• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Feeling threatened? Shoot them.

Bjorn said:
It makes one wonder why they have so many burglaries in Mississippi?

By the way, the definition of burglary in your source (FBI) is

It seems to me they are talking about breaking into houses? How could I know your definition of burglary only covered the cases when nobody was at home? :p

Look, does shanek have a reference to that definition of his, or is he pulling it out of his rectum as usual?

I sure hope this isn't yet another case of "What Shanek Decrees, So It Is".
 
Bjorn said:
It makes one wonder why they have so many burglaries in Mississippi?

As I said, the situation makes it so that the criminals are going to tend to switch to less risky crimes, such as breaking in when someone's not there.

It seems to me they are talking about breaking into houses?

It's not restricted to houses; it could be cars or whatever.

How could I know your definition of burglary only covered the cases when nobody was at home? :p

I didn't say it only covered cases when nobody was at home. But most burglaries (90%, if memory serves) in the US occur when there is nobody at home. Whereas the crimes I listed were specifically crimes against a person, someone capable of shooting back.
 
Darat said:
No it isn't, my Norwich Union policy doesn't even require a certain category of door locks.

Then I (or my original source) must be mistaken.
 
shanek said:
I didn't say it only covered cases when nobody was at home. But most burglaries (90%, if memory serves) in the US occur when there is nobody at home. Whereas the crimes I listed were specifically crimes against a person, someone capable of shooting back.
The fact is you didn't mention anything about being home or not at all.

Nor did you list crimes against a person. Have you forgot that your statement was about how only insane people would be breaking into houses in Mississippi?

However, it seems you're later stating that only insane people would commit robbery in Mississippi. Maybe that's what you ment to say all the time?
 
Bjorn said:
The fact is you didn't mention anything about being home or not at all.

Ridiculous. I specifically stated in my initial statement the ability of someone to shoot an attacker as a means of defending his life, home, or property. In the case of a burglary, that would necessitate them being home at the time.

I really don't see how anyone with a brain can dispute that.

Nor did you list crimes against a person.

That is blatantly false. I showed statistics for murder, robbery, aggravated assault, etc., which are all crimes against a person. I didn't show statistics for burglary, arson, etc. because those are not crimes targeted at a person; I didn't make any claims about those kinds of crimes one way or the other.
 
The Fool said:
I am parent myself....there is a difference between "tend to feel a bit threatened" and "kill them on the spot" If you think that "tend to feel a bit threatened" should be an acceptable reason for "kill them on the spot" then you are not doing anything that even remotely resembles increasing you childrens safety. You are simply increasing the likelyhood that they will, one day, be killed by someone who tended to "feel a bit threatened".

Maybe if Luke spent some time with people who deal with homeless alcoholics on a daily basis he would get a better perspective and drop the chest thumping.


We're not talking about a man pan-handling for quarters.

We're talking about a man who demanded money and then struck a child.

What's his next move going to be?.......

I'd be concerned about my familys well-being and I think there's something seriously wrong with your thought processes if you're more worried about the drunk than your own family.

The "poor homeless alcoholic" lost any concern I might have for him when he struck my child.
 
Senate Bill sb0436e1
CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.




CS for CS for SB 436 First Engrossed (ntc)



1 A bill to be entitled

2 An act relating to the protection of persons

3 and property; creating s. 776.013, F.S.;

4 authorizing a person to use force, including

5 deadly force, against an intruder or attacker

6 in a dwelling, residence, or vehicle under

7 specified circumstances; creating a presumption

8 that a reasonable fear of death or great bodily

9 harm exists under certain circumstances;

10 creating a presumption that a person acts with

11 the intent to use force or violence under

12 specified circumstances; providing definitions;

13 amending ss. 776.012 and 776.031, F.S.;

14 providing that a person is justified in using

15 deadly force under certain circumstances;

16 declaring that a person has no duty to retreat

17 and has the right to stand his or her ground

18 and meet force with force if the person is in a

19 place where he or she has a right to be and the

20 force is necessary to prevent death, great

21 bodily harm, or the commission of a forcible

22 felony; creating s. 776.032, F.S.; providing

23 immunity from criminal prosecution or civil

24 action for using deadly force; defining the

25 term "criminal prosecution"; authorizing a law

26 enforcement agency to investigate the use of

27 deadly force but prohibiting the agency from

28 arresting the person unless the agency

29 determines that there is probable cause that

30 the force the person used was unlawful;

31 providing for the award of attorney's fees,


1

CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.






CS for CS for SB 436 First Engrossed (ntc)



1 court costs, compensation for loss of income,

2 and other expenses to a defendant in a civil

3 suit who was immune from prosecution under this

4 section; providing an effective date.

5

6 WHEREAS, the Legislature finds that it is proper for

7 law-abiding people to protect themselves, their families, and

8 others from intruders and attackers without fear of

9 prosecution or civil action for acting in defense of

10 themselves and others, and

11 WHEREAS, the castle doctrine is a common-law doctrine

12 of ancient origins which declares that a person's home is his

13 or her castle, and

14 WHEREAS, Section 8 of Article I of the State

15 Constitution guarantees the right of the people to bear arms

16 in defense of themselves, and

17 WHEREAS, the persons residing in or visiting this state

18 have a right to expect to remain unmolested within their homes

19 or vehicles, and

20 WHEREAS, no person or victim of crime should be

21 required to surrender his or her personal safety to a

22 criminal, nor should a person or victim be required to

23 needlessly retreat in the face of intrusion or attack, NOW,

24 THEREFORE,

25

26 Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:

27

28 Section 1. Section 776.013, Florida Statutes, is

29 created to read:

30 776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force;

31 presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.--


2

CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.






CS for CS for SB 436 First Engrossed (ntc)



1 (1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable

2 fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to

3 himself or herself or another when using defensive force that

4 is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to

5 another if:

6 (a) The person against whom the defensive force was

7 used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering,

8 or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence,

9 or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was

10 attempting to remove another against that person's will from

11 the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

12 (b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had

13 reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or

14 unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

15 (2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does

16 not apply if:

17 (a) The person against whom the defensive force is

18 used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the

19 dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or

20 titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection

21 from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order

22 of no contact against that person; or

23 (b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a

24 child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or

25 under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the

26 defensive force is used; or

27 (c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in

28 an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or

29 occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

30 (d) The person against whom the defensive force is

31 used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s.


3

CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.






CS for CS for SB 436 First Engrossed (ntc)



1 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling,

2 residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her

3 official duties and the officer identified himself or herself

4 in accordance with any applicable law or the person using

5 force knew or reasonably should have known that the person

6 entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

7 (3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful

8 activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or

9 she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right

10 to stand his or her ground and meet force with force,

11 including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is

12 necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to

13 himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of

14 a forcible felony.

15 (4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or

16 attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied

17 vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit

18 an unlawful act involving force or violence.

19 (5) As used in this section, the term:

20 (a) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any

21 kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or

22 conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile,

23 which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to

24 be occupied by people lodging therein at night.

25 (b) "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person

26 resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an

27 invited guest.

28 (c) "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether

29 or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or

30 property.

31


4

CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.






CS for CS for SB 436 First Engrossed (ntc)



1 Section 2. Section 776.012, Florida Statutes, is

2 amended to read:

3 776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person

4 is justified in using the use of force, except deadly force,

5 against another when and to the extent that the person

6 reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend

7 himself or herself or another against the such other's

8 imminent use of unlawful force. However, a the person is

9 justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty

10 to retreat only if:

11 (a) He or she reasonably believes that such force is

12 necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to

13 himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent

14 commission of a forcible felony; or.

15 (b) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s.

16 776.013.

17 Section 3. Section 776.031, Florida Statutes, is

18 amended to read:

19 776.031 Use of force in defense of others.--A person

20 is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against

21 another when and to the extent that the person reasonably

22 believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or

23 terminate the such other's trespass on, or other tortious or

24 criminal interference with, either real property other than a

25 dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her

26 possession or in the possession of another who is a member of

27 his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose

28 property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the

29 person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or

30 she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to

31 prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person


5

CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.






CS for CS for SB 436 First Engrossed (ntc)



1 does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place

2 where he or she has a right to be.

3 Section 4. Section 776.032, Florida Statutes, is

4 created to read:

5 776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil

6 action for justifiable use of force.--

7 (1) A person who uses force as permitted in s.

8 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such

9 force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action

10 for the use of such force, unless the person against whom

11 force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s.

12 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her

13 official duties and the officer identified himself or herself

14 in accordance with any applicable law or the person using

15 force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was

16 a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the

17 term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in

18 custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

19 (2) A law enforcement agency may use standard

20 procedures for investigating the use of force as described in

21 subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for

22 using force unless it determines that there is probable cause

23 that the force that was used was unlawful.

24 (3) The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees,

25 court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses

26 incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action

27 brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant

28 is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

29 Section 5. This act shall take effect October 1, 2005.

30

31


6

CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.
 
As a Floridian I think it is about time people are not punished for pprotecting themselves. From a local newspaper:


By Beth Kassab and Sherri M. Owens | Orlando Sentinel Staff Writers
Posted April 6, 2005


TALLAHASSEE -- Floridians could "meet force with force" on the street, in a bar or just about anywhere else without fear of prosecution, under a bill that cleared the state Legislature on Tuesday.

Gov. Jeb Bush said he plans to sign the measure into law, even though opponents contend it amounts to legalized dueling that could lead to simple arguments escalating into fatal fights.

The bill (SB 436), a top priority of the National Rifle Association in Tallahassee this year, won final approval in the House on Tuesday by a 94-20 vote. Two weeks ago, it passed the Senate 39-0.

It would erase what is commonly known as a person's "duty to retreat" from an attack and instead allow that person to "stand his ground" without fear of criminal prosecution or a civil lawsuit, a staff analysis of the bill said. It would take effect Oct. 1.

Current law allows Floridians to defend themselves with force inside their homes or vehicles but typically not in public places without first attempting to back away.

Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala, the bill's House sponsor, said it allows a person to punch someone if he or she is being punched or to shoot at someone if he or she is being shot at.

"You can only do what somebody does to you," Baxley said.

But one Central Florida prosecutor criticized the measure as unnecessary.

"It's a little dismaying that any responsible legislator would consider this," said Assistant State Attorney Bill Gross, who prosecutes homicides in Lake County. "This is going to make us less safe because it's going to discourage all restraint by citizens."

Gross said the law, as it existed before the change, was sufficient because it allowed people to use force to protect themselves when no other options were available.

"As it is right now, we see tragedies in our court system every day involving citizens who don't exercise restraint," he said. "Now they are under less legal requirement to use restraint before resorting to violence. I believe this is a step backward."

But Tom Lambert, 57, owner of Central Florida Firearms in Orlando, supports the change, saying he thinks it will encourage more people to arm themselves for protection.

"It's going to make the boogeyman think twice," he said.

Barbara Olsen, 54, a retiree from Tavares, agreed.

"I think it's time for people to take their rights back and protect themselves," she said. "It seems the criminals get all the rights."

In Tallahassee, Bush also said he sees the law as another deterrent against crime.

"Our crime rate's dropping, and it's because of measures that allow people to protect themselves and their properties, as well as putting habitual violent offenders away for longer periods of time," he said.

Baxley said the law would grant the same protections to Floridians that other states such as California, Georgia and Tennessee have in place. He also said it would make criminals pause before attacking someone.

"You are empowering our citizens of Florida to have a safer society," said Baxley, an NRA member, during House debate. "Some violent rape will not occur because somebody felt empowered by this bill."

But there was concern from some Democrats that the law goes too far.

"It legalizes dueling," said Rep. Dan Gelber, D-Miami Beach. "It legalizes fighting to the point of death without anybody having a duty to retreat."

NRA lobbyist Marion Hammer said the bill does not condone dueling.

"The comments made on the floor were downright silly," she said. "The bill says that when you are attacked you may meet force with force to defend yourself. It does not condone fighting."

Rep. Joyce Cusack, D-DeLand, said she feared that one person's interpretation of a threat might not be the same as another's -- meaning innocent people could be killed because they look or act differently than the person who feels threatened.

"This is a bad precedent," she said.

Sean Mussenden of the Tallahassee bureau contributed to this report. Beth Kassab, who reported from Tallahassee, can be reached at bkassab@orlandosentinel.com or 850-222-5564. Sherri M. Owens, who reported from Tavares, can be reached at sowens@orlandosentinel.com or 352-742-5915.
 
Kerberos said:
And do you think it should have been legal for you to kill him? For the record I'd probably have paid him and then reported the incident to the police.

So it would be perfectly OK for a woman to become a unwilling sperm recipient and then just report it to police. She should have ran faster?
 
Bjorn said:
Yes, I will.

You conveniently forgot burglary, which was the crime in question:

Per 100,000 in Mississippi - 1035.6
Per 100,000 nationwide - 740.5

Both numbers from 2003. How come you forgot?

I can only conclude they have a lot of crazy people there? :p

Does that include a buglary while the homeowner was home or away from home?
 
Bjorn said:
Both, as far as I could see.

The how would we if guns helped or not? The number could be burglaries 99% when no one was home.

I just see a lot of people who don't understand the law. I would invite any of the people who don't understand to come to a CCW class.

They explain a lot of what reasonable force means. Very few seem to have a clue. More so, it probably highlights the culture difference.
 
merphie said:
Does that include a buglary while the homeowner was home or away from home?

IIRC, 90% of burglaries in the US occur when people are away from home. I don't know what that statistic is for MI, but I don't imagine it being much different. Since most of them will occur when the person is away from home, then as I said if anything we should expect this number to be higher than the national rate—which it is.
 
shanek said:
IIRC, 90% of burglaries in the US occur when people are away from home. I don't know what that statistic is for MI, but I don't imagine it being much different. Since most of them will occur when the person is away from home, then as I said if anything we should expect this number to be higher than the national rate—which it is.
So when you said:

no criminal in his right mind would break into a home in Mississippi, because no jury there would ever convict a homeowner of shooting them
- you really ment there would be less robberies, not less burglaries?
 
shanek said:
IIRC, 90% of burglaries in the US occur when people are away from home. I don't know what that statistic is for MI, but I don't imagine it being much different. Since most of them will occur when the person is away from home, then as I said if anything we should expect this number to be higher than the national rate—which it is.

I know that. I was looking to see if he accounted for it in his numbers.
 
Kerberos said:
And do you think it should have been legal for you to kill him? For the record I'd probably have paid him and then reported the incident to the police.
I think the point you are missing is that Luke T. was prepared to kill the assailant if he'd continued as a threat to his family, regardless of the current laws. The law wasn't the decideing factor here. The law would only help in that he would not be required by law to attempt to gather up his family and hopefully out-run the attacker. He is allowed to defend himself and his family. I have little doubt that Luke T. would have taken the necessary action. The difference is, now the victim will not be persecuted for doing what is right.
 
merphie said:
So it would be perfectly OK for a woman to become a unwilling sperm recipient and then just report it to police. She should have ran faster?
Yep, that's what I said, Retard! :rolleyes:
 
Nicodemus2004 said:
I think the point you are missing is that Luke T. was prepared to kill the assailant if he'd continued as a threat to his family, regardless of the current laws. The law wasn't the decideing factor here. The law would only help in that he would not be required by law to attempt to gather up his family and hopefully out-run the attacker. He is allowed to defend himself and his family. I have little doubt that Luke T. would have taken the necessary action. The difference is, now the victim will not be persecuted for doing what is right.
yes, he is allowed to defend his family...He is not allowed to "kill him on the spot" If the person had "twitched". Lukes post was simply chest beating.

Alcoholics who live on the street are often verbally abusive and sometimes assault people. Saying you would kill one because he hit your son is a good brag but hardly a rational position.

I am sure that luke would probably have done something similar to what I would have done....whatever was required to stop the vagrant from assaulting a member of my family...striking somebody a mild blow to the chest and telling them to "get a job" is not an offence that should attract a summary death sentence.
 
Nicodemus2004 said:
I think the point you are missing is that Luke T. was prepared to kill the assailant if he'd continued as a threat to his family, regardless of the current laws. The law wasn't the decideing factor here. The law would only help in that he would not be required by law to attempt to gather up his family and hopefully out-run the attacker. He is allowed to defend himself and his family. I have little doubt that Luke T. would have taken the necessary action. The difference is, now the victim will not be persecuted for doing what is right.
I don't think that you should have an uatomatic right to kill people in any case of selfdefense. As I said I can't know exactly what happened since I wasn't there, but the situation as Luke descriped it doesn't strike as serious enough to justify killing the guy. Also as Fool said Luke's post had a distinct air of macho chest beating. That's not saying of course that I wouldn't be OK with Luke beating the guy if it had come to that.
 

Back
Top Bottom