Hit this poll

[StogieC]

I now see. This bill is to enable deadly force to be used, lawfully, if a citizen encounters the situation you described in your anecdote.

A defense of property statute should be considered in this discussion.

It's in the bill...

 

[OC for ME]

It must be me.

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

A citizen is charged in spite of the above?

It certainly sounds like this bill needs to become law right quick and in a hurry.

 

[StogieC]

It must be me.A citizen is charged in spite of the above?

It certainly sounds like this bill needs to become law right quick and in a hurry.

That statute only applies if you are inside the home. If you drive up on someone breaking in to your house, you do not get the same presumption of "a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm". Therefore you can't use a weapon in defense.

 

[OC for ME]

I guess case law interpreted the application of 776.013(1) because that statute makes no reference one way or the other.

 

[1245A Defender]

But???

That statute only applies if you are inside the home. If you drive up on someone breaking in to your house, you do not get the same presumption of "a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm". Therefore you can't use a weapon in defense.

What if I know my family is that home?
I am in reasonable fear of their immminent peril of death or great bodily harm.
Can I use lethal force to defend them?
Even though I am still outside?

My answer is already yes, I can, and I will!
If he breaks through that door or window, I will stop him, he would be shot in the back,
untill the threat stops!

 

[StogieC]

What if I know my family is that home?
I am in reasonable fear of their immminent peril of death or great bodily harm.
Can I use lethal force to defend them?
Even though I am still outside?

My answer is already yes, I can, and I will!
If he breaks through that door or window, I will stop him, he would be shot in the back,
untill the threat stops!

I would open fire, throw bricks, go hand-to-hand... I would so anything and everything it takes to keep my family safe. We need to make sure that the laws don't criminalize defense of the innocent.​ That's why I wrote this bill.

 

[OC for ME]

I would open fire, throw bricks, go hand-to-hand... I would so anything and everything it takes to keep my family safe. We need to make sure that the laws don't criminalize defense of the innocent.​ That's why I wrote this bill.

Then you would be charged and then prosecuted under the current law. But, the current law does not indicate that you can be charged. I remain in a state if confusion regarding lawful self defense in the situation you described. To me it seems that the state has prosecuted citizens who were, in my view, acted in accordance with the law.

A appeal would.....should have fixed the injustice.

 

[StogieC]

Then you would be charged and then prosecuted under the current law. But, the current law does not indicate that you can be charged. I remain in a state if confusion regarding lawful self defense in the situation you described. To me it seems that the state has prosecuted citizens who were, in my view, acted in accordance with the law.

A appeal would.....should have fixed the injustice.

That's the problem. The appellate courts here have actually been upholding convictions of people for ag assault who were defending against attack.

watch this: http://thefloridachannel.org/video/101612-task-force-on-citizen-safety-and-protection/

 

[Talesman]

I can't believe what I am reading here.

Most, seemingly, would rather extinguish a life than save it.

I see nothing wrong with firing a shot into the ground a few feet from a perp and warning that the next round is going to be between his or her running lights (with no legal consequence for doing so) and telling the perp to flee, vamoose, run away, get lost, etc. and hoping/praying they heed the immediate warning.

It's a good bill and it could save lives.

 

[StogieC]

I can't believe what I am reading here.

Most, seemingly, would rather extinguish a life than save it.

I see nothing wrong with firing a shot into the ground a few feet from a perp and warning that the next round is going to be between his or her running lights (with no legal consequence for doing so) and telling the perp to flee, vamoose, run away, get lost, etc. and hoping/praying they heed the immediate warning.

It's a good bill and it could save lives.

I think that most here do not take lightly the taking of a life, even the life of a criminal. People however understand that warning shots are a use of force that should not be used lightly. This bill is not an endorsement of warning shots. It does however recognize that warning shots are a use of force that is not deadly force. Hyperbole and supposition are the enemies of this bill. They must be mitigated with fact.