Posted: 1/21/2005 4:29:46 PM EDT
|
Jut found out the so called Castle Doctrine in florida doesnt exist! According to the State of Florida you are obligated to retreat even in your house from an intruder if possible. This is contrary to what I understood of Florida law, however their will be a hearing by the criminal justice commitee on HB-436/Castle Doctrine to fix this. HB-436 will make it so that a resident on his/her property DOES NOT have to retreat and that any intruder would legally be considered a dire threat to life and limb and allow LETHAL force to be employed unquestioned. Check out NRA-ILA.org for the names of the members and E-mail support to pass this bill. Just thought ya'll would like to know or so you can flame me with pithy comments 
|
+1. This bill sounds like Chicken Little. Current law is pretty darned strong for whacking BGs in your home (Florida Use of Force Law). There may a stupid appellate opinion out there somewhere, and I'll certainly urge my legislators to vote for anything that increases property rights, but I smell a wee bit of hysteria. |
|
Here is the bill. Go read it. www.myfloridahouse.gov/loadDoc.aspx?FileName=_h0249__.doc&DocumentType=Bill&BillNumber=0249&Session=2005 Here is a web page version in case you don't do .PDF: www.flsenate.gov/cgi-bin/view_page.pl?Tab=session&Submenu=1&FT=D&File=hb0249.html&Directory=session/2005/House/bills/billtext/html/ |
| Thanks M4Real. Despite what I said before that IS hot stuff. It eliminates the duty to retreat if you are in a place you have a right to be. That is a major step forward for personal rights. Major. The author/sponsor of that bill just won $100 for his next campaign. |
You deserve adulation for raising the alarm. I was mistaken. The bill is a BIG DAMNED DEAL and needs to be highlighted. I prematurely reverted to my role as a flyspecking analyst of fractions of words. It is essentially a "no refuge for BGs" bill and is right up there with the ('86? '87?) firearms law reforms in terms of significance. |
|
Lets all thank rep. Durell Peaden for its introduction and assist in its passage by WRITING our legislators and telling them your position on the importance of being able to shoot and possibly kill an intruder into our homes, without being sued by the criminal invader or his surviving family members. Risk prosecution for having not ran! or fled from our own homes!. If this bill fails to pass and the FAW ban does. I am moving to Alaska.... ____________________ BoyScout4Life. |
|
I believe this bill extends the Castle Doctrine to vehicles, which (I may be wrong) was not so before. Either way, something new to me, but it gives hope to citizens of a state where carjackings are nearly commonplace. ETA: "prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony" I am impressed. 
|
| Irregardless, this bill doesnt leave you at the mercy of some liberal judge/court like the current version of the Castle Doctrine does if you dont show adequate reason for use of deadly force. So YES TECHINICALY it DOES exist to SOME MINOR extent but not in the form of the current legislation. |
|
There is no "adequate reason" in your home. If you enter someones home uninvited or forcefully, then you are at their mercy. You do not have to retreat in your home at all for any reason. That said, this bill does have some VERY nice things in it, and I'll be making my calls and sending out my letters to urge its passing. |
|
Basic rules of deadly force apply whether in or outside your home........ use what ever force is reasonable and necessary at the time, including deadly force, to stop WHAT YOU PRECEIVE to be an act that causes you to IMMEDIATELY FEAR GEAT BODILY HARM AND/OR DEATH. Same to be applied in the DEFENSE OF OTHERS. Simply put, you better be able to put into words why you felt you had to kill someone right then and there. The Castle Doctrine, which is a LEGAL CONCEPT, removes the OBLIGATION TO RETREAT when the confrontation is within your dwelling. THIS DOES NOT MEAN YOU CAN FREELY USE DEADLY FORCE ON AN INTRUDER WHO POSES NO ARTICULABLE IMMEDIATE THREAT, REASONABLY BELIEVED CAPABLE OF CAUSING GREAT BODILY HARM AND/OR DEATH. The OBLIGATION TO RETREAT is a well known issue and is key to avoiding getting arrested when you kick someones ass who picked a fight with you at the wrong time ( meaning you have had your wheaties for the day and are in the mood). You must retreat if possible, no such thing as consented combat. The obligation to retreat is generally viewed upon in the context of being in public, not in the home. AGAIN, Castle Doctrine does not give blanket authority to employ deadly force just because the confrontation takes place inside your dwelling, to think so is dangerous. AN INTRUDER IS NOT "FAIR GAME" PER THE CASTLE DOCTRINE. Many folks get cornfused about this and think that they can employ deadly force simply because someone has entered into their home. Absent articulable facts that show deadly force was necessary, you are most likely going to face some form of charge or sanction. This is why the South Carolina Atty General Charlie Condit (spelling of last name unsure) issued a "legal opinion" a few years back in SC that made National news. He called it the "INVADE A HOME, INVITE A BULLET" policy which discouraged LE from making charges against folks who used deadly force against intruders even when intruders did nothing violent. I don't remember what happened with the policy but I remember him catching total hell from the whole legal community. Not all States recognize the concept of the Castle Doctrine. |
|
If you are in my home uninvited or by force, then I am automatically in fear of my life and for the lives of my wife and children. You enter my dwelling uninvited or by force, you are a threat. Period. There are of course lots of possible circumstances, but, for the most part, this is the bottom line. KNow your area, and how things are normally looked at and handled there. |