There is before the State Senate a bill to make it possible for citizens to “Stand-Their-Ground” up to and including deadly force. We are no longer will be required by law to attempt to escape when faced with a threat of extreme bodily harm or death. A local paper, The Orlando Sentinel , has been following this. Our Gov. Jeb Bush has said he will sign it if it comes to his desk. Are there similar laws existing in other States? Any thoughts pro or con on the rights of criminals being violated by armed citizens?
Will it apply to oncoming trains?
Completely anecdotal and likely not helpful, but today’s Chicago Sun-Times article on this said the bill was in line with other states’.
As for whether or not it’s a good idea: I’ll vote that the idea of it is. I’ve read about several cases where a homeowner was put in jail or sued or otherwise found to be at fault for injuring an invader because the owner passed by a possible escape route before confronting said invader. This seems somewhat unfair to me.
That said, avoiding conflict is usually the best way to avoid getting hurt and the few times I’ve found myself in a situation likely to escalate to violence, I did everything I could to get away from the situation.
I suppose we’ll have to see if the law (assuming it becomes one) will either cause crime to decrease or result in a lot of dead/injured would be stand-up-for-yourself types.
Nicodemus2004, I think you might be thinking of the rights of the accused. The accused and criminals are not the same thing until after conviction.
Anyway, in Texas one has the right to turn defense into offense in order to survive. The actor should have gotten a respectable job if he didn’t want to die working as a thief/robber. We aren’t swimming in shootouts, just a drop in violent crime.
Surely you understand that a person has committed the crime before they enter the courtroom and are by definition a criminal? That there is only the conviction to be made, not the essence of whether or not the person is a criminal. When he is in my living room, with a weapon and a threat to my family he is guilty of a crime at that moment and can be held accountable for his actions.
Chairman Pow- I agree that violence should be avoided if it does not reduce my families odds of survival. If my house is broken into and all my family members are together in our room (the baby sleeps with us mainly) then I will arm myself, stay covered in our room, attempt to contact the police and tell the intruder that they are on the way. I will not, however, say that I’m armed nor will I try to shoot it out unless they attempt to enter the room. That’s the best deal I can offer them.
I couldn’t find any article about this on the Sentinel’s website, so I don’t know precisely what the legislation in question says. Still, though, I see know reason why people shouldn’t be required to escape if it’s feasible rather than confronting a criminal. Every self-defense expert I’ve ever known has always made it clear that running away is the safest option in any threatening situation, and that fighting should be used only as a last resort. I don’t see any decrease in bogus lawsuits filed by criminals injured in the course of their escapades, since the defendant would still, presumably, have to prove that the person they fought with intended to commit a crime and that the confrontation was justified.
UncleBeer found this link earlier, and posted it in the Pit thread currently going on about this topic.
I agree with the idea of the law, though I haven’t looked at the actual wording.
It is ridiculous to require people to try to escape. Sure, you can tell them it is the best strategy in most cases. But how can you require someone to flee their own home when it is being attacked? And the intruder shouldn’t be able to sue because their victim didn’t run away.
One can also consider that if one can stomach it no one has to know there was an intruder in the first place. It was not a scheduled appointment. Just another of the many burglars that turn up missing every year.
I hope you’re joking.
Marc
No need for trials then.
You guys need new lyrics to this old song. I am talking about the reality of the fact that a crime is committed at the crime scene. What takes place later in the courtroom only shows if there is latent evidence to assign punitive actions against the accused.
Crime scene…real time.
Courtroom… weeks, months, maybe years later… if at all.
See? Scene of the Crime …Courtroom. Say it with me.
What is hard to understand? If he is at the scene of the crime, committing a crime, he is guilty of committing a crime and is a crimminal.
In reality, crimes are committed, not accussed of being committed. They are crimminals at the crime scene and a review of the circumstances is done later in the courtroom, if they are caught and if they don’t plea bargain it down to a slap on the wrist.
Trials are for those cases were the defender loses, the crimminal leaves the scene, and is arrested sometime after the fact.
Thank Ye Sai
Exactly. Also add the possibility of multiple assailants. You don’t know how many there might be. A dead intruder or intruders decreases to zero the chances of you or your loved ones being hurt. You didn’t choose this, they did.
The new law, when signed, also provides that you don’t need to retreat from anyplace you have a legal right to be. That means outside the home. Shopping malls, parking lots, office buildings, etc.
“A friend will help you move. A good friend will help you move a body.”
“A good friend will bail you out of jail. Your best friend will be sitting beside you in the cell.”
Gonna have to ask for a cite on this. Not saying you’re wrong, but you sort of blithely lumped together “put in jail” and “sued”. Those two things could not be more different. Anybody can sue; it doesn’t mean the lawsuit has merit. Was someone actually put in jail for injuring a person who broke into their home, and were they found guilty only because they “passed an escape route” from their own home? I’d be interested to see what the particulars of the case were.
You are confusing two things here. A person who is accused has certain legal rights. A person who is convicted does not necessarily have as many rights. You are correct that there is an underlying reality as to whether the crime occurred, but from a legal standpoint, the rights of a “criminal” are not the same as the rights of an accused person. That’s what seperates a democratic government from a dictatorship. In a dictatorship, the accused do not have rights (or their rights are not respected); therefore the government need only accuse a person in order to jail him, resulting in innocent people being jailed. THAT’S why it’s an important legal distinction.
But we are not talking about the accused, we are talking about a criminal. Couldn’t a bill specify certain actions that could be taken against an individual, assuming they are a criminal; and then of course during a trial a jury could determine whether the person was indeed a criminal or not, retroactively? Isn’t that what all self-defense cases are really?
Incidentally, the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship has nothing to do with the rights of the accused/criminal. I can easily envision a democracy which assumes guilt before innocence and a dictatorship that does the opposite.
I do know that government was created to make individuals more secure by banding together against the lawless. A government that forces its own people to give up to the lawless makes no sense to me, as it defies it’s own original purpose.
Finally, Florida might be on the right path to do some good for its people.