|
| 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.
___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/
Last edited by Renegade on Oct-11-2005 at 02:07
|
