Florida Castle Doctrine Bill

Forums: Legal
Email this Topic • Print this Page

FLORIDA CASTLE DOCTRINE BILL

On March 23, The Florida Senate passed SB-436, "Castle Doctrine" by a vote of YEAS 39 -- NAYS 0

On April 5, The Florida House passed SB-436, "Castle Doctrine" by a vote of YEAS 94 NAYS 20

On April 26, Governor Jeb Bush SIGNED SB-436, "Castle Doctrine" into law (Chapter No. 2005-27) It takes effect on October 1, 2005.

A great deal of erroneous information has been written, published and spoken about Florida's new "Castle Doctrine" bill.

Claims that the new law will turn Florida into the Wild West are not only an insult to intelligent people but give a patently false portrait of what the bill actually does.

The Florida "Castle Doctrine" bill does basically three things:

One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, therefore a person may use any manner of force, including deadly force, against that person.

Two: It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others.

Three: It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force.

It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them.

In short, it gives rights back to law-abiding people and forces judges and prosecutors who are prone to coddling criminals to instead focus on protecting victims.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 7,208 • Replies: 58

No top replies

I understand there's growing sentiment for something similar in Great Britain. Maybe not firearms, but at least a legal right to use a rake or shovel for self defense.

0 Replies

Why is Florida such a magnet for this type of idiocy.

Elian, the 2000 election debacle, Terry Schiavo and now this?

Makes you wonder if there is something funny in the water.

0 Replies

Where is the idiocity?

0 Replies

Keep posting that way ebrown, your true nature is showing.

According to ebrown, we should all run and hide in fear of criminals who wish to maim or kill us and our families. Great idea buddy.

0 Replies

I am not running or hiding in fear... and I don't even own a sling shot.

Besides, this law goes against our Christian roots as a nation...

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Why is Florida such a magnet for this type of idiocy.

Elian, the 2000 election debacle, Terry Schiavo and now this?

Makes you wonder if there is something funny in the water.

Must be in the water up here too. Interestingly, "this law" provides the residents of FL with the exact same right that the residents of MA (one of the states with the most stringent gun control laws) have had for years.

0 Replies

Michigan has the opposite. You're supposed to hide in your closet in case of a home invasion and call the police from the cell phone that is out in the kitchen then wait a half hour for someone to show up. Seriously.

0 Replies

Fishin,

In all seriousness the part of the Florida bill that I have a problem with is the phrase "reasonbly believe".

If I shoot someone, what does this mean?

If I am in a neighborhood that I am uncomfortable in (even a high crime neighborhood) and a large scary looking black man comes with his hand in his pocket... can I shoot him?

If it turns out he is unarmed and his family claimes he was just asking for a light... can I use my fear as a defense?

What about agressive panhandlers? etc.

I can't believe that the "reasonable belief" provision part of the law in Massachusetts. Do you have a link for this?

The burden of proof should be on anyone who kills. I would also be surprised if this were not the case in Ma.

Link please.

0 Replies

My father has a CCW permit and he was told by the NRA rep who taught the class he had to take that in Michigan, even with the CCW, if someone broke into his home, he should try to hide. If approached, he should yell "I have a gun and I will use it", and if the person still keeps coming, then, and only then, should he consider using it.

What a joke. How are you supposed to protect anyone else in the house? "Please leave, and don't hurt my family. If you rape and kill us, you'll go to jail".

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

I can't believe that the "reasonable belief" provision part of the law in Massachusetts. Do you have a link for this?

The burden of proof should be on anyone who kills. I would also be surprised if this were not the case in Ma.

Link please.

I don't have the MGL refernce at the moment but the following is from the Bolton, MA Police Dept:

"Deadly Force in Self-Defense of Other
A. General Rule

Before a person may resort to deadly force he must (1) have reasonable grounds to believe that he is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury from which he can save himself only through the use of deadly force and has taken all reasonable and proper means to
avoid physical combat before resorting to the use of such deadly force; and (2) use no more force that is reasonably necessary in all circumstances of the case.

http://www.boltonpd.org/data/useofforce.pdf

Compare that to the new FL provision:

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

The deadly force provisions look pretty darn similar to me!

0 Replies

fishin' wrote:

and has taken all reasonable and proper means to avoid physical combat before resorting to the use of such deadly force;

Quite a difference, because of this phrase, as you're aware.

<I think I need to spend less time with lawyers. Makes ya damn picky. And fussy>

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

fishin' wrote:
and has taken all reasonable and proper means to avoid physical combat before resorting to the use of such deadly force;

Quite a difference, because of this phrase, as you're aware.

Quote:

The rest of the FL law pretty much covers the same thing. (I didn't copy and paste the entire thing). Contrary to how may are portraying it you can't just shoot someone for walking up to you and asking a question or because they flipped you the finger.

The difference is in how it will be interpreted. Here in MA "resonable" isn't... In 1992 there was a State Supreme Court ruling on an appeal on a woman that had been sentenced to several years in prison for Assult with a deadly weapon.

She came home and found a man raping her roommate and whacked him over the head with a poker from the fireplace. The cops arrested her, she was convicted and the SJC decided that she had exceeded "reasonable" use of force with a deadly instrument.

It's all in what the courts say it means in the end.

0 Replies

fishin' wrote:

The difference is in how it will be interpreted. Here in MA "resonable" isn't... In 1992 there was a State Supreme Court ruling on an appeal on a woman that had been sentenced to several years in prison for Assult with a deadly weapon.

She came home and found a man raping her roommate and whacked him over the head with a poker from the fireplace. The cops arrested her, she was convicted and the SJC decided that she had exceeded "reasonable" use of force with a deadly instrument.

It's all in what the courts say it means in the end.

She should have been given a gold plated poker and a wall plaque.

0 Replies

Now, the Castle Doctrine (I haven't seen it) isn't talking about aggressive panhandlers, or anything of the sort. It seems to speak of persons forcibly entering your home. If this happens, you are in danger.

0 Replies

The question we are discussing is, Who do you have the right to kill?

In our civilized society, our values don't allow us to kill for robbery. People who commit crimes worthy of being killed are given due process becuase we all understand that taking a a human life is a serious thing.

There is a specious argument suggested by those who are defending the Castle Doctrine. They imply that it is OK to kill "criminals".

There are two blantant problems with this idea-- first of all a core of our society is due process. Getting shot because someone has "reasonable grounds" to see you as dangerous kind of takes due process away. Secondly, I think we all agree that many crimes are not worthy of a death sentence. Robbery is certainly not.

In a civilized society, people shooting each other is always a bad thing-- especially when there is an alternative.

In the original post Cj celebrates that the "duty to retreat" has been abolished. What this means is that you can shoot and kill someone instead of leaving and calling the police. I am going to kill someone because I don't want to run.

Finally, I don't understand why conservatives live in such fear.

I live in North Cambridge. This is one of the poorer neighborhoods in our fair city. I am surrounded by illegal immigrants and other languages (including Arabic) are common. There is more crime here than in other parts of the city.

However, I don't carry a firearm. I have never felt the need to kill someone. My wife, my three kids... all of us seem to be pretty comfortable living in a civilized country with a strong set of laws and a decent police force.

If we can live decent lives in the liberal hotbed of Massachusetts where criminals are coddled and crime flourishes without killing anyone.... Why do the conservatives in Florida need this.

I don't understand why you need to live your lives in such fear.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

I don't understand why you need to live your lives in such fear.

Maybe because of people who think the way you do?

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

There is a specious argument suggested by those who are defending the Castle Doctrine. They imply that it is OK to kill "criminals".

If there is a specious argument being presented it's coming from your side of the isle. No one has suggested that the mere fact a person may be committing a crime is justification for shooting them other than you. What HAS been suggested is that people have a right to defend themselves when they are directly threatened. To use deadly force the person still has to follow the laws and the law still only allows "...use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony." Someone committing a crime with no weapon or down the street doesn't present an imminent threat. Someone stealing a parked car is committing a forcible crime.

Why is it that the folks on your side of the isle are all trying to make it sound like people will suddenly be free to shoot jay walkers in the street?

Quote:

There are two blantant problems with this idea-- first of all a core of our society is due process. Getting shot because someone has "reasonable grounds" to see you as dangerous kind of takes due process away.

Dead people make terrible witnesses on the stand. Why should someone be forced to allow themselves to be killed so they can await the outcome of due process? Due process is all well and good but not getting killed or maimed has a lot going for it too.

Quote:

Secondly, I think we all agree that many crimes are not worthy of a death sentence. Robbery is certainly not.

Agreed. But unless the robber is armed then there is no imminent threat and the law doesn't allow anyone to shoot them either. Your assumption that "using deadly force" automaticly means someone will die is also off base. Simply pulling back your coat to show the perp that you are carrying a gun is considered use of deadly force.

Quote:

Finally, I don't understand why conservatives live in such fear.

Who's living in fear here? Who is exagerating the effect of the law here? Why are you so afraid of people having the ability to defend themselves? The entire opposition to firearms and this law is based on fear. What makes your fears any more real thean anyone elses?

Quote:

If we can live decent lives in the liberal hotbed of Massachusetts where criminals are coddled and crime flourishes without killing anyone.... Why do the conservatives in Florida need this.

You already have the options provided for in this law (whether you choose to excerise that option is a choice for you to make). Why shouldn't they???

0 Replies

Quote:

However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

Am I the only person who thinks that's odd? At the very least, it appears to differ from the MA law.

0 Replies

What do you see as odd about it Freeduck???

0 Replies

Florida Castle Doctrine Bill

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know