If you want to be added, please FReepMail me.
Posted on 01/20/2005 2:20:03 PM PST by ExSoldier
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.
And while you're at it, SAVE TERRI SCHIAVO!
Thanks...I will....
Got ping?
BANG!
Any time a firearms-related thread is created on FreeRepublic, please be sure to add the "banglist" keyword to it so that interested FReepers don't miss it.
Let Freedom Ring,
Bump!
Which court case are you thinking about that impinges on this right? My quick Google search only shows for recent relevant cases Weiand v. State of Florida (1999) which as far as I can tell re-affirmed the Castle Doctrine and in fact strengthened it a bit since it now applies also to "co-occupants" of a home (which it did not before in Florida.)
It looks great. It's better than just an affirmation of Florida's current Castle Doctrine, and it looks like it has a good section on defense of property also.
Mrs. Hammer is to be commended for some solid work here. If we can push similiar legislation in all states by pointing to Florida and Texas as leading the way, just as Florida was a leader in CCW (also Mrs. Hammer's handiwork), then this could be another in the waves of good gun legislation that we can create.
Section 3.
Section 776.031, Florida Statutes, is amended to read:
776.031 Use of force in defense of others.--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 prevent or terminate the such other's trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that the such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.
Section 4.
Section 776.032, Florida Statutes, is created to read:
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.--
- A person who uses force as described in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force.
- A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of the force, but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that probable cause exists showing that the force that was used was unlawful.
- (a) The court shall award attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of the criminal prosecution if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1). (b) As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes wrongfully arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant. The law enforcement agency or state attorney that brought the criminal prosecution is liable to the defendant for the payment of fees and costs.
"§21-1289.25. Physical Or Deadly Force Against Intruder
A. The Legislature hereby recognizes that the citizens of the State of Oklahoma have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.
B. Any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including but not limited to deadly force, against another person who has made an unlawful entry into that dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant of the dwelling.
C. Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including but not limited to deadly force, pursuant to the provisions of subsection B of this section, shall have an affirmative defense in any criminal prosecution for an offense arising from the reasonable use of such force and shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the reasonable use of such force."
It's worked quite well here over the years--hope the folks in Florida get something similar to protect their rights to self-preservation/defense without having to worry about some fanatic lib prosecutor going after them in such a situation.
ping
BTTT
the Florida A.G. is so damm corrupt as evidenced on how they went fishing so as to try and nail Rush Limbaugh on trumped up charges - howbeit the housekeeper is the reall drugpusher and criminal in the case.
"While this certainly has a laudable goal -- I am wholly in favor of the Castle Doctrine -- are you sure that Florida doesn't already recognize this?"
Yes, I thought so, too. But I will certainly check and follow up and even if the doctrine is favored under common and case law, let's support those who would give it some statutory authority as well.
Here's Oklahoma's version of the "Castle Doctrine":
"§21-1289.25. Physical Or Deadly Force Against Intruder
A. The Legislature hereby recognizes that the citizens of the State of Oklahoma have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.
B. Any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including but not limited to deadly force, against another person who has made an unlawful entry into that dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant of the dwelling.
C. Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including but not limited to deadly force, pursuant to the provisions of subsection B of this section, shall have an affirmative defense in any criminal prosecution for an offense arising from the reasonable use of such force and shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the reasonable use of such force."
This was used acouple days ago up in Delaware County.
A guy woke up and found someone standing in his bedroom door,grabbed his gun and fired,hitting the perp, the perp ran for the door and the homeowner ran after him and shot him again.The perp ran to the yard, collapsed and died. The D.A. ruled it "Justifiable homicide".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.