My home is my castle – well at least in some states. More states have been passing legislation recently that allows the resident to assume that someone breaking in or trying to drag you out or is brandishing a deadly weapon means you enough harm that you are justified in using deadly force to protect yourself and your family. In Florida, which passed such legislation recently, the law gives you the benefit of the doubt as to whether you used force in self defense.
In this state, if some gun toting pirate boards my boat (this happens all the time in Florida waters, believe it or not) I don’t have to ask him his intentions or jump overboard and swim with the sharks – I can presume my life is in danger. If a gang of thugs kicks in a door I don’t have to either jump out the second story window or inspect his .357 to see that it’s really loaded
The obligation to flee has been part of many state laws and particularly when the space one is occupying is a car or boat or temporary refuge. If someone attempts to drag you out of your car and take off with your child in the back seat, are you permitted to shoot him? Would you flee or would you consult an attorney before taking action? I know what I would do and I imagine most of us would do whatever it takes to stop the hijacker, yet the proliferation of “castle doctrine” or “stand your ground” laws disturbs many people, some of whom insist it will lead to rampant violence and call it the “Shoot the Avon Lady” law even though the Avon Lady rarely breaks down your door at 3:00 AM, wearing a ski mask and the rampant violence has yet to materialize.
Law or no law, I would not consider going out the window, leaving my family alone and waiting half an hour for the sheriff – would you?
Home invasions and car hijackings are all too frequent and I read about such things regularly both locally and statewide. Take the story of Keil Jumper, a Hollywood Florida resident who this week shot a man who at three thirty in the morning began to break down his door. Keil, a teenager, took his father’s gun loaded it and when the intruder began to smash open a window using a bicycle, he shot the man and wounded him.
The reporter for the Miami Herald appeared surprised that Keil was unlikely to be charged with a crime. I’m surprised that anyone would question his right to shoot, to own a firearm or to stand his ground. Meanwhile he and his family are alive.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Talk about peddling fear. Do you even know someone who was ever in a situation that required deadly force? Yes it seems comforting that you might shoot an evildoer between the eyes when you need to but more likely you'll be walking to your car with arm full of grocery bags or walking arm in arm with your spouse to dinner somewhere and I doubt you'll be able, Rambo, to drop to a shooting position and get off two to the center mass and one to the head before they get you. And if you don't get him you might get me in the crossfire.
Have you ever been involved in a parking lot armed robbery? There have been several violent home invasions in the area in recent months and a couple of acts of piracy - one resulting in a murder. I'm talking about the Castle doctrine and the right to defend against home invasion as opposed to the duty to flee, not parking lot shootouts. You have the privelege of living in an affluent, well policed area - others do not have that advantage.
If someone approaches you in a parking lot and asks for your money you have no automatic right to shoot him or even show him any weapon you might have. You can't use deadly force to protect property alone. You're offering me a fantasy scenario which isn't fair since one can tailor a fantasy to any occasion without need to reference reality.
In reality there have been no incidents locally of parking lot shootouts or Rambo's blazing away at innocents while there have been quite a number of foiled murders. The adoption of concealed carry laws and "stand your ground" policies has not resulted in any of the fantasy scenarios that have been offered, nor do states with highly restrictive gun laws have a lower gun violence rate. In fact Florida's violent crime rate has declined steadily since the gun laws were liberalized in 1989.
So what would you have said to the kid who saved 8 family members? Shoulda called the cops and hid under the bed?
Sounds like accelerated wealth inequality is really setting things on edge over there, as indicated by the fact that this has become a serious topic of conversation and law.
In Florida, you find immense wealth right next to stark poverty, it's true, but it's isn't the rich that are the most frequent target of gangs and other criminals -- it's the less affluent.
Facinating topic.
I think I've got to agree with Fogg here - you can't legislate a 'proper' procedure to a situation that is by its nature unscheduled, unexpected, unpredictible and unwarrented. The man on the spot (or woman or teen) must be able to evaluate the situation and given some measure of leeway to make decisions and react accordingly.
Fogg,
If someone approaches you in a parking lot and asks for your money you have no automatic right to shoot him or even show him any weapon you might have. You can't use deadly force to protect property alone.
Florida passed a law a while back regarding self-defense in public settings so long as you reasonably believe you are in danger.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/06/1421202
So you probably can shoot the guy in the parking lot.
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in using 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 the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) 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; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
======================================
In other words you're going to have a lot of 'splainin to do if the guy doesn't have a weapon, or if he was retreating.
Most states now have concealed carry licenses - there has been no bloodbath resulting from improper use by those legally carrying. The figures imply that the reverse is true.
The level of splainin' someone will have to do will depend largely on the identity (read race) of the shooter and shootee.
That's very true, but the Florida law states that a permit must be issued regardless of race, creed or national origin - something the Brady Bunch is irate about for some reason, as though a black man can't be trusted with a gun.
One must submit fingerprints and undergo a background check, yet the Brady folks insist, despite 20 years of statistics to the contrary, that this is insufficient - that we should not trust "state officials" to tell us who might become a criminal when the moon is full. . .
That somehow I might go nuts in the Winn-Dixie parking lot is more real to them than that I might need a firearm to protect my diminutive wife against a half dozen 18 year olds set on assaulting her - that I should stand my ground rather than flee into the swamps and hide (at my age)seems unreasonable only to people from planet Brady.
I resent being told by hysterical paranoid crusaders for a police state that I'm expendable and don't have the right to fight back because facts and figures notwithstanding, citizens can't be trusted - but hey, that's just me.
Interesting debate. One I truly have trouble with.
On the one had, people are essentially emotional creatures: given the right circumstances they are capable of truly horrendous things. The right to defend ones-self has to be acknowledged.
But alternatively, the statistical chance of "you" having to actually use a weapon to defend yourself is exceedingly small. In fact, you are far far more likely to shoot someone you know (again, likely accidentally) than to stop a criminal attack.
What's the answer? Not sure: but I do believe concealed carry laws are "ok" -- it's just sad that so many people actually believe they are necessary.
Post a Comment