ronwill

Well written article on the Castle Doctrine.

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pb...0337/1001/news

RTC1911

I scan-read the article. What I find "interesting" is the statement that when the "no-retreat" aspect was added to the state's Castle Doctrine, it was generally met with wide acclaim by the generally-gun-liberal citizenry. However, 4 recent shootings of people forcibly breaking into or illegally entering homes has supposedly sparked "new debates" on the issue. Who is doing the dabating? What issue is being raised?

Only one of the 4 involved homeowners is brought up on criminal charges. Presumably because he was a prior felon, who shouldn't have been in possession of any firearm at all due his prior felony conviction. So he's not being charged for violation of any Castle Doctrine statutes. He's being charged under illegal gun-possession statutes. As he should be, because he's a prior felon, who committed a new felony simply by virtue of gun-possession itself. If he's been
"rehabilitated" and reformed, he could have applied for Governor's Pardon and a restoration of his civil rights.

So what's the "issue"? The right to defend one's own life and safety and that of their loved ones inside their own "castle" has always been a fundamental principle of even our Common Law even before this country was formally formed.

The first thing to consider is that when a criminal forcibly breaks into a home that is obviously or apparently actively occupied, the party doing so has self-evidently anticipated the likelihood of encountering an occupant present inside the dwelling. It thus stands to reason that, having already anticipated encountering an occupant, the criminal is apparently ready, willing, able, and likely intends to do whatever he feels necessary to do to prevent the Occupant(s) from thwarting his criminal intent - whatver said intent may be - be it burglary, robbery, rape, kidnapping, murder, etc. Thus, the extremely high degree of threat or potential threat to Occupants' life and safety exists from Moment One of the onset of the Perpetrator's illegal entry into the dwelling. No Homeowner should be held accountable
for inability to be a Mindreader and conclusively know the true, full intent of the person or persons illegally violating their own home.

I am SO happy that I reside in the state of FL. FL has expanded the "Castle Doctine" to the extent that the definition of the dwelling "castle" has been expanded to include:

- roofed-over attached appurtenances such as an exterior porch, as well as separate detached outbuildings upon the private property,

- temporary lodging, such as hotel and motel rooms, and even tents while camping

- vehicles, defined as any motorized or non-motorized vehicle intended for the conveyance of persons and property - so this includes the trucker sleeping in his rig's cab overnight at the truck-stop, the female riding her bicycle through streets, parks, forested bicycle paths, etc., and the soccer mom with 3 kids in the car waiting at the red traffic light on the public street, and

- even any other person's dwelling whom they happen to be a visitor or guest in, as long as the owner thereof has granted permission for the visitor to be armed while therein.

And FL even expanded their "Stand Your Ground" statute, (eliminating the necessity to attempt flight or retreat, if one can safely do so without jeopardizing their own safety, before resorting to LAWFUL excercise of self-defensive Lethal Force), enabling the Defender to "stand their ground" at any location where the lawful Defender has the legal right to be. Yes - ANY location. (Of course, the exercise of Lethal Force must still be "Reasonable" and in compliance with all portions of the law which justify self-defensive lethal force).

The requirement to attempt flight and retreat first is so absurd that any defense attorney worth his or her salt should be able to adequately deflate it if-as need be. How does one "safely" retreat or flee from an armed, hostile attacker? You can't afford to take your eyes off the Hostile. Your don't know if you can run faster than the Hostile or not. You can't afford to ambulate blindly, backwards in reverse, because you risk a trip-stumble-fall in which you might be knocked unconscious, or incapacitated, or otherwise give your attacker easier ability to rush and overpower you while you're already down on the ground, possibly wresting your own weapon from you and turning it against you. And you can't safely retreat while keeping your eyes on the Attacker and unable to keep your eyes behind you at the same time when there may be hitherto-unseen hostile Accomplices behind you. A perfect example of silly laws which hinder the law-abiding alone and do absolutely nothing to deter or prevent violent felony crime by Predators.

FL has even gone so far as to make the application and exercise of lawful self-defensive lethal force automatically create a presumption of Reasonableness, where the onus is on the Prosecutor to disprove Reasonableness if he believes the defender acted unreasonably. It is illegal to even arrest and hold the defender until such time as investigation of the pertinent facts and circumstances indicates the Defender did act unreasonably.

And last but not least, if a defender exercising lawful self-defensive lethal force is not proven to have acted unreasonably, it is also now illegal in FL for the dirtbag BG or his next-of-kin from filing any civil lawsuits against the Defender for educating the Dirtbag concerning the foolishness of their felonious criminal intent, with premeditated malice aforethought, against someone who is unwilling to meekly sumbit to becoming Victimized.

Bravo Florida. Ever since FL was the first state to adopt "Shall-Issue" right-to-carry CCW laws in 1987, FL has long been a state whose sensible laws which aid the law-abiding and better deter the Criminals have often been utilized as "role-models" for adoption by many other State Legislatures. Let's hope the favorable, sensible trend continues.

__________________
"He who allows another to take his life, who hath no authority for that purpose, when it might be preserved by defense, is guilty of Self-Murder, for God hath enjoined him to seek the continuance of his Life, and Mother Nature teaches every creature to defend itself".

Supertac45

Michigan has a good law. If I have a right to be there, I don't have to retreat.

__________________
Les Baer 45
Sig Man
N.R.A. Patron Life Member
M.C.R.G.O.

tankdriver

TN is the same way. No retreat is necessary.

__________________
KelTek 32 & 380...S&W 642...Sig Misquito, P239 40, P220 45...AR15...AK47...Rem 870 12ga

1942 M3 Autocar Half-track....M3A1 Diamond T Half-track.......57mm Anti-Tank Cannon

NRA Endowment Member......President West TN Military Vehicle Collectors......MVPA Member

JohnKelly

Ditto Kentucky!

__________________
Sig P239 SAS .40 (Avatar)
S&W 642 .38sp
S&W M&P .40
Ruger 22/45 MkIII .22LR
Glock 19 9mm

havegunjoe

We need this badly in MN. Recently a man was attacked outside his home getting into his car. The police chief of the town said "he was in the wrong place at the wrong time". He had every right to be where he was and should have been allowed to meet force with force if he choose to without fear of legal repercussions.

__________________
DEMOCRACY IS TWO WOLVES AND A LAMB VOTING ON WHAT TO HAVE FOR LUNCH. LIBERTY IS A WELL ARMED LAMB CONTESTING THE VOTE.

Certified Instructor for Minnesota Carry Permit
NRA Pistol and Personal Protection Insrtuctor
Utah Permit Certified Instructor

ELCruisr

[quote=RTC1911;524641]
And last but not least, if a defender exercising lawful self-defensive lethal force is not proven to have acted unreasonably, it is also now illegal in FL for the dirtbag BG or his next-of-kin from filing any civil lawsuits against the Defender for educating the Dirtbag concerning the foolishness of their felonious criminal intent, with premeditated malice aforethought, against someone who is unwilling to meekly sumbit to becoming Victimized.



Almost but not quite true. As two criminal defense lawyers have explained the law to me they can still file against you but the court will order that they will be responsible for all the costs you have incurred in defending against their suit once you are ruled innocent. They also said to figure that said dirtbags family will probably file against you within 24 hours by their experience. You will need to take action against the suit until you are cleared. Then good luck in collecting a dime from them, again based on their legal experience.

They also informed me that a wise man would still retreat if safe to do so. Failure to do so could easily make you a test case for an over zealous prosecutor. You also will have to show that you had absolutely no part in escalating the situation either physically or verbally. If you participated, in even the slightest way, in escalation all those nice protections will evaporate. That's another reason to be able to say "I tried to retreat but was still forced into defense" and have witnesses agreeing. It can prevent a world of legal troubles.

Both of these lawyers have defended cases like this and one wrote the definitive book on Florida Firearms Law. I take what they say seriously.

__________________
If you stand up and be counted, from time to time you may get yourself knocked down. But remember this: A man flattened by an opponent can get up again. A man flattened by conformity stays down for good. ~ Thomas J. Watson, Jr.

Johnr38

ElCrusir, you make a good point on making a sincere effort to try and retreat and eliminate the use of deadly force if not for the legal reason at least for the reason that it is the right thing to do. Having been confronted once myself while armed I was not in any hurry to use my weapon. In fact I have never experienced such a calm come over me in that situation. I felt I was in full control of my actions and was careful to not escalate the problem from a person who was not all with it. ( he later was shot by police and killed in a situation unrelated to mine). My only mistake was not calling the police to the scene. Maybe had I done so he would still be alive and getting the mental help he needed. That is the one thing I would do differently if such happens again.

I too live in Florida.

John

SammyIamToday

Not only that, but Castle Doctrine applies to your car here.

__________________
...He suggested that "every American citizen" should own a rifle and train with it on firing ranges "at every courthouse." -Chesty Puller

miklcolt45

Johnr38,

Welcome to the forum from FL's Space Coast.

__________________
Mike

In God we trust. Everyone else,
keep your hands where I can see them.