messenoir
Summer sausage Level: 49
Posts: 285/449 EXP: 854276 For next: 29613
Since: 20.2.02 From: Columbia, MO
Since last post: 3980 days Last activity: 3847 days
| #4 Posted on 7.4.05 0812.44 Reposted on: 7.4.12 0815.22 | (3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful
8 activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or
9 she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right
10 to stand his or her ground and meet force with force,
11 including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is
12 necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to
13 himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of
14 a forcible felony.
So legally, would this bill allow deadly force against someone for stealing a TV from your house, even if you were not personally in any danger? There seems to be some internal inconsistincies and confusion in this bill. Some parts seem to point at only being able to use deadly force if you are personally in danger, but the bolded words seem to counteract that. But what is a forcible felony? | FLRockAndLaw
Kishke Level: 47
Posts: 241/404 EXP: 731360 For next: 34849
Since: 2.1.02 From: Central Florida, somewhere between Orlando and Tampa, U.S.A.
Since last post: 2970 days Last activity: 2285 days
| #5 Posted on 7.4.05 1005.34 Reposted on: 7.4.12 1011.09 | We've been talking about this at the public defender's office where I work. My opinion? The legislature and Jeb have almost completely screwed over the State Attorneys' Offices as far as prosecuting cases for assault, battery, and maybe even disorderly conduct/breach of the peace. If this bill is passed into law, then there's no duty to retreat or run if threatened by someone.
Bear in mind, the bill's language says to "meet force with force." It's meant to be equal force. You can't just shoot someone to death just because he raises a fist against you.
And to answer the question, Section 776.08, Fla. Stat. (2004) contains the following language:
"Forcible felony" means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.
So under this bill, in theory, if someone did break into your house to steal a TV? Yep, you could use deadly force. Breaking into a house to commit a crime inside is burglary, which is a forcible felony.
Of course, once these criminal cases start getting dismissed by the State Attorneys' Offices because they can't get around this law, watch them complain to the legislature and watch this law get repealed faster than you can say, "Self defense."
Edit: fixed the quote lines.
(edited by RageRockrr on 7.4.05 1106) | spf
Scrapple Level: 144
Posts: 3166/5410 EXP: 35837917 For next: 872477
Since: 2.1.02 From: The Las Vegas of Canada
Since last post: 3060 days Last activity: 395 days
| #6 Posted on 7.4.05 1027.19 Reposted on: 7.4.12 1028.04 | Originally posted by RageRockrr "Forcible felony" means treason
Oh shit. Time for the liberals in Florida to duck and cover. How long until some left-winger gets shot and the defense is that what they were proclaiming or protesting about was treasonous?
On a more serious note though, is "meeting force with force" legally the same as "meeting force with equal force"? It would seem like in the world of legalese those should be two discrete and very different phrases with very different meanings.
(edited by spf on 7.4.05 1030) | Jaguar
Knackwurst Level: 116
Posts: 2817/3284 EXP: 16927515 For next: 396630
Since: 23.1.02 From: In a Blue State finally
Since last post: 1894 days Last activity: 1894 days
| #7 Posted on 7.4.05 1353.52 Reposted on: 7.4.12 1356.20 | I'm just curious if "Aircraft Piracy" is actually stealing an aircraft or if someone happened to watch a few to many episodes of "Tail Spin".
-Jag | bash91
Merguez Level: 60
Posts: 416/711 EXP: 1707513 For next: 65275
Since: 2.1.02 From: Bossier City, LA
Since last post: 4233 days Last activity: 2091 days
| #8 Posted on 7.4.05 1529.18 Reposted on: 7.4.12 1539.06 | Originally posted by RageRockrr We've been talking about this at the public defender's office where I work. My opinion? The legislature and Jeb have almost completely screwed over the State Attorneys' Offices as far as prosecuting cases for assault, battery, and maybe even disorderly conduct/breach of the peace. If this bill is passed into law, then there's no duty to retreat or run if threatened by someone.
Seriously, why should there be a duty to retreat or run if threatened? I can see the points you make in the rest of your argument, but that one makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. You seem to be suggesting that my only acceptable response to a threat is to run away and I just can't buy into that position. Why should I not be allowed to stand my ground if I'm not acting illegally and the person threatening me is acting illegally? Why should it be my duty, as the offended, to retreat rather than expecting the offender to retreat or suffer the consequence of being met with equal force?
Tim | BigSteve
Pepperoni Level: 71
Posts: 471/1091 EXP: 3053166 For next: 113963
Since: 23.7.04 From: Baltimore, MD
Since last post: 6276 days Last activity: 6004 days
| #9 Posted on 7.4.05 1542.59 Reposted on: 7.4.12 1543.25 | So how radical of a departure is this from previous laws? For instance, if someone were to approach me with a knife, and I shot them without attempting to run away, would I have been held liable for murder/manslaughter, or would I have been legally acting in self defense.
From the way this story reads to me, it seems that there are a broad range of hypothetical situations where this statute could apply, but in the end it should serve mainly to help people defend themselves. | texasranger9
Frankfurter
Since: 9.1.11
Since last post: 1444 days Last activity: 1444 days
| #10 Posted on 7.4.12 1609.58 | Good thing this story has nothing to do with the here-and-now. | FLRockAndLaw
Kishke Level: 47
Posts: 242/404 EXP: 731360 For next: 34849
Since: 2.1.02 From: Central Florida, somewhere between Orlando and Tampa, U.S.A.
Since last post: 2970 days Last activity: 2285 days
| #11 Posted on 7.4.05 2303.25 Reposted on: 7.4.12 2303.29 | Easy, Tim. Put that gun away.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree that there should be a duty to retreat in any situation. I'm just stating the law in the State of Florida before this new bill gets signed. Part of me is concerned that this bill may become a license to make Florida into a statewide shootout at the OK Corral. At the same time, as a defense attorney, I think it's great, because it's going to make a lot less cases get prosecuted since the State Attorney can no longer try to argue that, since a defendant didn't retreat from a scene, there can't be self-defense. Which in turn means that a lot less b.s. cases should be set for trial, and we can focus on the cases that really do need to come to trial. | Jobberman
Kishke Level: 48
Posts: 297/426 EXP: 791910 For next: 31638
Since: 2.1.02 From: West Palm Beach, FL
Since last post: 3516 days Last activity: 676 days
| #12 Posted on 8.4.05 0847.12 Reposted on: 8.4.12 0847.21 | Originally posted by RageRockrr So under this bill, in theory, if someone did break into your house to steal a TV? Yep, you could use deadly force. Breaking into a house to commit a crime inside is burglary, which is a forcible felony.
I don't know what the law is here in Florida, but if someone broke into my house I would shoot him dead before I knew his intentions.... | CHAPLOW
Morcilla Level: 55
Posts: 151/617 EXP: 1304817 For next: 9381
Since: 14.5.04 From: right behind you
Since last post: 3563 days Last activity: 2800 days
| #13 Posted on 8.4.05 1523.52 Reposted on: 8.4.12 1523.55 | spf is right though- using the phrase "meeting force with force" will be a debatable point in any case and can become an issue in of itself- as to whether it is equal force or just any force.
I can see that this bill is meant to help with self defense but it can also be used to support unreasonable amounts of "self defense". | StingArmy
Andouille Level: 95
Posts: 191/2118 EXP: 8512005 For next: 156633
Since: 3.5.03 From: Georgia bred, you can tell by my Hawk jersey
Since last post: 2948 days Last activity: 540 days
| #14 Posted on 10.4.05 1026.23 Reposted on: 10.4.12 1028.20 | Originally posted by bash91 Seriously, why should there be a duty to retreat or run if threatened? I can see the points you make in the rest of your argument, but that one makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. You seem to be suggesting that my only acceptable response to a threat is to run away and I just can't buy into that position. Why should I not be allowed to stand my ground if I'm not acting illegally and the person threatening me is acting illegally? Why should it be my duty, as the offended, to retreat rather than expecting the offender to retreat or suffer the consequence of being met with equal force?
Tim
I think the point of requiring retreat is so that people aren't taking the law into their own hands everytime they get the chance. I don't know if any of you remember the story of the Subway Vigilante, but do we really want THAT happening all the time?
Furthermore, I'm not positive about criminal self-defense statutes, but I believe that in most (all? almost all?) jurisdictions in the country, tort law (the law of lawsuits) requires retreat if you're not in your home before you use DEADLY force in self-defense. I wonder if this Florida law, which is a criminal statute, will change the standards for tort law. My instinct would be to say no, so people might start getting sued like crazy for use of unprivileged force.
- StingArmy | FurryHippie
Frankfurter Level: 62
Posts: 655/788 EXP: 1955089 For next: 29608
Since: 29.10.02 From: New York
Since last post: 6415 days Last activity: 5102 days
| #15 Posted on 16.4.05 1257.39 Reposted on: 16.4.12 1258.17 | Originally posted by Jobberman
Originally posted by RageRockrr So under this bill, in theory, if someone did break into your house to steal a TV? Yep, you could use deadly force. Breaking into a house to commit a crime inside is burglary, which is a forcible felony.
I don't know what the law is here in Florida, but if someone broke into my house I would shoot him dead before I knew his intentions....
Completely agree. Bah, I know that may make me seem like an cold-hearted bastard, but if somebody breaks into MY property, with intent to do anything illegal, they suffer the consequences. I don't have a wife or kids, but I can imagine if I did, I'd feel 100x more inclined to protect my territory. They may be just "stealing a TV", but coming into my house, where my family should feel safe, you're gonna have to go. Nobody should be held accountable for what they do to someone who invades their home with intent to commit a crime. That's on the criminal's head. | Joseph Ryder
Head cheese Level: 43
Posts: 154/332 EXP: 542271 For next: 22780
Since: 19.3.02 From: Seattle, WA
Since last post: 4633 days Last activity: 4166 days
| #16 Posted on 16.4.05 2229.21 Reposted on: 16.4.12 2229.37 | Originally posted by FurryHippie Completely agree. Bah, I know that may make me seem like an cold-hearted bastard, but if somebody breaks into MY property, with intent to do anything illegal, they suffer the consequences. I don't have a wife or kids, but I can imagine if I did, I'd feel 100x more inclined to protect my territory. They may be just "stealing a TV", but coming into my house, where my family should feel safe, you're gonna have to go. Nobody should be held accountable for what they do to someone who invades their home with intent to commit a crime. That's on the criminal's head.
Speaking of a criminal's head, would anyone here behead someone who broke into their house? I know most of us would want the death of someone stealing our TV to be relatively quick and easy, but a beheading does kill the criminal rather quickly. Is it too gory for some of us? I know it may seem odd if the police show up to see a guy who was likely shot to death but is also missing his head (well, not MISSING, it'd be laying there next to him!), and they might question your sanity, so let's assume you as a homeowner forwent the whole gun thing and solely attacked him with your machete. He's unarmed, so you just run at him and *SWIPE*!! For whatever reason, I don't see many of us going that route, though it may be an easier path to murder. Shooting a gun accurately is hard, especially if the target is moving and we're still a little groggy from sleep. Those of us without the proper training might not even be able to KILL the burglar with a gun.
Would this bill protect someone who committed a beheading? It appears to...but I don't think I'd wanna be working with someone who, the night before, protected his property by beheading someone. | ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |