What Do You Think Of This Ad?

[Popmartijn]

Murder involves premeditation (an intent) to kill.

Self-defense requires a showing by the defendant that the average reasonable person in the same situation would fear imminent threat of physical harm.

And who can collaborate/contradict the evidence as showed by the defendant. Not the person who has been killed. So it's only the word of the defendant. What he or she might suggest as being self-defense could thus easily be murder.

There is substantial law supporting the self-defense doctrine and the Florida law only expands the doctrine to (i) people in public who are given no opportunity to retreat or (ii) people confronted in their own home when faced with physical harm.

If you read that article posted by Dreadsox you see that's not the case. What you're saying was the old situation. Now, the criteria are even more lax.

 

[nbcrusader]

Two of your quotes contriadict each other.

this quote

But to do so, she must "reasonably believe" that using deadly force is necessary to prevent "imminent" use of deadly force against herself or others

clearly states that a threat of physical harm must exist, not that someone simply "force" their way into your home.

The reasonable belief standard is the most common standard for evaluating a persons action, and is the current standard for determining if a person feels threatened with physical harm. It is well established in our jurisprudence, so I'm not quite sure why this got a .

 

[Popmartijn]

Two of your quotes contriadict each other.

this quote

But to do so, she must "reasonably believe" that using deadly force is necessary to prevent "imminent" use of deadly force against herself or others

clearly states that a threat of physical harm must exist, not that someone simply "force" their way into your home.

If you read my post correctly, you could see that the section you just quoted was about the part of the new law that deals with the subject being outside the house. You could've seen in the paragraph above when a person is allowed to shoot someone in his/her own home. Let me repeat that section for you:

Now, all a person has to do is establish that the person they killed was "unlawfully" and "forcibly" entering their home when they shot the victim.

Please show me where it mentions (threat of) physical harm?
It does explicitly mention that someone only has to simply "force" their way into your home.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

based on that description... i can only agree with half the law.

the part about standing one's ground in public sounds like a reasonable enough law. one still has to prove that the person they shot was willing and able to use deadly force. agree with that part of the law 100%

the other part... the reenforcement of the castle law... is very sketchy to me. it baisicly gives carte blanche to shoot anyone who is in your house or car without your permission... which to me sounds a bit hard to prove.

so someone can bring home a lady/man friend from a bar, and later shoot and kill them, claiming that the person illegaly followed the person home and got into his/her car/house, and could get away with it?

think the improved castle law is bullshit, think the improved stand your ground law pretaining to outside your house is a good and just law.

 

[nbcrusader]

Again, we are dealing with an editorial summary of the law, not the text of the law.

I would say if there is an "imminent use of deadly force" is a subset of threat of physical harm.

The legistlature has simply added a presumption that if someone is in your home (illegally or forcibly), the resident can reasonably believe that there is a threat of harm.

This changes little in practice, as the article notes, juries tend to believe the living defendant instead of the dead intruder, when it comes to what constitutes a reasonable fear.

 

[nbcrusader]

so someone can bring home a lady/man friend from a bar, and later shoot and kill them, claiming that the person illegaly followed the person home and got into his/her car/house, and could get away with it?

We certainly can get lost on senarios that take the defense and use it as a cover for premeditated murder. But, that is no different than with current laws.

 

[BVS]

Removing any burden or proof is dangerous. I can't see how anyone can see it any other way.

 

[Rono]

Damn Bush family at it again, they are all IDIOTS!

Well, what me scares me the most that the democrates are suporting the killbill because they are afraid to lose votes.

there was a big item about this law on dutch tv 3 months ago. They had a case about a young kid shot into the back because he was ringing a doorbell and did run away. The man wh shoot went to jail but under this killbill he would be a free man.

 

[nbcrusader]

there was a big item about this law on dutch tv 3 months ago. They had a case about a young kid shot into the back because he was ringing a doorbell and did run away. The man wh shoot went to jail but under this killbill he would be a free man.

See, this is a prime example of sesationalistic interpretation of the law. The law would not create a valid defense for shooting someone outside the home who is running away.

 

[nbcrusader]

Removing any burden or proof is dangerous. I can't see how anyone can see it any other way.

I believe they are shifting a presumption (as reflected by reality), not removing a burden of proof.

 

[Dreadsox]

Better yet...a link to the actual law...

http://www.flsenate.gov/cgi-bin/vie...ctory=session/2005/House/bills/billtext/html/

 

[BVS]

I believe they are shifting a presumption (as reflected by reality), not removing a burden of proof.

Well in reading the law I don't see a difference. If the presumption is automatically on the dweller, then there is no questioning or investigation?

I think it's especially dangerous when applied to your car, boat, etc.

 

[Popmartijn]

Better yet...a link to the actual law...

http://www.flsenate.gov/cgi-bin/vie...ctory=session/2005/House/bills/billtext/html/

Thanks.

Section 1. Section 776.013, Florida Statutes, is created
57 to read:
58 776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption
59 of fear of death or great bodily harm.--
60 (1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of
61 imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself,
62 herself, or another when using defensive force that is intended
63 or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
64 (a) The person against whom the defensive force was used
65 was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had
66 unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or
67 occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was
68 attempting to remove another against that person's will from the
69 dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle.
70 (b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason
71 to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and
72 forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(emphasis is mine)


So a person doesn't even have to unlawfully enter a house to be killed, but if the resident even believes it is occuring then he may shoot to kill. This is even worse than reported.
So Rono was right, under the new law the man who shot a boy running away after ringing a doorbell would go free. He would only have to say that he believed the boy would try to unlawfully enter his house and he would free because of section b highlighted above. This isn't a sensasionalistic interpretation of the law, it is the law.

 

[nbcrusader]

So a person doesn't even have to unlawfully enter a house to be killed, but if the resident even believes it is occuring then he may shoot to kill. This is even worse than reported.
So Rono was right, under the new law the man who shot a boy running away after ringing a doorbell would go free. He would only have to say that he believed the boy would try to unlawfully enter his house and he would free because of section b highlighted above. This isn't a sensasionalistic interpretation of the law, it is the law.

No, you miss an important part in your comment. It is not a belief that someone has unlawfully entered the house, but has "reason to believe". This goes to factual context. It is not left to subjective interpretation.


Also, some element of unlawful entry have occured or is in the process of occurring. It does not give the righ to shoot someone because you think they may enter your house. Rono's example is completely wrong.

 

[Popmartijn]

No, you miss an important part in your comment. It is not a belief that someone has unlawfully entered the house, but has "reason to believe". This goes to factual context. It is not left to subjective interpretation.

How do you find out the truth about the factual context when one of the prime eyewitnesses is dead. Then it's the word of the owner against the dead person.

Also, some element of unlawful entry have occured or is in the process of occurring. It does not give the righ to shoot someone because you think they may enter your house. Rono's example is completely wrong.

Yes you do have that 'right'. There's that line 'knew or had reason to believe' again. So Rono's example isn't completely wrong.

 

[bammo2]

I am truly incredulous. Not only that this law actually got passed, but slso that people are actually arguing that it's not a bad thing

 

[nbcrusader]

How do you find out the truth about the factual context when one of the prime eyewitnesses is dead. Then it's the word of the owner against the dead person.

Factual context = look at all the facts, not just eyewitness testimony. A lot can be told by the location, evidence around the house (a broken window), etc.

And it has always been the word of the owner agaist the dead person, under the old or new law.

Yes you do have that 'right'. There's that line 'knew or had reason to believe' again. So Rono's example isn't completely wrong.

This is the operative part.

that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred

Speculation about what someone might do does not give right to use the defense. At best, Rono's example was a fear that someone might break in. The individual was outside, had rung to door bell (not exactly forcible entry), and was leaving the premises.

For Rono's example, I'd say the defenant will be found guilty 10 out of 10 times.

 

[nbcrusader]

I am truly incredulous. Not only that this law actually got passed, but slso that people are actually arguing that it's not a bad thing

Perhaps you could articulate your thoughts instead of relying on the assumption that the law is a "bad thing"

 

[Angela Harlem]

It's in essence removing culpability for shooting people, nbc. What on earth is impossible to understand about this? The rest of the world looked at Michael Moore's (so-called) documentary with horror (look beyond he himself, most sensible people understand his massive flaws - but look at the facts he did present). Does the US need explaining on why you have such an incredibly bloated murder rate? You seem to be a nation of indifference.

 

[nbcrusader]

It's in essence removing culpability for shooting people, nbc. What on earth is impossible to understand about this? The rest of the world looked at Michael Moore's (so-called) documentary with horror (look beyond he himself, most sensible people understand his massive flaws - but look at the facts he did present). Does the US need explaining on why you have such an incredibly bloated murder rate? You seem to be a nation of indifference.

It is not removing culpability for shooting people. Please read and understand the law instead of relying on stereotypes about the US.

 

[the iron horse]

The ad is a crock.

Many states grant law-abiding citizens concealed weapons permits.

Please post where these gun carrying citizens have gunned down innocent people.

Please post!

Vermont has the most liberal gun carry law, you know the state of Howard Dean, any law-abing citizen can carry a concealed weapon. No state permit required.

Again...

Please post where these law abiding citizens are murdering people.


I suggest you do a search on the states in the U.S. that have the most retrictive gun laws...California, New York City, Washington D.C.

Who is doing the killing in these areas?

What areas have the highest murder rate?

 

[Angela Harlem]

I read it. I understand it. Do you understand it? Do you understand these (as you call them) stereotypes about the US?

 

[nbcrusader]

I read the law and understand it. It is what I do for a living.

 

[Dreadsox]

I read the law and understand it. It is what I do for a living.

Yes, but just because you are a lawyer, does not mean you understand it in FYM terms..

 

[Angela Harlem]

Wonderful.

 

[DrTeeth]

Please post where these law abiding citizens are murdering people.

Is this supposed to be a trick question?

 

[the iron horse]

"Is this supposed to be a trick question?"


No, it is suppose to be a search for the truth on this topic.

We seem so bent(and righteous) on demonizing inanimate objects and seem so
afraid in confronting the weapons of our hearts.

 

[BVS]

Many states grant law-abiding citizens concealed weapons permits.

Please post where these gun carrying citizens have gunned down innocent people.

Please post!

You do realize this question makes no sense and is impossible to answer.

Once they gun down an innocent person they are no longer law-abiding. Therefore no way to do a search on how many "law-abiding" citizens have killed. There have been murders done by citizens with permits. Not all criminals are born with a record. Ever heard of crimes of passion?

 

[BVS]

We seem so bent(and righteous) on demonizing inanimate objects and seem so
afraid in confronting the weapons of our hearts.

This thread really has nothing to do with inanimate objects, it has to do with how easy it is to take advantage of the law and murder.

 

[the iron horse]

"You do realize this question makes no sense and is impossible to answer."


No, the question makes perfect sense.


For example, if concealed weapon permit carriers were shooting people left and right, you would have a truck load of news to slam into this thread.

They are not.