Sort of, but not exactly. In most jurisdictions, you don’t have to actually be correct in your belief that force is necessary to defend yourself, your belief only needs to be reasonable given the circumstances. Let’s say that you shoot an intruder in your home after midnight. You later find out that the person was actually a neighbor who was disoriented by an allergic reaction to some pain medication who climbed into your window, thinking it to be his own and that he was accidentally locked out. You were not correct in your belief that self defense was necessary – your neighbor did not enter your home intending to assault you or commit any crime – but your belief that it was necessary to use deadly force in defense of yourself or your family may well have been reasonable given the circumstances and you could avail yourself of a self defense claim.
More to the point of the OP, it sounds like Florida is giving up the minority view on self defense and joining the majority. The majority view is that there is no “duty to retreat” prior to using force (even meeting deadly force with deadly force) to defend yourself; the minority view is that you must attempt to retreat prior to using deadly force if one can safely do so unless one is in one’s home, and a few other limited exceptions. Texas kind of straddles the line saying there is no duty to retreat prior to using deadly force “if a reasonable person in the actor’s situation would not have retreated.” Then again, we allow deadly force to protect property and not just human life, so maybe it balances out.
I agree with the bulk of your post, except at the end. In classes on self-defence and CWP (Concealed Weapons Permit) they teach when to shoot and when not to. Case in point: You hear a noise in your garage and open the door to find someone loading your mower into his truck. Can you shoot? No. Theft is not a capital offence. You must retreat and call the police. If at that time the perpetrator attempts to stop you with force, the rules have changed.
However, most discussions here tend towards in-home events (several posts come readily to mind). This situation has been addressed long ago here in Fla. You need not retreat in your home. This law addresses anyplace where you have a legal right to be, and the right to be armed. Simply put, you can defend yourself while out in the world if you, your family or anyone is jeopardized by a severe injury/life threatening situation.
I have been very pleased to see a general tendancy for posters to hold a positive attitude to this law. It seems most people understand and agree with the rightness of being able to defend yourself and your loved one’s. It may signal a turn in the previous trends; one that will put the rights of the law abiding victims first for a change.
Amazing, I was pretty sure I answered you in the Pit. Under Florida law I don’t see how it would have made a difference in the “Case of the Scary Cake.” Sounds like a Nancy Drew mystery to me. I’m not up to par on Florida law but I don’t think they had a duty to retreat in their own homes any way. So this new law wouldn’t make any difference at all in that case.
If I or my loved ones are threatened, it is my principle duty to do what I can to keep myself and them from harm. It is not my duty, nor even my right, to attempt to punish those threatening them, except insofar as it is necessary to my duty of protection. This is a fundamental principle of any civilized state.
But this law is a huge step towards undermining that principle. In any threatening situation, if it is possible to remove yourself from that situation, that is always your safest course of action. The actions which this law would allow will therefore never increase the safety of the innocent, so the law cannot be justified on those grounds.
This law would have only two effects: First, it would give to the citizens severally more power to punish percieved wrongdoers, a power which should be reserved to the state as a whole. And second, it would miseducate the public to the effect that fighting is safer than fleeing, where both options are available, a falsehood which will result in greater harm to innocents. Neither of these two effects is desireable, so this law should absolutely not be passed.
Due to the vagaries of the internet and my shoddy memory at this time (12:30am), I can’t do better than to say that they are two different stories that my phrasing appears to conflate.
The first story (which I believe was commented upon on these here boards, but I can’t find) was about a man (IIRC in Florida) who heard noises on the first floor of his house, armed himself and shot a robber. The man went to court and was found guilty of excessive force as on his way to shoot the intruder, he passed by the front door which the prosecution (that is, the intruder’s lawyer) convinced the jury that the man should have used to escape.
The suing is from a story I read in Reuters’ Oddly Enough book. Oddly enough, it’s a collection of their “oddly enough” (oh man, I should just stop writing) stories. The one I’m thinking of involved a burgaler who either injured himself or was injured by the homeowner while attempting to rob the house. The would-be thief sued the homeowner and was awarded damages for being rendered unable to earn a living.
Not true. jimpatro pointed out the difference between “accused” and “criminal”, to which the OP responded that “a person has committed the crime before they enter the courtroom and are by definition a criminal”. I was disagreeing with his refusal to acknowledge a difference between the two things. It is what we’re talking about.
On the contrary; it has everything to do with it.
Presuming (I believe that’s the word you meant) guilt before innocence is not mutually exclusive to having the right to a fair trial, nor does the reverse guarantee a fair trial. Some systems do presume guilt, but still uphold the rights of the accused. So the fact that you can envision it does not invalidate my argument. The legal standard of presumption of innocence has little to do with my point.
Thanks for the details. I hear these types of anecdotes occasionally, and I always wonder if if we’re really dealing with a system that requires a new law to be passed, or if we’re just dealing with a handful of freak court cases where an idiotic jury made a wildly inappropriate decision. I mean, out of a million jury trials, you’re bound to get one or two that are just flat out wrong, even if the overwhelming majority are o.k. And even if you do change the law, it’s no guarantee that idiot jurors won’t continue to make stupid decisions.
Also, trials rarely hinge on one issue, yet people with an agenda usually re-tell them as though they did. (Not referring to you, of course, but perhaps the source where you heard the story). If you’ve ever seen a real trial, the lawyers will bring up a plethora of issues. They basically throw as much shit against the wall as they can and hope something sticks.* For example, they might have had a trial where, yes, they presented evidence that the homeowner had a chance to escape but did not. But what other evidence was presented? Maybe it came out that he shot the burglar in the back as the burglar was running away. Maybe the burglar was lying incapacitated on the ground and the homeowner said, “I don’t think you’re hurt enough”, and shot him again. Who knows? That’s why I have a hard time feeling like these little anecdotes necessarily prove anything. We’d really have to read the whole case.
*Case in point: remember the infamous “twinkie” defense? The way the story is told, the defendant was arguing that eating twinkies made him insane. Of course, the truth is that that was a very minor part of the defense’s case. Yet reporters latched onto that minor aspect and acted as though that were the totality of the case.
Awwww, you’re just so precious Reeder. I could just eat you up. At the very least the question has been answered. The new law would not have affected the scary cake since you never had a duty to retreat in your own home.
Do you seriously think this law in Florida is going to result in duels on the streets and a wild west mentality? If so, why?
I honestly hadn’t thought of it like that, but perhaps that’s because I only ever watch Judge Mathis and see the reporting in the news where the prosection, etc. appear to latch onto one thing.
It certainly makes sense, especially in light of your comment re: “throwing it at the wall.”
No. She would not be justified in shooting the girls BECAUSE she was inside of her house and they were outside making no attempt to enter. She did not need to shoot to keep from being hurt or killed. This is an inane compairison. She did not need to escape or defend herself. She was simply scared by the ringing of her doorbell at night. To answer your question as directly as possible… Fuck No! No threat, no defence. If someone stands in my front yard or my front porch and threatens my life, from outside, I have no imminent threat. I can ignore or call police. No imminent threat. She was scared and the court said “Okay, ya scared this stupid old woman so we will fine you for doing a nice thing like baking her a cake”. Stupid trial, stupid ruling, stupid question. Can we please move the fuck on?
The problem is the unpredictablility of it all. You wouldn’t know when and when not to protect yourself or your family in the heat of the moment. You don’t know how many crimininals are in your house. You just don’t know. So for that very moment, the intruder(s) are in the wrong. They are where they shouldn’t be, and they are in fact risking their lives by breaking and entering your home. And it should always be assumed that they will harm you as necessary to acheive whatever they are there for. You only have one life, as well as your familys lives. What do you do? Call up the court house and start proceedings?
Sounds like it would to me. To throw the bill out would be to give the intruders more rights then you.
Like I said before, in the heat of the moment, are you going to call up the court house to start proceedings?
Good bill. Now if someone defends themselves without first trying to run away, they’ll be safe from prosecution. This is a very normal and appropriate reaction when confronted violently by criminals. It can also be potentially safer. It should be legal.
It’s hard to feel sorry for and support violent criminals engaged in a violent criminal acts. Anyone who doesn’t support this bill does that AFAIC and as far as most people, including probably a majority of Democrats, are concerned.
You also have to take into account that while after the fact we might recognize escape as the best option, in the chaos of an intrusion into one’s house one does not have all the relevant information.
For example, the intruder could have friends waiting outside. Perhaps as lookouts. Making a stand inside the house might really be the best option.