Floriduh.....Castle law gone bad......

[Chris]

All castle doctrine type laws have the same language in them- and a key word. Reasonable. Paranoia is not a trait associated with reasonable thought.

These laws don't relieve you from the burden of reasonable action. If you shoot a couple of Jehova's Witnesses through your door, you've got yourself a major problem.

[catastrophe]

The Violence Policy Center claims that over 2.6 years, from May 2007 through the end of 2009, concealed carry permit holders in the US have killed 117 individuals, including 9 law enforcement officers. [71] Though in 2007, in the entire United States, there were 16,929 murders and 254 legally justified/self defense killings;[72] in 2008, there were 16,272 murders and 245 legally justified/self defense killings in the United States.[73] The FBI report for Jan.-June 2009 is still in its preliminary stages.[74

[Birdog]

All castle doctrine type laws have the same language in them- and a key word. Reasonable. Paranoia is not a trait associated with reasonable thought.

These laws don't relieve you from the burden of reasonable action. If you shoot a couple of Jehova's Witnesses through your door, you've got yourself a major problem.

We no longer have to retreat. or wait until they are in my house.If the Jehovys are kicking in my door at 4 AM they will get a load of 12 guage 00 buck

[cuda]

Castle doctrines only protect you if your use of force is lawful. .

Under Florida law, the Castle Doctrine protects you under all circumstances. I had a sheriff beating on my door one day. I caught a glimpse of someone going to my back yard, so I went back to my office, stuck an eight inch 44 magnum in my waist, put a jacket on over it, cussed at whoever was pounding on my door again, then answered the door. I told the sheriff he was lucky he wasn't someone else, I pulled back my jacket and showed him the 44. I told him within the past month I thought I was going to have to shoot three punks. The only thing he said was, "Why didn't you call us?". I told him I didn't have time. The gun in my waist didn't bother him at all. I got the feeling he wished there were more armed citizens. A study showed that criminals fear an armed citizen more than the police, prison, or the state attorney.

[cuda]

All castle doctrine type laws have the same language in them- and a key word. Reasonable. Paranoia is not a trait associated with reasonable thought.

These laws don't relieve you from the burden of reasonable action. If you shoot a couple of Jehova's Witnesses through your door, you've got yourself a major problem.

You can argue it to the absurd. I don't think I'll be shooting any Jehova Witnesses anytime soon. And I don't think they would be pounding on my door either.

[Chris]

Under Florida law, the Castle Doctrine protects you under all circumstances. .

You have clearly not read the law. Read the first paragraph. It does not grant you immunity from prosecution. Your actions may still be interpreted by a police investigator, district attorney and a grand jury.

And note that it says nothing about the person that's hit by one of your stray rounds.

If you think these laws give you a free pass, you're kidding yourself.

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.--

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or

(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or

(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

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

(a) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.

(b) "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.

(c) "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

[Ted]

The Violence Policy Center claims that over 2.6 years, from May 2007 through the end of 2009, concealed carry permit holders in the US have killed 117 individuals, including 9 law enforcement officers. [71] Though in 2007, in the entire United States, there were 16,929 murders and 254 legally justified/self defense killings;[72] in 2008, there were 16,272 murders and 245 legally justified/self defense killings in the United States.[73] The FBI report for Jan.-June 2009 is still in its preliminary stages.[74

IN 2008 140 Police Officers were killed in the line of duty.

The number of police officers killed by gunfire in 2008 dropped to its lowest level in more than 50 years, says a report out Monday by the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund.

• For the 11th consecutive year, more officers died from traffic-related incidents than any other cause of death.

•Other fatalities included two officers who died in a bombing, two who were stabbed and two who died in a helicopter crash.

This happened during a period where the most concealed carry permits ever were in force-there are estimated to be between 5-7 million CCW holders in the US. If we use the VPC's own numbers it means the CCW holders are far more law abiding than the general population. And BTW, note they say 117 people, not stating how many were actually criminal in nature as opposed to self defense and/or accidents which account for several of the officer shootings.

[cuda]

You have clearly not read the law. Read the first paragraph. It does not grant you immunity from prosecution. Your actions may still be interpreted by a police investigator, district attorney and a grand jury.

And note that it says nothing about the person that's hit by one of your stray rounds.

If you think these laws give you a free pass, you're kidding yourself.

I have read the law. The very first sentence explains it all. There won't be any stray bullets. I don't believe in spray and pray.

[Chris]

I have read the law. The very first sentence explains it all. There won't be any stray bullets. I don't believe in spray and pray.

22 years a go, a close friend in his probationary year in law enforcement returned fire at a fleeing suspect who had fired at him. He fired three times. One round struck the individual, one round hit a fence post and the third round went between the fence slats, between two houses and through the front of the house across the street. It struck a man sleeping on his couch, killing him. It was his last day in law enforcement. Fortunately a grand jury returned a no-bill.

So don't feed me that BS about no stray rounds. You have no concept of the responsibility for the deadly force you're carrying. You lust for the power you feel in possessing the ability to end someone's life and you seemingly obsess on being able to use it. And you seem to have the idea you have the legal immunity to use it. That's a scary thing.

[GENERAL LEE]

A cop working a case that I'm involved with, told me to do the state a favor and just kill him.


First the cop asked me if I had any recording devices on me, then he said to just kill him. Save the state the cost of a trial, and incarceration.

IF...that cop was serious when he "told you" that, he doesn't give a damn about your life or well being.


Having taken the C&C class LAST weekend, the Castle Doctrine is discussed in detail. Chris' explanation is correct. You can't empty a clip on someone, and they don't have to be dead, to be deemed a non-threat.

Also, add one sip of verifiable alcohol use by the person claiming self defense, and the Castle Doctrine, along with the rest of their "rights", are now void.

Assuming a jury will not convict on this type of crime, no matter the situation, with or without alcohol, is an extremely stupid risk to take. A jury consisting of say, 5 black, & 2 hispanic people of any gender, may look differently at a white country boy, with a house full of guns & a bad attitude, that shot a 15 year old minority 6 times, for what is "now" being described as knocking on the door.

When you're dealing with a jury, you're dealing with "people", and unfortunately, "people" can be stupid. The prosecution will do their best to have as many of these "people" on their jury as possible, that can be herded/persuaded into seeing & hearing the facts of the case in a completely different tone, than the actual event itself.

[cuda]

22 years a go, a close friend in his probationary year in law enforcement returned fire at a fleeing suspect who had fired at him. He fired three times. One round struck the individual, one round hit a fence post and the third round went between the fence slats, between two houses and through the front of the house across the street. It struck a man sleeping on his couch, killing him. It was his last day in law enforcement. Fortunately a grand jury returned a no-bill.

So don't feed me that BS about no stray rounds. You have no concept of the responsibility for the deadly force you're carrying. You lust for the power you feel in possessing the ability to end someone's life and you seemingly obsess on being able to use it. And you seem to have the idea you have the legal immunity to use it. That's a scary thing.

I carried a 5 shot 38, and there were three punks. I was confident I would have put them all down, then shoved the reloader in if they were still moving. Your friend must have been a crappy shot, and I bet it was an auto. Auto's are for people who believe in spray and pray. I would hit what I shoot at. I don't get scared or nervous. I think that's what scared the punks.

[cuda]

You have no concept of the responsibility for the deadly force you're carrying. You lust for the power you feel in possessing the ability to end someone's life and you seemingly obsess on being able to use it. And you seem to have the idea you have the legal immunity to use it. That's a scary thing.

You must be under the misconception that I want to shoot somebody. I saw the punks were snorting crank in the truck, and I was praying they weren't so high that I would have to shoot them, because I guarantee I would have. So don't feed me the bs that I have no concept what it means to take a life. Given the two choices, I'd be looking at a dead man.

[cuda]

IF...that cop was serious when he "told you" that, he doesn't give a damn about your life or well being.


Having taken the C&C class LAST weekend, the Castle Doctrine is discussed in detail. Chris' explanation is correct. You can't empty a clip on someone, and they don't have to be dead, to be deemed a non-threat.

Also, add one sip of verifiable alcohol use by the person claiming self defense, and the Castle Doctrine, along with the rest of their "rights", are now void.

Assuming a jury will not convict on this type of crime, no matter the situation, with or without alcohol, is an extremely stupid risk to take. A jury consisting of say, 5 black, & 2 hispanic people of any gender, may look differently at a white country boy, with a house full of guns & a bad attitude, that shot a 15 year old minority 6 times, for what is "now" being described as knocking on the door.

When you're dealing with a jury, you're dealing with "people", and unfortunately, "people" can be stupid. The prosecution will do their best to have as many of these "people" on their jury as possible, that can be herded/persuaded into seeing & hearing the facts of the case in a completely different tone, than the actual event itself.

You would never get indicted here at all. I hear someone shooting outside right now.

[Chris]

You must be under the misconception that I want to shoot somebody. So don't feed me the bs that I have no concept what it means to take a life.

What I believe you have no concept of is the possibility that something other than what you intended might happen. And your dismissal of the possibility is arrogant and irresponsible. To top it off, you hold firm to the belief that you are immune from any responsibility for your actions. All those three things combined make you one of those people that probabaly shouldn't be in possession of a firearm.

And yes, you come across as someone who anticipates the opportunity.

[cuda]

What I believe you have no concept of is the possibility that something other than what you intended might happen. And your dismissal of the possibility is arrogant and irresponsible. To top it off, you hold firm to the belief that you are immune from any responsibility for your actions. All those three things combined make you one of those people that probabaly shouldn't be in possession of a firearm.

And yes, you come across as someone who anticipates the opportunity.

I don't think I'm either arrogant, or irresponible but you are entiled to your own wrong opionions. I didn't realize this board was overpopulated with state attorneys, and other lawyer know all types. It's too bad that I've owned fire arms almost all my life, and I've never came across the need to shoot anyone, but I can think of three times the fact that I did have a gun, kept incidents from becoming a scenario like you think.

I don't look for trouble, but I don't run from it either. I avoid trouble if possible. Now, how would you suggest I handle three punks intent on kicking my azz? I told the driver to go down to the bridge and throw the other two punks off the bridge, and I would throw the pistol in the woods. Using the pistol would not have been my first choice, but I live in a neighborhood that has only one way in, and one way out. I guess I could have tucked tail and locked myself in the house, while they killed my three dogs, or lit the house on fire. It was going to end right then, and right there. I told the driver if I ever saw him in my neighborhood again, I would just assume he was looking for me, and I wouldn't say anything, I'd just go to killing, and the first one I would kill was him. It' been over a year ago, and he must have believed me, because I haven't seen him since. He may have tried his chit with someone who doesn't have the same tolerance as I do, and got shot for his troubles. I bet he is in jail right now. Once you go over the bridge into Lake County, the only people who live there are losers, boozers, and heavy drug users.

[cuda]

I give up. You win.

Talk the bad guy to death for all I care.

[Chris]

I don't think I'm either arrogant, or irresponible but you are entiled to your own wrong opionions. I didn't realize this board was overpopulated with state attorneys, and other lawyer know all types.

Dismissing the possibility that one of your shots could miss and strike another person definitely fits the mold.

I just hope some of what we're all telling you registers. If your writings are reflective of your true attitudes and sentiments, you definitely come across as someone with a greatly heightened interest and very resolute ideas. And I think we all hope that this doesn't lead to some bump in the night snowballing into a tragedy for you- or someone else.

[Bobcat]

and they'll prolly wanna look at your puter.

[cuda]

Dismissing the possibility that one of your shots could miss and strike another person definitely fits the mold.

I just hope some of what we're all telling you registers. If your writings are reflective of your true attitudes and sentiments, you definitely come across as someone with a greatly heightened interest and very resolute ideas. And I think we all hope that this doesn't lead to some bump in the night snowballing into a tragedy for you- or someone else.

You idiot, there are no people who live there. Get your facts straight before making accusations you have no hope of backing up.

I'd advise against waking me up in the middle of the night.

[Chris]

and they'll prolly wanna look at your puter.

A distinct possibility.

You would assume they'd at least check out the sites you visit and look at your message board activities.

Some of the places like AR15.com are over-run with the mall ninja crowd. I sure as hell wouldn't want some of what I've seen posted blown up poster-sized and entered as a prosecution in my trial.