"No duty to retreat" bill in FL

[rmcrobertson]

One point that apparently needs making is that you retreat rather than use force, if at all possible, because it's likely to be SAFER than getting into it--it isn't just,"do you value your TV set more than a burglar's life," but, "do you value a TV set more than YOUR life, or your family's?"

It's one of the differences between cops and the rest of us, and one of the reasons that "uses of force," doctrines are different for cops and for civilians--cops must protect the public in general as well as themselves and their families.

And again, there are two practical issues that keep getting sluffed off here: a) the unintended consequences of politicians' passing these kinds of laws; b) the actual reality that, back here on the planet, you are already very unlikely to be prosecuted for defending yourself in anything like a reasonable fashion.

What has Bush contributed to the problem? Nothing direct, of course. But his faux macho posturing doesn't help, and neither does his heartfelt promulgation of the notion that the world is filled with threats and is getting worse, his heartfelt attacks on any program (money for cops, for Head Start, for vets, for Medicaid, etc.) that might help leave people less crazy--and above all, its happy promulgation of that great, sick-minded post-modern American idea that it's a dog-eat-dog world out there, and you better screw the other guy and get yours as fast as you possibly can.

Incidentally, you can ALWAYS be sued. No matter what law gets passed.

 

[OULobo]

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.

Actually I believe that there is case precidence in TX of use of force (ie Violence) and even lethal force solely to protect property. I will see if I can find the case history, but I doubt it. There is also the issue of definition. Violence doesn't necessarily mean lethal force. Forcibly tossing somone off my property is resorting to violence to protect property and I don't think that is illegal. Security guards that forcibly remove people from businesses resort to violence to protect property and I don't believe that is illegal either. Who knows I'm not a lawyer.

 

[OULobo]

It's one of the differences between cops and the rest of us, and one of the reasons that "uses of force," doctrines are different for cops and for civilians--cops must protect the public in general as well as themselves and their families.

Not true. It isn't technically the duty of any LEO to protect the public in general. Just the property of the municipality. Many take on the role as safety officers by policy, not legality.

 

[Tgace]

Actually I believe that there is case precidence in TX of use of force (ie Violence) and even lethal force solely to protect property. I will see if I can find the case history, but I doubt it. There is also the issue of definition. Violence doesn't necessarily mean lethal force. Forcibly tossing somone off my property is resorting to violence to protect property and I don't think that is illegal. Security guards that forcibly remove people from businesses resort to violence to protect property and I don't believe that is illegal either. Who knows I'm not a lawyer.

True. Many states laws spell out what level of force may be used to, for example, protect property. In NY you can use "physical force" but not "deadly force" to protect property, prevent petty crimes etc. In my state few people realize that the penal law states that the operator of a "common carrier" (bus, train, boat, etc) is authorized to use deadly force to stop the actions of a person that could place his passengers at risk of death or serious physical injury.

 

[FearlessFreep]

Where's a good place to find out what's legal in your state? I'm curious to know the exact laws for my home (New MExico)

 

[Tgace]

Google your State name and "Penal Law", "use of force", and/or "defense of justification" for a start....

 

[Tgace]

An interesting point....use of force laws are many times termed "defense of justification". Meaning that ALL use of force is illegal, but in some circumstances you have a "defense" that it was justifiable.

 

[Tgace]

http://www.legallawhelp.com/legal_law_channels/criminal_law/codes_by_state.html

Good source for State laws of varoius types.

 

[KenpoTex]

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.

Pretty much what I was trying to say.

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

LOL, sad but true

 

[MJS]

One point that apparently needs making is that you retreat rather than use force, if at all possible, because it's likely to be SAFER than getting into it--it isn't just,"do you value your TV set more than a burglar's life," but, "do you value a TV set more than YOUR life, or your family's?"

Incidentally, you can ALWAYS be sued. No matter what law gets passed.

I havent read every post here, but I have to say that I agree 100% with Roberts comments above. Making sure that you exhaust every other option you have before you use your final option, in this case a gun, is the best way to go IMHO. We do live in a very sue happy world, and in an instance like this, its almost a given that someone will be getting sued. Even if the guy dies, you can bet his family will file a suit on their sons behalf.

Mike

 

[Cryozombie]

I havent read every post here, but I have to say that I agree 100% with Roberts comments above. Making sure that you exhaust every other option you have before you use your final option, in this case a gun, is the best way to go IMHO. We do live in a very sue happy world, and in an instance like this, its almost a given that someone will be getting sued. Even if the guy dies, you can bet his family will file a suit on their sons behalf.

Mike

The body of the law reads that if the "system" determines that you were justified in using force you cannot be sued. I suppose you COULD be, but with that clause I dont think it would make it into court, let alone you pocket.

 

[Cruentus]

Actually I believe that there is case precidence in TX of use of force (ie Violence) and even lethal force solely to protect property. I will see if I can find the case history, but I doubt it. There is also the issue of definition. Violence doesn't necessarily mean lethal force. Forcibly tossing somone off my property is resorting to violence to protect property and I don't think that is illegal. Security guards that forcibly remove people from businesses resort to violence to protect property and I don't believe that is illegal either. Who knows I'm not a lawyer.

Sorry, I meant deadly force. Some states let you use physical force if it is "reasonable"; but no state justifies deadly force to protect property.

And about "reasonableness;" what is considered reasonable is a judgement call. And, if you use force, your going to be relying on a jury and a legal system to determine your "reasonableness." Essentially, this means, you could be relying on a bunch of unreasonable people to determine your reasonableness.

So...regardless of what the laws are...I would advise erring on the side of caution, because the more your reasonableness comes into question, the more of a chance you have to be persecuted for your self-defense.

Paul

 

[Cruentus]

the actual reality that, back here on the planet, you are already very unlikely to be prosecuted for defending yourself in anything like a reasonable fashion.

I don't know about that. The appearance seems to me that if you defend yourself, the laws do not work in your favor. There is too much risk of having "reasonableness" jeaprodized, and you being considered a mutual combatant even if that is not the case. Also, if you "win" the self-defense encounter and the other guy is injured, there seems to be a far greater chance that you'll be considered at fault and subject to legal reprocusions, and that there is way too much of a chance that you will get sued.

I am all for laws helping good people who are justified in defending themselves. But at the moment they are subject to at the very least $1000 in court costs, time, and lost wages. The actual attack is just the beginning of the nightmare...

That said, this is why I am for having a duty to retreat law except where castle doctrine applies. I feel that it helps to better define for a potentially moronic jury (or even potentially moronic LE who is doing the report) that "he tried to retreat, so he was the victim," or even "he tried to retreat, but could not because his childs safety was in jeaprody, so he was the victim." If the duty to retreat laws help define when someone is a mutual combatant, then in this situation it seems to work conversly as well in that it helps define when someone was really trying to defend themselves.

 

[Brother John]

Being pretty sure about the nature of the responses to this question, let me just ask out of morbid curiousity: what do ALL the martial arts teach about one's duty to retreat, as part of a general duty to avoid violence except as an absolute last resort?

I'd think that if there were an intruder in my home, with my family home (wife, two very young children) I'd have scant few 'resorts' left but to take immediate action.

Your Brother
John

 

[Brother John]

Defending yourself and your family is one thing. Shooting an intruder when you could have easily escaped unharmed simply because "damnit, this is my house" is quite another. You preventing a guy from stealing your TV or jewelry isn't worth killing them when it's not needed.

MOST in home murders are the result of domestic violence. In a close second are murders that occured when there was a burglary.
Action will always beat reaction...
I'm not going to wait around and find out what their intentions are.
IF a person breaks into your home you know One thing and can infer others from that:
#1: They are a criminal.
Inferences:
They have no scruples.
Most criminals, especially burglars, arm themselves.
Most criminals are repeat offenders and thus have a Great deal to lose if they are caught and/or identified...thus making them desperate to take the offensive toward those in the home.
Most criminals, by the very nature of being a criminal, have little to no moral objection to violating and harming others, especially when they feel it's in their own best interest.

I'm NOT going to wait to see what their intentions are.
I may feel a great deal of remorse for taking the life of a person who broke into my home. That's very true. I'd feel a GREAT DEAL MORE if they violated, harmed and/or KILLED my family members.

I'll act.

Your Brother
John

 

[shesulsa]

On the topic of retreat, here is a site about imprisoned battered women who were convicted of murder even when they either aided and abetted or were forced at gunpoint to tie up victims, or shot in self-defense and missed.

This is only one small example of victims who have been charged with criminal activity and punished.

 

[Brother John]

Again: what do the martial arts teach about the duty to retreat if possible?

I'd add that most of these bills, and the claims they represent, are just plain dopey. Unless there's some rare circumstance that the cops just can't overlook, or some prosecutor's running for office, there isn't a chance in hell that you're going to be prosecuted for shooting somebody who kicks your door in and comes after you or your family.

Still, it doesn't surprise me. In a society that equates money with human life, of course deadly force will be OK to protect mere property.

The martial arts do (over all) teach that we must seek peace instead of violence. BUT: they also teach that when greater things are at stake...life...etc. that Violence is appropriate. Why do we train to be effective fighters if there was never a need to fight? I don't WANT to fight!! But if I must do so, I want to be very very good at it.
You said:

Unless there's some rare circumstance that the cops just can't overlook, or some prosecutor's running for office, there isn't a chance in hell that you're going to be prosecuted for shooting somebody who kicks your door in and comes after you or your family.

Man!! Wish that were true. But it's not. There are just too many cases of the opposite for me to take your claim seriously. That's why bills like this are even created and considered in the first place.

You comment about our society "Equating money with human life" is increadibly silly Robert.
Nobody is saying "Use deadly force if someone is taking your stereo." They are saying that if you and/or your family are in your home and there is good reason to believe that you are in danger...you can legally take whatever action needed to insure safety.
It's equating life with life. You seem to really rail against the American Economic system and want to blame all of our ailments on it. It's not a 'one size fits all' issue. This is an issue about our rights to protect ourselves and our loved ones.

Your Brother
John

 

[Brother John]

I see that there isn't going to be a response to the question about martial arts and the duty to retreat. Oh well.

I gave one Robert.
No need to keep sighing.

Your Brother
John

 

[Gray Phoenix]

I'm not going to quote any previous posts. I dont want to overtly dent the soft, cute and cuddly sensibilities of any one here.

My chivelraous Knight analogy was not meant to advocate a rewinding of our society. It was meant as a point of extreme and that we have swung too far to the other extreme where we are encouraged to pull the covers over our heads and hope the bad men go away.

Living in California, I fully expect to get sued for jsut about anything. It wasnt long ago, when someone broke into a house, slipped on a toy, broke his leg, sued and won.

If I catch somebody raping my wife, I know that I will end him. I also know that his family will sue me with the full support of the ACLU.

My "Duty to Retreat" come into effect when other people realize they have a duty not to steal, or cause bodily harm to others. I am all for Live and Live right up to the point where somebody else feels its ok tread on me or mine.

 

[rmcrobertson]

I continue to be surprised that I have to explain capitalism to its advocates--my suspicion is that folks believe that capitalism is the, "natural," way for people to live, so there is nothing there that needs understanding--but OK.

See, the way our economic and social system (and all economic systems carry a particular formation of society along with them) works, what's absolutely central to our lives is the production, exchange, and accumulation of money--capital--in all its forms.

Because this is the way our system works, our laws (and our legal system) constantly entangle individual rights and private property: an attack on one is an attack on the other. If you read what people are writing here, or listen to discussions on similar topics, that is exactly what they're saying: they'd shoot somebody to protect their property, because they believe (and they're quite right, in this society) that their life and their possessions are intimately connected.

If you think this isn't true, let me ask: what happens if you do not have money? does money determine your health care, your kids' education, your relationship with the law? Of course it does.

I'd be very interested to see some chapter-and-verse on exactly who, where, when and why somebody got sued for shooting a home invader. This stuff is mostly just mythology and ideology--it can happen (as I've already mentioned more than twice on this thread), but it is unusual. I'd also be interested to see the exact stats which put "home invasion," assaults and murders anywhere near the assaults and murders of domestic violence.

That's why FOX news and the tabloids and Michael Savage always trumpet this stuff, on the rare occasions it actually happens: they're invested in promulgating the fantasy that our society is a) collapsing under the weight of them wacky liberals, b) filling up with dangers that can ONLY be handled if the good white right-wingers take over.

You shouldn't be worrying over getting to carry a gun. That won't protect you very well at all--quite the contrary, despite the NRA propaganda. Why? BECAUSE MOST OF THE REAL DANGER COMES FROM YOUR OWN FAMILY AND YOUR FRIENDS. What'll protect you is a decent society, whose members aren't scared to death of each other, whose politicians don't constantly lie about threats in order to get elected, whose money gets invested in schools and housing and medical care rather than weapons and jails.

Of course, one of the things I haven't mentioned is that there are genuinely dangerous pockets in our society--they're occupied by the poor, and by minorities. And because we refuse to face up to poverty and racism (poverty is worse), yes, these folks are endangered.

The fact that AGAIN any discussion (let alone contradiction!) of the whole gun-waving thing gets called ranting is a good sign of the trouble we're in. My, "soft and cuddly sensibilities," whose existence is apparently intuited from the notion that anybody who says that gee, maybe it's not a great idea to have people driving around with loaded guns in their cars or gosh, maybe you shouldn't shoot anybody unless you absolutely have to, and darn, maybe self-defense is more important than posturing, wouldn't be there if you'd actually read what I wrote.

But speaking of, "soft and cuddly," I must admit I find it a touching expression of faith that anybody believes without question that a politician in Florida is, gee whiz, just trying to help the poor, beleaguered voters when he pushes a law like this.