Florida SB-436 Use of Force/Castle Doctrine Hearing Scheduled for Wednesday, Jan 26

email ^ | January 20, 2004 | Marion Hammer via email

[Mulder]

DATE: January 20, 2005 TO: USF & NRA Members and Friends FROM: Marion P. Hammer NRA Past President Executive Director Unified Sportsmen of Florida

SUBJECT: SB-436 Use of Force/Castle Doctrine Hearing Scheduled

The Senate Criminal Justice Committee will hold a hearing on SB-436 by Senator Peaden and others on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 from 2:00PM - 4:00PM.

Please immediately send email to members of the Senate Criminal Justice Committee and URGE THEM TO SUPPORT SB-436 by Sen. Peaden.

IN THE SUBJECT LINE OF YOUR EMAIL PUT:

SUPPORT SB-436 - Use of Force/Restoring the Castle Doctrine

(Below is a list of the email addresses)

SENATE CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMITTEE

Stephen Wise (R), Chairman stephen.web@flsenate.gov

Rod Smith (D), Vice Chair smith.rod.web@flsenate.gov

Victor Crist (R) crist.victor.web@flsenate.gov

Mike Haridopolos (R) haridopolos.mike.web@flsenate.gov

Jim King (R) king.james.web@flsenate.gov

Ron Klein (D) klein.ron.web@flsenate.gov

Evelyn Lynn (R) lynn.evelyn.web@flsenate.gov

Frederica Wilson (D) wilson.frederica.web@flsenate.gov

BACKGROUND:

SB-436 corrects a serious problem for citizens who chose to protect themselves in the face of attack by violent criminals.

This bill REMOVES the "duty to retreat" in the face of attack; it creates the presumption that an attacker or intruder intends to do great bodily harm and therefore force, including deadly force, may be used to protect yourself, your family and others in the face of attack; it prohibits prosecution for defending that which you have a right to defend and prohibits civil lawsuits by criminals or relatives of criminals when criminals are injured or killed while attacking law-abiding people.

The Courts in Florida have clearly eroded the rights of law-abiding citizens by imposing a "duty to retreat" (leave your property and RUN) when attacked.

Law-abiding citizens should not be victimized by the state/courts for failing to retreat (RUN) from their own property or any place they have a right to be in the face of attack by an unlawful intruder. Nor should they be victimized for using deadly force against a perpetrator who unlawfully intrudes -- regardless of whether the victim knows what kind of force the perpetrator intends to use.

Any victim should be able to presume that an unlawful intruder is there for the purpose of doing great bodily, and subsequently places the victim and the victim's family in great imminent peril.

The Castle Doctrine is an ancient common law doctrine with origins going back at least to Roman law that provides that a man's home is his castle and, hence he may use all manner of force including deadly force to protect it and its inhabitants from attack.

The Florida Constitution Article I, Section 2 guarantees basic rights to all natural persons including the right to defend life and protect property.

The citizens of Florida have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes or vehicles and to be able to use all manner of force against and unlawful intruder/attacker.

PLEASE EMAIL THESE SENATORS AND URGE THEM TO SUPPORT SB-436 BY SENATOR DURELL PEADEN.

[davidosborne]

OTOH, if the bad guy knows you can legally double tap, that my FRiend is a detterant.

[M Kehoe]

If the "bad guy" thinks you will NOT shoot, or KNOWS that you can't legally shoot he will NOT comply with anything you say, but will most likely walk away or laugh at you.

If the bad guys don't comply by walking away, I will let them walk away, but I will try and tail. If the bad guy thinks I won't shoot, or can't legally shoot, he will be very surprised. I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

I appreciate your feed back (in the fwiw dept., my secondary MOS was 95C).

5.56mm

[Maxwell_2643]

This bill is very important because family members of the criminals have sued the homeowner in the past. For example the Bernie Getz case, where there were 3 criminals held him up on the train in New York City. While being held up Mr. Getz pulled a gun and killed 1 and wounded 2 others. The criminals sued Mr. Getz and won a large settlement. He didn't have anything of worth and never will because of those lawsuits.
With SB 436 that can never happen In the state of Florida!

[stainlessbanner]

>>BANG TO THE TOP<<

On Thursday, March 31, HB-249 was on the House floor. SB-436/Castle Doctrine which has already passed the Senate was substituted and debated and will now be on the House Floor Tuesday, April 5, for final debate and a final vote on passage. If the bill passes here, it will go to Governor Jeb Bush for his signature.

[stainlessbanner]

bttt

[stainlessbanner]

bttt

[stainlessbanner]

bttt

[stainlessbanner]

bttt

[stainlessbanner]

Yes, it's important

[OXENinFLA]

Sweet!

[HostileTerritory]

Any victim should be able to presume that an unlawful intruder is there for the purpose of doing great bodily, and subsequently places the victim and the victim's family in great imminent peril.

My brother lives in a small, densely-settled town in coastal New Jersey. The first time I tried to visit him, it was late at night and I tried the wrong house. The number was off by 100. The door was unlocked and I stepped inside. A dog started to bark. I knew my brother didn't have a dog, so I left, and eventually found my mistake. I was perfectly sober, but it was very late at night, perhaps 1 am. The door was unlocked.

I consider myself very lucky that I wasn't met by someone who presumed I was there for the purpose of "doing great bodily harm" and felt he had the right to shoot first and ask questions later. Mistakes do happen.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!

[RedBloodedAmerican]

I think I will post a copy of this Bill on my front and back doors.

[Mulder]

I consider myself very lucky that I wasn't met by someone who presumed I was there for the purpose of "doing great bodily harm" and felt he had the right to shoot first and ask questions later. Mistakes do happen.

Yes, you should consider yourself very lucky. You were really stupid to walk into a house that you weren't 100% sure belonged to your brother.

You were also lucky the dog didn't tear you to shreds.

Entering in ANY house without express verbal permission, only after being met first at the door by the resident, isn't something I would even consider doing. Especially at night.

If someone trespassed in my house, they'd have found themselves lying spread eagle on the ground with a rifle aimed at them, waiting for the cops to arrive. *If* their story checked out, and *if* they seemed like a decent person, and *if* I wasn't in a bad mood, I'd consider not filing trespass charges.

And that's only because I don't have kids. Folks with children to protect would likely handle the situation more aggressively, as they should.

[Mulder]

That is good news.

This significantly improves Florida's use of deadly force laws.

Next, I'd like to see the laws changed to allow deadly force to prevent property crimes.

[HostileTerritory]

You were also lucky the dog didn't tear you to shreds.

Westies don't tend to do too much damage. Not everyone who buys a dog does so for self-defense.

I'm all for our legislators discussing people's preferences before passing laws. If a majority of them agree with your point of view on what people should expect, that's what the law will be.

In the meantime, I wouldn't say I was "very lucky"--the culture at the Jersey Shore being what it is, there really are very few people in my brother's town who would have been inclined to blow my brains out. It's noteworthy that the door was unlocked in the first place, it's that kind of community.

But crime rates in New Jersey and Massachusetts are extremely low by comparison to other states, so I don't begrudge other people their concerns. I fully support the RKBA, not that my opinion matters anyway when it's written in the Constitution, but I think that people of good sense can disagree as to what is the appropriate justification for blowing a stranger's brains out. Cheers.