethal retribution with no burden of proof.

what they said.

you cant have your average jo(e) making life and death decisions like that. theyre not equipped for it, especially when dealing with what you would assume to be a high level of fear. and imo the laws open themself up for all kinds of abuse. still, i can tell ya if there was some fvcker in my house, id shoot him before i let him leave with my 1200s

as always, things like this require a very delicate balance, and im not sure you'll ever get it perfect.

So am I reading everyone right then that if someone invades your house and is going to knock you around stupid (or a family member) you can't shoot the guy?

Wow...give me your addresses!

Seriously though, I do understand what you're all saying.
Taking a life is a major, major decision (major understatement) and shouldn't be done lightly at all.
But I think you're all forgetting one thing.
If excessive force is found to be used in a minor altercation (ie. cat-burgler that broke a window but that was it) nothing's to say that if the home-owner kills the burgler, that they can't be charged.
We're talking about violent criminals.
Not the pansy-assed, lightfooted, frady-cats that will bolt as soon as a light goes on.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r So am I reading everyone right then that if someone invades your house and is going to knock you around stupid (or a family member) you can't shoot the guy? Wow...give me your addresses! Seriously though, I do understand what you're all saying. Taking a life is a major, major decision (major understatement) and shouldn't be done lightly at all. But I think you're all forgetting one thing. If excessive force is found to be used in a minor altercation (ie. cat-burgler that broke a window but that was it) nothing's to say that if the home-owner kills the burgler, that they can't be charged. We're talking about violent criminals. Not the pansy-assed, lightfooted, frady-cats that will bolt as soon as a light goes on.

If you read renegade's post he explained this. We have the right to kill someone today too, in self defence. So if there are violent criminals in your house, you have the legal right to be violent back even now!

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew If you read renegade's post he explained this. We have the right to kill someone today too, in self defence. So if there are violent criminals in your house, you have the legal right to be violent back even now!

No not necessiarly.

According to my understanding of previous Florida law you only had the right to self defense if you first tried to flee the situation.

I.e. if some pro is robbing your house with guns ablazing, you must try and run away (FLEE), and only if you can't run away (say exists are blocked or you already confronted the robbert) can use self-defense.

This is different then: if some burgler is in my house with guns ablazing, I run to the gun cabinet, run downstairsm and unload into said burgler.

If I was in Florida before this law I would have to: run upstairs, open a window, jump from my roof, run like a coward, and hope he doesn't notice me fleeing.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew If you read renegade's post he explained this. We have the right to kill someone today too, in self defence. So if there are violent criminals in your house, you have the legal right to be violent back even now!

In Florida they didn't.
They had to attempt to RUN and escape first since they were once a "retreat state" beforehand.

A "retreat state" means that you would have to exhaust all SAFE avenues of retreat from the residence before responding to the threat with deadly force. In these retreat states, you must also retreat, again, if COMPLETELY SAFE to do so, if you are confronted outside of your domicile, before you are justified in lethal force.

I found this, which is a view taken from a website regarding gun laws and their take on this.

quote:

The Florida "Castle Doctrine" law basically does three things: One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, therefore a person may use any manner of force, including deadly force, against that person. Two: It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others. [This is an American right repeatedly recognized in Supreme Court gun cases.] Three: It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force. It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them. In short, it gives rights back to law-abiding people and forces judges and prosecutors who are prone to coddling criminals to instead focus on protecting victims.

>>Source<<

There's a big misconception, no thanks to the media, that this is a throw back to the days of vigilante days of Dirty Harry or the Wild West.
It's an insult to the intelligent people who know how to respect guns and treat them for what they are.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r There's a big misconception, no thanks to the media, that this is a throw back to the days of vigilante days of Dirty Harry or the Wild West. It's an insult to the intelligent people who know how to respect guns and treat them for what they are.

The article you posted was the cause of this "misconception".

Do not blame other people for making their assumptions based on what you posted and call them idiots or cowards or whatnot.


Using a beligerent, skewed, and incomplete viewpoint as your source made everyone draw a different assumption than they would had they had the proper information ahead of time. Had you posted less acidic and more complete sources first, people would most likely not have reacted the same.

MrS

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r So am I reading everyone right then that if someone invades your house and is going to knock you around stupid (or a family member) you can't shoot the guy? Wow...give me your addresses!

Yeah, come and get it.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r If excessive force is found to be used in a minor altercation (ie. cat-burgler that broke a window but that was it) nothing's to say that if the home-owner kills the burgler, that they can't be charged. We're talking about violent criminals.

Yeah, but that's part of the problem. If I'm reading this law correctly then it's creating the assumption that all intruders and attackers are violent.

Again, from that site:

quote:

it creates the presumption that an attacker or intruder intends to do great bodily harm and therefore force, including deadly force, may be used to protect yourself, your family and others in the face of attack

This seems to be saying to me that one would be justified in presuming that any attacker or intruder you come across is intent on causing you great bodily harm and that you can therefore use the most extreme forms of violence necessary to see off the threat, before the attacker or intruder has given any indication that this is his intention. In a sense, then, it still retains a degree of the "proportionality" I was talking about, but given that it creates the assumption that all attackers and intruders are inherently violent, then it justifies violent responses in all cases as well.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus No not necessiarly. According to my understanding of previous Florida law you only had the right to self defense if you first tried to flee the situation.

Not quite. I found a good article about the new self-defence laws and the old self-defence laws here:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/sebok/20050502.html

Essentially, the old laws suggested that you only had the right to use lethal force if you were "fearful" that the intruder or attacker was intent on causing you injury. If someone is walking around your house with a gun in plain view, or if someone accosts you on the street with a knife, no jury in the world is going to convict you for violently retaliating. In Florida, as it stands (or did stand), so long as you could demonstrate successfuly that you were fearful that the attacker or intruder was intent on causing you physical harm, you couldn't be prosecuted or sued:

quote:

To explain the prior Florida rules, I will use the example of Lisa, who is attacked by Bob. First, imagine Lisa is attacked by Bob in her own home. She could use deadly force if she were reasonably afraid that Bob was going to inflict a serious injury on her. Moreover, even if Bob was a burglar interested only in her property and she had the option of running outside of her house to safety, she could use deadly force if she were reasonably afraid that Bob was going to inflict a serious injury on her if she did not run away. Put simply, she is allowed to "stand her ground." [...] Under the old law, a person who killed someone in their home had the burden of proof to show that they were in fear for their safety. Now, all a person has to do is establish that the person they killed was "unlawfully" and "forcibly" entering their home when they shot the victim. [...] Previously, all Lisa had to do to win her case was argue that she honestly and reasonably believed that she could not retreat safely.

Under this new law, those who do resort to violence as a means of self-defence don't have to demonstrate that they were fearful of being harmed physically. The robber who comes into the house "guns ablazing" is technically regarded as an identical threat to the unarmed 16 year old who's broken in to steal some scotch from your liquor cabinet:

quote:

Under the old law, a person who killed someone in their home had the burden of proof to show that they were in fear for their safety. Now, all a person has to do is establish that the person they killed was "unlawfully" and "forcibly" entering their home when they shot the victim. That is because the new creates a presumption that anyone who forcibly and illegally enters a home is intent on threatening the lives of the people within. And, at least according to a report written for the Judiciary Committee of the Florida Senate, that presumption is conclusive; it cannot be rebutted with contrary evidence. [...] [N]ow Lisa, in theory, has a free hand to shoot even a plainly unarmed burglar as to whom he or she, in fact, felt no fear at all.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r A "retreat state" means that you would have to exhaust all SAFE avenues of retreat from the residence before responding to the threat with deadly force. In these retreat states, you must also retreat, again, if COMPLETELY SAFE to do so, if you are confronted outside of your domicile, before you are justified in lethal force.

I don't think "exhausting" all avenues of retreat is quite the right terminology. If there are ways in which one can escape the situation while reasonably avoiding violent confrontation, then the old Florida laws state that this should be one's first instinct. However, if someone approaches you violently, it's not as if you have to physically "attempt" to retreat before you can use violent force (which, depending on the circumstances, may actually be an unreasonable and more dangerous course of action). Put short, if you have reason to believe that you are in imminent physical danger, then under the former laws you weren't obliged to try to flee first before resorting to violent action. You still have the right to physically defend yourself under the old Florida laws.

What these new laws are essentially saying, however, is that the state's obligation to protect property supercedes its obligation to protect life. If you see someone in your house trying to steal your VCR, then you now have permission to shoot them first and ask questions later. Essentially, the protection of property is now deemed more important goal than the preservation of life.

Excuse my cynicism if I point out just what a typically Republican attitude this is.

quote:

Originally posted by MrSquirrel The article you posted was the cause of this "misconception". Do not blame other people for making their assumptions based on what you posted and call them idiots or cowards or whatnot. Using a beligerent, skewed, and incomplete viewpoint as your source made everyone draw a different assumption than they would had they had the proper information ahead of time. Had you posted less acidic and more complete sources first, people would most likely not have reacted the same. MrS

Excellant point.
It was only article that I read at the time and surely wasn't an attempt at a legitimacy, it just happened to be one I found at the time.
Obviously there was a failed attempt at thinking everyone here wouldn't take it quite so literal on the author's behalf (or mine).
Humour is obviously lacked on such a serious group I guess. *shrugs*
Anyways, the crux of the matter was bringing up the Castle Doctrine; I wasn't really looking to get into a debate how the matter was presented. However since feathers to tend to get a little ruffled over an obvious satirical essay, I guess I shall disclaimer it next time...

quote:

Originally posted by ali92 WTF? Your fvckin' turntables -- an inanimate object worth maybe only about 2000 USD -- means more to you than someone -- a life? Should someone touch them, how would you know they were to steal them? And what would make you think it's OK to shoot someone over that?

tongue-in-cheek you nitwit.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN tongue-in-cheek you nitwit.

Whoops. Looks like I couldn't pick up the sarcasm that time. :-\ I wouldn't have been surprised if there are more than a handful of people who would actually kill someone over a Hi-Fi audio device... :-(

/me sighs

quote:

Originally posted by ali92 Whoops. Looks like I couldn't pick up the sarcasm that time. :-\ I wouldn't have been surprised if there are more than a handful of people who would actually kill someone over a Hi-Fi audio device... :-( /me sighs

I'm still tracking down that bastard who stole my Alpine!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.