"No duty to retreat" bill in FL

[Tgace]

4. Again--at present, if a cop pulls you over and wants to go through your car, they pretty much are going to go through your car one way or another. And if they find trouble, you are going bye-bye--and mostly, you can squack all you want, but baring a videotape or some monumentally stupid piece of cop behavior that is seen by witnesses, you are going bye-bye. And before anybody starts up, most of the time you SHOULD go bye-bye. Laws like this might (I say again, MIGHT) be a problem for cops, because they make your rights in a car a lot like your rights at home.

How:idunno:

The debate over the general need to retreat is a valid one and, once outside the home, one I agree with. If you can, in complete safety, retreat or avoid danger I believe its common sense that you do so. This law only applies to the issue of use of force however, I dont see it really impacting search and seizure whatever. And I note that an attorney on this thread is of the same opinion. Perhaps its not us who are confused on this issue.....extending the Castle doctrine to a vehicle only means that you have no "duty to retreat" from your vehicle while, for example, being carjacked. And if you have fled to your car to escape you wont be expected to flee any further. It has nothing to do with altering any search and seizure law as I understand it....

Also..I like many of my brethren have little problem with our fellow citizens owning legal firearms. Follow the law and I have no problem with CCW holders...

 

[Tgace]

>>Come to think of it, such a law might even make a DUI checkpoint impossible--that whole concept has been to the Supreme Court several times, and hasn't got the very solidest foundation in law anyway.>>

Still not following you. If one is allowed to have a gun in their car, then police are precluded from having any contact with them? I doubt this Florida law, allowing you to extend the castle doctrine to a car for self defense purposes would negate, or even erode 80 years of fairly well established search and seizure law vis a vis the automobile beginning with Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925). Factors like mobility and significant and pervasive regulation of cars and their operation give cars a lesser expectation of privacy than a home.

There is a necessary distinction to be made to address your DUI checkpoint argument. Seizure is different than search. People are seized when there is probable cause to arrest them. The DUI checkpoints fall under the broad heading of Terry Stops (see Terry V. Ohio and a huge list of cases that follow) They deal with brief encounters that police have with citizens.

Not sure how allowing people to possess guns in there cars would prevent the DUI checkpoint brief encounter that is typically Hello, how are you, have you had a drink, is your vehicle registration up to date? Of course there are other criteria like what pattern of vehicles being stopped etc. During the first 30 seconds, the officer either has some reasonable suspicion that warrants further inquiry and may ultimately lead to probable cause for an arrest, or the motorist is sent on their way

Not sure how this law would impact that

Like he said....

 

[rmcrobertson]

One last time--then, sock puppets.

If you pass a law that extends the idea that your home is your castle to the idea that your car is your castle, there may be unintended consequences.

If you trust politicians who suddenly see a need for such laws all the time, you're asking for trouble.

 

[Tgace]

Welcome to the justice system "sock puppet" ...theres unintended consequences in everything in that arena. Case law is what finds the balance point. Do I agree with "no duty to retreat" on the street? Not really...but some states have had that for years already so the ground isnt trembling under my feet.

 

[Tgace]

At a cursory glance, retreat does not APPEAR to be required (as a standard) in:
WA,CO,NV,CA,AZ,NM,GA,MO,VT,MT,MS,MN,OK,IL,ID,IN,KY,SD,TN,OR,UT,WI,KS.

Some have been that way for many years, so another state wanting to change their law isnt very earth shattering.

http://www.inmm.org/topics/contents/pdfs/State.pdf
Its about nuclear power plant defense, but theres a nice little chart about 1/2 the way down the document....

BTW:

CALIFORNIA: If circumstances would lead reasonable person to believe that he is in danger of death or great bodily harm, retreat is not necessary before killing in self-defense against an attack. People v Turner, 269 P. 204 (Cal. 1928).

California courts long ago rejected the common law principles underlying a duty to retreat. See People v. Zuckerman, 132 P. 2d 545, 549-0 (Cal. 1942) ("California courts have definitely rejected the antiquated doctrine that a defendant will be justified in killing his assailant in self-defense only after he has used every possible means of escape by fleeing, [including] `retreating to the wall.' ").


Isnt Cali. your own state Robert?

 

[Gray Phoenix]

Although I understand the need for a "Duty to Retreat" law, I'm not sure I agree with it. I am all too familiar with another catch phrase: "The only thing required for Evil to rule, is for good people to do nothing". I believe our society has swung to far away from the age of the chivalrous Knight. Instead of good people standing up and defending someone or something, we let the bad guys have their way until the "Boys in Blue" become available or if they decide to show up at all. (Police have no legal obligation to come at all.) I believe this is the reason I can drive down the street and see people trying not to look in the drug dealers’ direction. Gangs congregate on neighborhood street corners intimidating anyone they choose. Neighborhood Watch is impotent. We hope that some one else will take care of it. So we expand laws and take away freedoms in hope that Evil will comply with yet another law. As I have said on the 2nd Amendment threads, only good people obey laws of any kind.

The fact that Florida is now saying its ok to "stand your ground" is a step in the right direction.



I also need to address the fact that there are a great number of people that think I should not protect property. It’s ok for someone to disregard me and mine, and treat my life as less important, than their own, but should I try to stand up to them, I am now in the wrong... I believe that should someone come on to my property and take from me, their life is now forfeit. I think I am a reasonably good person and a decent martial artist, so I would not activley try to take someones life, but I wont have too many sleepless nights if that is the end result either.

Sometimes Natural Justice is the only justice available.

 

[Tgace]

"Duty to retreat" laws dont really mean "stand back and do nothing". Most state laws provide use of force statutes for dealing with crime. Duty to retreat is predominantly about "lethal force", which I believe should be a last resort. That being said, Im in agreement with my own State statute where it qualifies that "retreat must be able to be done in complete safety". And ends in your home.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Uh...which part of what you just wrote is it that you think I disagree with? Based on what?

Ah, the knight theory. By all means, let's go back to a set of principles that rest upon, and derive from, the charming notions that some people are better than others by blood, that God ordained kings and nobles to rule over the serfs, that women are to be idolized and kept locked up, that Jews and Muslims are of Satan.

And, to bend back to the law--that if she floats, she's a witch.

By the way, the medieval world was infinitely more dangerous than ours.

As for "standing your ground," well, I believe that's been tried. A lot. In places like 1970s Beirut. Where exactly is it that you folks are living that's worse that four different places I've lived, so much worse that you want to put a gun in every car?

OK, the facts of life then. When a politician loves getting re-elected very, very much, he takes a token of his love to his beloved voters...

 

[Tgace]

So Florida wants to change their use of force law to more closely match the law in what... 20-23 other states? Most of them havent turned into war zones as far as I know. Some have no "duty to retreat" whatsoever. I guess the whole state is a Castle. Whats the big deal besides it being Jeb's state?

None of this means a "free fire zone"...any use of force still has to be reasonable. Could there be an initial glut of cases where people make bad shoots when the law takes effect? Possibly....Probably. But after some cases get attention things will balance out...

 

[tshadowchaser]

I think from what I have read of the law it is a good law that should have been made years ago.
As A point of reffrence to a bad law I would say that any law allowing an intruder to sue you because you defended you home, property, family or because he broke his leg while stealing your TV is a bad law.
If we can not protect oursleves in our own home (or car, truck,etc) then the criminal has won and we might as well put up a sign on the front door saying "steal all you want I can't stop you according to the law"

 

[Phoenix44]

It's part of that Bush "Culture of Life."

 

[Tgace]

Thats relevant....:shrug:

 

[rmcrobertson]

Yes, it is.

 

[Tgace]

What about states like your own, or Nevada that has never had one? Bush responsible for those too?

 

[OULobo]

Okay, I'm going to play devil's advocate here, or maybe I just really feel this way. What if I don't want to retreat when possible and decide that I don't want to let some punk criminal trash my place and take my valuables. What if I am armed and want to protect what I worked hard for. Should I not have the right to protect my property if the criminal is in the wrong in his actions of trespassing, vandalism, burglery or worse, especially if local law enforcement isn't immediately available or able to solve the situation. If I choose to take the risk of confronting the perp armed, isn't that also my right if I choose to take responsibility for the possible consequences to my well being, dire as they may be. While I'm not one for the "be pushed, push back harder" principle, I can only be pushed so far and out of my home is too far. Besides while I generally agree that avoidance is a good strategy it is not always the best one, and not all arts or instructors teach it as the first and best in every circumstance.

 

[KenpoTex]

Wow, I forget this thread for a couple of days and it takes off...

A couple of thoughts on some of the different issues that have been raised:

1) Castle doctrine in the car:
To my knowledge, and from carefully reading the bill, I see nothing that in any way affects search & seizure; expectation of privacy; probable cause; the right to carry a weapon w/o a CCL; or any other issue. In other words, it ONLY applies to use of force. The type of force used is a separate issue. This is not gun-control/gun-rights legislation, it's use of force legislation.

2) Martial-Arts and use of force:
I would venture to say that most MA instructors (including mine) heavily emphasise the concept of "violence as a last resort" and "retreat if it's an option." For the most part I agree, I think that unless you feel that you are in imminent danger, you should make every effort to avoid a physical confrontation. In other words, don't beat up the drunk guy at the frat-party.
As far as martial-arts and guns, I find it amusing that people who say that they are in the business of teaching self-defense often dismiss or even condemn firearms as being ineffective or in some way immoral. I find this especially humorous when said instructor teaches a system that utilizes other weapons: spear, knife, tonfa, nunchaku, etc. Those weapons were all that were available at the time that those arts began. I'd be willing to bet that if firearms were in existence or available to the people that used these other types of weapons that they would have bagged the chucks and started doing the gun-kata.
Like someone else said, there is the "armchair commando" mentality that a gun is a talisman that will solve all your problems. The correct mindset would be that a firearm is just another tool in the toolbox, or another rung on the use of force continuum.

3) Duty to retreat? Many places have laws that require you to retreat before force can be used. While part of me can understand the idea behind these types of laws, theoretically there should be fewer fights this way, the other part of me disagrees. I realize that my views on SD are a little more extreme than those of many people. As far as I am concerned I shouldn't be required or even expected to retreat if I'm somewhere that I have a right to be. To me there is a principle at stake, my rights vs. his desires. He wants my wallet, is the $20 worth dying or killing over? Is it really the $20 or the idea that what is really happening is that he is saying "my desire for your property supercedes your right to keep what is yours." To me this principle is worth fighting for. Some might consider this ideal to be old-fashioned or barbaric (I don't particularly give a S***) but I think it's definately preferable to the current situation where the ciminals have more rights than the decent law-abiding citizens and god forbid that we infringe on those rights or hurt their feelings by not allowing them to victimize us today.
There are times that I might be willing to just give in and walk away, the whole "discretion is the better part of valor" thing, however, I will only go so far. When it comes to my home, I am NOT going to retreat. Admittedly, this is because of my belief that no one has the right to enter my home illegally and if anyone chooses to do so he is taking his life in his hands. I have had discussions on this issue with many people (including, incidentally, at least one of my current instructors) who feel that even in your home, your first goal should be to retreat. Sorry, If that's the way you feel, more power to ya. Nobody is going to run me out of my own house. I might not shoot him immediately but if I don't he's only going to have one chance to follow my instructions immediately and completely otherwise, sayonara.

Just my take on the whole thing. I know there are some of you that have posted in this thread that aren't going to agree with me. I don't mind discussing it if said discussion is kept objective and mature. I will not respond to personal attacks or attempts to discredit my statements by making jokes or quoting stupid movies.

 

[Cruentus]

Okay, I'm going to play devil's advocate here, or maybe I just really feel this way. What if I don't want to retreat when possible and decide that I don't want to let some punk criminal trash my place and take my valuables. What if I am armed and want to protect what I worked hard for. Should I not have the right to protect my property if the criminal is in the wrong in his actions of trespassing, vandalism, burglery or worse, especially if local law enforcement isn't immediately available or able to solve the situation. If I choose to take the risk of confronting the perp armed, isn't that also my right if I choose to take responsibility for the possible consequences to my well being, dire as they may be. While I'm not one for the "be pushed, push back harder" principle, I can only be pushed so far and out of my home is too far. Besides while I generally agree that avoidance is a good strategy it is not always the best one, and not all arts or instructors teach it as the first and best in every circumstance.

It is never legal to resort to violence soley to protect property. This has been firmly established in all states. The Florida Law does not change this.

 

[FearlessFreep]

It is never legal

but is it wrong?

 

[FearlessFreep]

I think I tend to be more in mind with Matt's idea abut self-defense in that if I'm where I should be and doing what I should do and someone is trying to rob me or rough me up, I think it should be a judgement call on my part in how to properly respond. I think 'duty to retreat' is often the wisest move anyway, but I'm not sure I'm thrilled that it's a legal requirement. I think a cetain amount of 'reasonablness' or 'rationality' should go into it. If a guy is shoving me around, maybe I should retreat but maybe a quick wrist lock with some pain or even solar plexus punch will get him to back down whereas retreating will just encourgae him "hey, guy's a wimp..I can keep bullying him". I would hate for someone to start getting nasty on me in bar and my only choice would be to keep retreating around the bar, but if I do a quick move and he hurts his arm, I get sued for damages or charged with assault or something. Sure, breaking a guys knee with a side kick is probably not 'reasonable' (or maybe it is in the situation? who knows?)

It just seems that we've gotten to a situation where it's very difficult for people to be even reasonable in defending themselves and this has also sorta made it difficult to actually get involved to help each other out (remember the video of the big guy in the burger king? Maybe nobody got involved because if someone else stepped in, they might be charged with a crime or sued or something) I can understand that the police and the justice system don't want a bunch of civilian vigilantes or something and you don't want a situation where a blustery, testosterone-boosted shoving leads to someone getting killed, but it seems to me that there is a lot of ground between doinging nothing and getting killed that people should be allowed to use their judgement in. Our justice system today does not seem to handle 'grey areas of reasonableness' too well; I think there are too many lawyers making too much money off of exploiting those grey areas.

Maybe for self-defense, we don't need martial arts classes, we need law degrees

 

[Cryozombie]

What about states like your own, or Nevada that has never had one? Bush responsible for those too?

Of course it is. He Killed Jesus on the cross, He Burned the Great Library, he led the mongol hordes to victory, he sailed his viking longboats and pillages europe... He was responsible for the fall of rome, and he made Florida decide that you have the same, if not more rights than the piece of **** that tries to kill you.

I don't care what ANYBODY else says, in MY mind the most important piece of this whole issue is the one that says YOU CANT BE SUED by the attacker or his family. The rest is window dressing as far as I am concerned. More states need to adopt at least that much of the policy.