The Great Debate

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by The Lost Boy@Oct 26 2004, 12:18 AM
Life over property. You cannot shoot an intruder just because of the fact that he or she is in your house. Unless they pose an immediate threat to harm you or someone else, you can't shoot them.
Click to expand...
According to FLORIDA STATE LAW you can. It is comminly referred to as "The Castle Doctrine."

Title XLVI
CRIMES Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE View Entire Chapter

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 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 such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1189, ch. 97-102.

Click to expand...


Title XLVI
CRIMES Chapter 782
HOMICIDE View Entire Chapter

782.02  Justifiable use of deadly force.--The use of deadly force is justifiable when a person is resisting any attempt to murder such person or to commit any felony upon him or her or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person shall be.

History.--ss. 4, 5, ch. 1637, 1868; RS 2378; ch. 4967, 1901; s. 1, ch. 4964, 1901; GS 3203; RGS 5033; CGL 7135; s. 66, ch. 74-383; s. 1, ch. 75-24; s. 45, ch. 75-298; s. 1197, ch. 97-102.

Click to expand...

Title XLVI
CRIMES Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE View Entire Chapter

776.08  Forcible felony.--"Forcible felony" means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 4, ch. 75-298; s. 289, ch. 79-400; s. 5, ch. 93-212; s. 10, ch. 95-195.

Click to expand...

As can be clearly seen by these statutes "home invasion robery" is a forcable felony and is by law a justifiable time when one my use deadly force. You may not agree with the law, but it is the law and therefore givesthe citizen the right to act. No one is talking about vigilante justice, we are talking about your right to self defense. And wether you kill the intruder with a .22 target rifle, or .50 Barrett rifle, doesn't matter.
 
Originally posted by dascoot@Oct 26 2004, 06:12 AM
But you shouldn't own a military-grade weapon. There's no need for it and you haven't shown it to be necessary at all.

...then shoot him. In the leg, or the arm. You don't need to kill someone to protect your home.
Click to expand...
POINT 1
A military grade weapon is just that because it is

accurate
effective
reliable
durable
etc.

What would posess a person to want to have sub-standard equipment?
How about we cut all the seatbelts half way through? Its about having the best TOOL for the job

POINT 2
You have been lied too, by the media and hollywood movies that you can just shoot somebody in the leg or arm. Those type of shots are difficult at best, and when you add stress, and adrenilyn to a situation those shots become almost impossible.

Every firearms instructor will tell you that you do NOT shoot to wond, you shoot to kill. And all of the requirement for the use of that deadly force MUST be met before you take the action.
 
Mexico, Canada, and several Carribian Nations. I will be heading to South Africa and Zambia early next year.
 
When I say shoot the intruder, I'm talking about shooting to kill. It's still not justified to shoot with the intent to kill an intruder, simply because they're in your house. Clearly stated in 776.031

"According to the Castle Exception, when you're attacked in your home, you can stand your ground and use deadly force to fend off an unprovoked attack. But again, only if you reasonably believe that the attack threatens death or serious bodily injury."

The Castle Exception is part of the Retreat Doctrine that says, "you have to retreat. But only ifyou reasonably believe that backing off won't unreasonably put you in danger of death or serious bodily harm."

The reason you can only shoot an intruder if they pose imminent danger, is because it may not always be a burglar or criminal.

Law vs. State demonstrated that, when James Law shot and killed a police officer that was responding to a neighbor's call of a burglary at Law's residence. The officer was inspecting a broken window on a door, and checking the lock to see if it was possible an intruder could have entered. Law believed a burglar was trying to gain entry, so he shot and killed the cop. Life over property. That should be the bottom line. Every person should IMMEDIATELY call 911 to notify police if there's someone in your house...don't take the law into your own hands.

Excessive Force: Defenders can only use the amount of force that they reasonably believe they have to use to repel an attack. This means they can't use deadly force when something less will do because that would be unreasonable.

As far as what types of weapons a citizen should be allowed to posses, is easy. There's no need for a civilian to have military weapons like automatic rifles, so a ban is good. Handguns are designed for concealment and mainly to effectively kill people. Handguns should be banned for civilians. It's not about the right tool for the job, because that sounds just sick. You can have a high quality shotgun or rifle and defend your home.
 
Bottom line, if I lived somewhere that I felt the need to be in possession of any type of weapon fearing that I might be attacked or otherwise, I think I'd seriously consider moving. <_< I think the majority of us posting on this Forum don't know what it's like to live in a country where we can't walk outside during certain hours, if at all. And, the majority of us probably haven't visited a country like that either. It's, literally, foreign to me that such a need to own weapons of any kind in this country exists in some minds.

Anyway, just my feeble minded opinion on the matter. I'm afraid of what guns do to people and therefore would never own one. My uncle was fatally shot in the head, and that's enough reason to turn me off of the idea of ordinary citizens possessing them.
 
Guns don't do things to people, PEOPLE do things with guns.
 
So you don't think there is any difference in a upset person with a gun and an upset person without one. You think that even with a million instances of that scenario the outcome will still be the same?
 
Originally posted by The Lost Boy@Oct 26 2004, 11:53 AM
When I say shoot the intruder, I'm talking about shooting to kill. It's still not justified to shoot with the intent to kill an intruder, simply because they're in your house. Clearly stated in 776.031
Click to expand...
I think you need to re-read the clause.

EXCERPT -
Title XLVI
CRIMES Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCEHowever, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.
Click to expand...

That is the last sentance of the law. There is no retreat clause if you are in your home or place of work in the state of Florida.

Now you can only use deadly force if it is a "forcable felony".

Below you will find again the defination of forciable felony.

Title XLVI
CRIMES Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE View Entire Chapter

776.08 Forcible felony.--"Forcible felony" means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 4, ch. 75-298; s. 289, ch. 79-400; s. 5, ch. 93-212; s. 10, ch. 95-195.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by a_iver@Oct 26 2004, 12:31 PM
So you don't think there is any difference in a upset person with a gun and an upset person without one. You think that even with a million instances of that scenario the outcome will still be the same?
Click to expand...
Assault weapons were involved in less than 1% of homicides before the assault weapons ban took effect in 1994. The same is true as of 1998. As of 1998, about 13% of homicides involve knives, 5% involve bludgeons, and 6% are committed with hands and feet.

If someone intends to do you harm, you have a statisticaly greater chance of being killed by someone using their bare hands rather then an assault weapon.

In fact the statistics show that a armed populace is actualy safer.

Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987.
Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:

Florida United States
homicide rate -36% -.4%
firearm homicide rate -37% +15%
handgun homicide rate -41% +24%
 
Originally posted by michelle@Oct 26 2004, 12:17 PM
I'm afraid of what guns do to people and therefore would never own one.
Click to expand...
If guns harm people, do matches cause arson?

If guns harm people, does water cause drowning?

If guns harm people, needles must cause drug abuse?
 
So then by all your arguments it's not the weapons that do harm, but the people that abuse them that are to blame. So why is marijuana illegal? It's never even caused a single death in the history of mankind and yet the government maintains its danger to society. A joint apparently causes more harm in the hands of a human than a machine gun.

And since you argued so adamantly against us when we told you that just because it's LEGAL doesn't make it RIGHT, then I'm sure you also support a woman's right to choose. Because that's legal too.

Originally posted by Michelle
Bottom line, if I lived somewhere that I felt the need to be in possession of any type of weapon fearing that I might be attacked or otherwise, I think I'd seriously consider moving.
Click to expand...
Here's the thing about that Michelle. I know where he lives, I lived there for 18 years before I went on to college. We're not talking downtown Miami here, we're talking Palm Freaking Harbor where the biggest game to hunt is the mighty squirrel and the only human threat is the gangs of roving old people and the rich white folks out by the water.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forums

  1. Television
    1. TV Commercial Music
    2. TV Soundtracks
    3. TV Discussion
  2. Movies
    1. Movie Trailer Music
    2. Movie Soundtracks
    3. Movie Discussion
  3. Games
    1. Video Game Ad Music
    2. Video Game Soundtracks
    3. Video Game Discussion
  4. Music
    1. Music Elsewhere
    2. Music Discussion
  5. Members
    1. General Discussion
    2. Introduce Yourself
    3. Humor
  6. Site
    1. Adtunes Articles
    2. Adtunes News
    3. Adtunes Feedback
Back
Top