Law Lets Floridians `Meet Force With Force'

[Forged]

Someone should acknowledge that I agree with you right wing loons that this law is probably ok.

That said, I have a serious problem with the presumption that any uninvited person in your home must present a deadly threat. That's just silly and paranoid. I suspect that most robbers, when caught in the act, would simply try to run away.

Correct, and I assume that if you were to shoot them in the back (which you would if they ran)  Then you would still go to jail. 

[Hazard]

Someone should acknowledge that I agree with you right wing loons that this law is probably ok.

That said, I have a serious problem with the presumption that any uninvited person in your home must present a deadly threat. That's just silly and paranoid. I suspect that most robbers, when caught in the act, would simply try to run away.

Perhaps 80%. But what protects the masses from those 20% who want to harm you?

If they want to harm you, shoot them.  I imagine if you approached the 20% of robbers that *would* harm you with a weapon drawn, then 90% of them would run away, unless they already had their guns drawn.  The other 10% is why you have a gun at all.

You don't need to shoot them, though, unless they try to shoot you, or gesture as if they're going to.

Then that would be in the wrong. Under US law, and further under Florida law, you are only allowed to draw your weapon when your life is in imminent danger. So lets take it the way that you all would want us to. We'd have to approach our would-be-attacker and find out what their intentions are and find out if they are armed. Then we'd have to run away before they could get to you and get your weapon, then you'd have to hunt them down and then you could shoot them? Might that take a little too long? You aren't even allowed to draw unless you're threatened.

[Adron]

You aren't even allowed to draw unless you're threatened.

Some people will feel threatened even when they're not really in danger. And when they draw, the other person will definitely feel his life is in danger.

[Hazard]

You aren't even allowed to draw unless you're threatened.

Some people will feel threatened even when they're not really in danger. And when they draw, the other person will definitely feel his life is in danger.

Thats why, in order to get a concealed weapons permit, you have to go through a series of training courses to know when force is appropriate and when it is not. People aren't as stupid with weapons as you make them sound Adron.

[Adron]

People aren't as stupid with weapons as you make them sound Adron.

Some are, some are not. Stupid people are abundant.

[MyndFyre]

Then that would be in the wrong. Under US law, and further under Florida law, you are only allowed to draw your weapon when your life is in imminent danger. So lets take it the way that you all would want us to. We'd have to approach our would-be-attacker and find out what their intentions are and find out if they are armed. Then we'd have to run away before they could get to you and get your weapon, then you'd have to hunt them down and then you could shoot them? Might that take a little too long? You aren't even allowed to draw unless you're threatened.

First of all, what would be in the wrong?  I am not quite sure what you mean.

Show me the US statutory law.  Statutory law overrides common law, and the United States does not have federal statutory law regarding permitted uses of physical or deadly physical force -- that's why states have statutory laws about it.  Don't quote US laws that don't exist.

You might be right about Florida law, though; I'm not familiar with the Florida state statutes.  A blog from a group called Concealed Carry, Inc., says this:

The 'castle doctrine' creates an exception to the common law duty to retreat. The doctrine states that an individual has a right to defend his or her home in the face of danger, even to the extent of using deadly force.

This bill improves the castle doctrine in Florida by expanding the concept of what is a 'castle' and by expanding the group of persons entitled to its protection. In other words, if a person illegally enters your home you can use deadly force without the fear of criminal prosecution or civil action.

Furthermore, regarding your statement about having to run away *after* determining intentions and capabilities, you're way off.  You can attack a thief on your property who is in your house if he's not trying to shoot you, but you can't use deadly force.  You can match the amount of force used in the crime to prevent or stop a crime.  At least in Arizona.

[Hazard]

First of all, what would be in the wrong?  I am not quite sure what you mean.

It would be unlawful.

Show me the US statutory law.  Statutory law overrides common law, and the United States does not have federal statutory law regarding permitted uses of physical or deadly physical force -- that's why states have statutory laws about it.  Don't quote US laws that don't exist.

Consult the ATF for your answers.

You might be right about Florida law

I am.

though; I'm not familiar with the Florida state statutes.  A blog from a group called Concealed Carry, Inc., says this:

The 'castle doctrine' creates an exception to the common law duty to retreat. The doctrine states that an individual has a right to defend his or her home in the face of danger, even to the extent of using deadly force.

As you said yourself, laws vary from state to state.

Furthermore, regarding your statement about having to run away *after* determining intentions and capabilities, you're way off.  You can attack a thief on your property who is in your house if he's not trying to shoot you, but you can't use deadly force.  You can match the amount of force used in the crime to prevent or stop a crime.  At least in Arizona.

I'm glad its not that way in this state. It would be ridiculous to first be REQUIRED to ascertain the level of the threatening force before reacting.

[Arta]

Nonsense. Police officers are required to do that all the time.

[Hazard]

But you'll notice when police approach a dangerous suspect, they have their weapons drawn already. Why shouldn't it be the same case with home owners?

[Arta]

I thought they only did that when they believe that the suspect has a gun? Or some other deadly weapon?

[Hazard]

I thought they only did that when they believe that the suspect has a gun? Or some other deadly weapon?

When police enter a house with a suspect in it they always have their weapons drawn, regardless if they know whether or not the suspect has a gun. You think they'd kick the door in only holding their mace?

[Adron]

I thought they only did that when they believe that the suspect has a gun? Or some other deadly weapon?

They do in America. America is the country where all the bad guys have guns. They have laws that each bad guy shall have a gun to defend himself from the police.....

[CrAz3D]

At least the criminals have rights though

[MyndFyre]

I thought they only did that when they believe that the suspect has a gun? Or some other deadly weapon?

They do in America. America is the country where all the bad guys have guns. They have laws that each bad guy shall have a gun to defend himself from the police.....

So let's outlaw guns, and the bad guys (who are breaking the law anyway) will still have them, only people can't defend themselves from the bad guys!

[Zakath]

Thats why, in order to get a concealed weapons permit, you have to go through a series of training courses to know when force is appropriate and when it is not. People aren't as stupid with weapons as you make them sound Adron.

I don't particularly have a problem with people who are trained and licensed in the use of guns having guns. I am American, after all.

What I'm curious about is your opinion on how ridiculously easy it currently is to obtain a gun without having to provide evidence of said licensing and training.

What gets me is that the legitimate gun owners are always pushing for greater rights to use their guns (and there is nothing inherently wrong with this), but at the same time, steadfastly resist regulating the gun-acquisition process in a sane manner.