FLORIDA CASTLE DOCTRINE BILL

[rushmc 23]

We are going the right direction!

------------------------------------------------------------


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.



For those who want detailed information on why this bill is important, the following information is provided.



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.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

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.

This bit is correct IMO. If it's not your fault that someone else breaks in, you should be able to take the most cautious view in protecting your family. And that means you assume a criminal has the worst intentions for you and yours.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[markd_nscr986 0]

Good for Fla.!
We have had the "Make My Day" law out here for years.......a few isolated instances of misuse but overall it has done what it was intended to do,to protect law abiding homeowners from prosecution when using lethal force to protect themselves from home invasions

Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004

[mr2mk1g 10]

Note that this phrase:

Quote

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

Will mean that anyone prosecuted and found not guilty of exceeding their self defence rights will have an almost automatic cause of action against the police. I wonder how this will affect police willingness to prosecute things like affrays, assaults and small time crimes like that. Simply claim self defence and sue the police in an open and shut case. Loadsa money.

No duty to retreat clause is a great idea though. I wonder who came up with the idea of the duty in the first place.

I note that the fact that the person in your home being there to cause death or bodily harm a presumption – is there any word on how/if that will be rebuttable?

[Kennedy 0]

Am I the only one who thinks there should be a law that says you can't sue for injuries incurred while committing a felony?

e.g.
-You break in and fall down the stairs, you don't get to sue the homeowner for faulty steps.

-You try breaking in through a skylight and fall onto th kitchen knives, you don't get to sue.

-You attack someone with a club and they shoot your ass, you don't get to sue.

(all this assumes the homeowner did not use excessive force or break any other criminal laws)

Who wouldn't back that kind of law?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[rushmc 23]

I'm with you!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Who wouldn't back that kind of law?

I think it's a great idea. But I bet there are some here that wouldn't and feel passionate about it.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Quote

Who wouldn't back that kind of law?

I think it's a great idea. But I bet there are some here that wouldn't and feel passionate about it.

Agreed. There would always be the people against it whining - "But what if they were little felonies"?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I wonder how this will affect police willingness to prosecute things like affrays, assaults and small time crimes like that.

Affrays and assaults would probably not be covered under this. It looks like the law mentions "occupied," which means it probably will not affect the usual common law preclusions of deadly force to protect property.

Quote

I note that the fact that the person in your home being there to cause death or bodily harm a presumption – is there any word on how/if that will be rebuttable?

Simple. The intruder need only show that he/she was a licensee/invitee.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

But what if they were little felonies"?

or the typical bs, they had a bad childhood and were just victims

[sinker 0]

"But what if they were little felonies"?***

LOL! That cracks me up! And I'm w/ you... a felony is a felony.

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

Affrays and assaults would probably not be covered under this.

I guess that depends on to what the finished law applies or whether "such force" refers to the defence of the home bit or the no duty to retreat bit.

Quote

Simple. The intruder need only show that he/she was a licensee/invitee.

eh? The presumption is that the intruder is there to commit violence not that they're there illegally.

The wording above (assuming that accurately reflects the law... which would in its self be surprising) says: "a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home..." [so that is who it apply to – people who trespass (ish)] "...is there to cause death or great bodily harm" [this bit is the presumption – that they are there to cause death or great bodily harm].

Showing that they were a licensee/invitee would simply mean they are not the subject of the clause and that it therefore does not apply to them – an equally good way to get out of it but not really rebutting the presumption.

What I'm wondering about is how the presumption in the clause may be rebutted (if at all... though one would assume a presumption can be rebutted or it wouldn't be worded so). So say you came downstairs and found someone who fell within the meaning of a "criminal who had forcibly intruded into your home" but they were simply a little old lady who had a been attacked and was seeking shelter from a maniac outside... would that (or some other odd circumstances) rebut the presumption that they were there to cause death or great bodily harm and thus cause the person who shoots them to be guilty of a crime?

That's why I'm interested in what would rebut the presumption. Is it the objective facts of the situation, subjective facts, reasonable facts known to the home owner, reasonable facts to an officious bystander, facts which ought to have been known under the circumstances?? That's where the battle ground of this law is going to be if the legislature don't sort things out before the bill is enacted.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Am I the only one who thinks there should be a law that says you can't sue for injuries incurred while committing a felony?

e.g.
-You break in and fall down the stairs, you don't get to sue the homeowner for faulty steps.

-You try breaking in through a skylight and fall onto th kitchen knives, you don't get to sue.

-You attack someone with a club and they shoot your ass, you don't get to sue.

(all this assumes the homeowner did not use excessive force or break any other criminal laws)

Who wouldn't back that kind of law?

According to my justice teachers, the term, "outlaw" meant that a person is outside the protection of the law, hence the, "wanted dead or alive" posters. This antiquated concept has long ben abolished - leave it to the Bush's to revitalize it. These new laws will be pushed and tested and promote an attitude of standing your ground in arguments and people will feel more justified to resort to violoence and cry self-defense at the drop of a hat. SO this will create criminality.

This law is too broad and subjective and even if used in good faith it requires split-second decision making by lay people.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Who wouldn't back that kind of law?

I think it's a great idea. But I bet there are some here that wouldn't and feel passionate about it.

Agreed. There would always be the people against it whining - "But what if they were little felonies"?

It sounds as if misdemeanor assault could be defended against, so I don't see the need for a felony to be committed. But by calling people that might be against this law we really know very little about and that hasn't been tested, I think calling opponents to your opinion, "whiners" is a good idea.

I see a positive aspect to it, but it will be abused and create a vigilante constituency.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

Affrays and assaults would probably not be covered under this.

I guess that depends on to what the finished law applies or whether "such force" refers to the defence of the home bit or the no duty to retreat bit.

Quote

Simple. The intruder need only show that he/she was a licensee/invitee.

eh? The presumption is that the intruder is there to commit violence not that they're there illegally.

The wording above (assuming that accurately reflects the law... which would in its self be surprising) says: "a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home..." [so that is who it apply to – people who trespass (ish)] "...is there to cause death or great bodily harm" [this bit is the presumption – that they are there to cause death or great bodily harm].

Showing that they were a licensee/invitee would simply mean they are not the subject of the clause and that it therefore does not apply to them – an equally good way to get out of it but not really rebutting the presumption.

What I'm wondering about is how the presumption in the clause may be rebutted (if at all... though one would assume a presumption can be rebutted or it wouldn't be worded so). So say you came downstairs and found someone who fell within the meaning of a "criminal who had forcibly intruded into your home" but they were simply a little old lady who had a been attacked and was seeking shelter from a maniac outside... would that (or some other odd circumstances) rebut the presumption that they were there to cause death or great bodily harm and thus cause the person who shoots them to be guilty of a crime?

That's why I'm interested in what would rebut the presumption. Is it the objective facts of the situation, subjective facts, reasonable facts known to the home owner, reasonable facts to an officious bystander, facts which ought to have been known under the circumstances?? That's where the battle ground of this law is going to be if the legislature don't sort things out before the bill is enacted.

Right, it requires the assessment of a hairy situation in milliseconds - people wil die because of this that shouldn't otherwise.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

"But what if they were little felonies"?***

LOL! That cracks me up! And I'm w/ you... a felony is a felony.

So murder 1 is the same as possession of marijuana...... wow

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

Right, it requires the assessment of a hairy situation in milliseconds

Most self defence laws do. The important thing is to make sure the balance is right between protecting the innocent would be victim and not encouraging slap dash assessments. What the "right" balance is will be determined by the society to which the law applies.

My point is I don't know how far the balance is swung as I have no idea how or how easy it is to rebut that presumption... I can only presume that the legislature will further define things before the law hits the books. The fact that it is a presumption though is nice as it starts things off couched in the correct terms – the home owner has the legal upper hand unless... [blank].

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

According to my justice teachers, the term, "outlaw" meant that a person is outside the protection of the law, hence the, "wanted dead or alive" posters. This antiquated concept has long ben abolished - leave it to the Bush's to revitalize it. These new laws will be pushed and tested and promote an attitude of standing your ground in arguments and people will feel more justified to resort to violoence and cry self-defense at the drop of a hat. SO this will create criminality.

"blood running in the streets," "return to the wild west," blah blah blah

Any more predictions that we've all heard and all seen disproven over and over again? Maybe next you'll tell us it's for the children?

Quote

This law is too broad and subjective and even if used in good faith it requires split-second decision making by lay people.

Well, I guess the difference is that the legislature has faith in people and you don't. Personally, I prefer a government that trusts me.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

According to my justice teachers, the term, "outlaw" meant that a person is outside the protection of the law, hence the, "wanted dead or alive" posters. This antiquated concept has long ben abolished - leave it to the Bush's to revitalize it. These new laws will be pushed and tested and promote an attitude of standing your ground in arguments and people will feel more justified to resort to violoence and cry self-defense at the drop of a hat. SO this will create criminality.

"blood running in the streets," "return to the wild west," blah blah blah

Any more predictions that we've all heard and all seen disproven over and over again? Maybe next you'll tell us it's for the children?

Quote

This law is too broad and subjective and even if used in good faith it requires split-second decision making by lay people.

Well, I guess the difference is that the legislature has faith in people and you don't. Personally, I prefer a government that trusts me.

Hey, Kennedy's back! Thankfully double-standards allow you to hang around with all of your personal attacks and gross sarcasm.

"blood running in the streets," "return to the wild west," blah blah blah

No where in here did I become as lay as to write anything about the afformentioned statements you posted.

Well, I guess the difference is that the legislature has faith in people and you don't. Personally, I prefer a government that trusts me.

I don't see where trust has any place in this argument or even in the legislative intent. You make broad sweeping assumptions about what the Florida legislature was thinking when they wrote this.... any backing to that?

As for govs trusting, I don't think they trust or distrust, just react like machines. And they have decided to react with this premediation per this legislation.