« Atlanta papers on Florida no-retreat law | Main | More on the Joyce Foundation »
Law prof's take on Florida law
FindLaw has a Brooklyn law prof's take on the new Florida law. He agrees that in abolishing retreat Florida is just going with the trend, although he has big problems with the way it treats as justified any killing that occurs while the aggressor is forcibly and unlawfully entering a house or car (his argument being that at least one legislative report describes this as an irrebuttable presumption that the aggressor intended to kill). Thanks to Stop The Bleating,, who's temporarily unable to blog due to laptop failure.
Comments
Sebok, the guy on Findlaw needs to look at Texas law. He would faint(or something). Thievies at night are ASSUMED to be armed. You can shoot the thief to get your property back. At night vandals (tagers and such) can be shot.
He must be one of those hothouse yankees, whose heart bleeds for the poor poor misunderstood criminal. If the criminal is stupid enough to try and rob a house while people are in it or to rob someone then they need to be stopped dead. If they are not, they will just keep getting more and more brazen until they start hurting people, then killing them. If they want to do property crimes they need to make sure NOBODY is around, otherwise a 45 is good a 12ga is better. Shoot until they stop.
Remember -
He said that he wanted to kill me.
He said that he was armed.
He reached into his clothing.
I was in fear for my life.
I shot to STOP him.
The First and ONLY statements you make to the police.
Have fun.
Posted by: Dan Hamilton at May 2, 2005 12:58 PM
The reason for the new Florida law, and there always seems to be a reason, is the increase in nighttime forced home entry and subsequent injury or death of elderly and others. There have been three of these home invasion attacks in my neighborhood in the last weeks -- and I live on an island. The issue of carjackings and tourists is also an ever important concern -- it seems out of state license plates are a magnet to this activity.
The credulity of this Findlaw piece is to be questioned -- I note the writer couches his whole piece by saying what he postulates may not be the conclusion in most cases. It clearly sounds like he is writing about a mix of fact and hope.
It is the responsibility of citizens to determine what is right and wrong, for without responsibility NO rights can exist. The law is there to provide guideposts. But, in every instance their will be a prosecutor, and a court if necessary, that makes the final call on who was right and wrong. My take, if you shoot someone, you best be able to prove your case -- as it's always been except when you are denied the right of self defense.
I note that it is always the liberals who wish to remove those respsonsibilities and replace them with government grants of supposed benefits.
Posted by: bill at May 2, 2005 01:23 PM