[MPDC66]

I have found it very interesting watching the questions, opinions and responses here regarding proper or improper actions and use of weapons in various situations.

One theme comes through, again and again, that some look for a loophole or way to justify discharging their weapon even though they clearly have reservations as to the legality of doing it.

One thing pounded into Police Cadets and Probationary Officers is the difference between Protection of Life and Property and the Execution of suspected miscreants. The Policeman is trained to always look for the least destructive means to preserve the peace and protect the lives of EVERYONE INVOLVED IN AN INCIDENT. There is too much room for error and mindset can have you misread a situation based on your anxiousness to act heroically in some dreamed of scenario where you save the day.

Many probationary Officers are terminated for what we used to call a "Cowboy Complex". That is, creating or escalating dangerous situations into tragic or catastrophic incidents. Challenging as opposed to reasoning, escalating as opposed to diffusing a tense situation.

It is even more dangerous for a Civilian CCW License holder. Our mindsets should be purely defensive and with a view to save our lives and those of innocents. That does NOT include the inclination to take the life of BGs. IT IS NOT OUR JOB OR MANDATE and can destroy YOUR LIFE if you make a bad judgement because you either don't understand the legal limitations of your right to use deadly force OR have an erroneous mindset about how the world should work. Your outlook may be popular and good for letting of steam about the injustices we see in our judicial system BUT you need to be aware you are in danger of feeling the full weight of that system IF you get overzealous and take matters into your own hands when you could avoid it without endangering your life or the lives of innocent people.

Don't get me wrong, I wish the world was different and safer and harbor no illusions about the "poor misunderstood" criminals. I would also like the courts to save tax dollars by eliminating some of these hardened , brutal predators. I am just more realistic about the possible consequences and the limitations the system places on our rights and abilities to dispense justice, as we see it. It well may NOT be how a jury sees it!

Educate yourself about the REAL LEGAL case law pertaining to shootings. Work on your mindset and establish a defensive attitude rather than a super-hero mindset that can turn a bad situation into disaster.

This Attorney and his book is recommended here by many and I would encourage anyone with questions or doubts about what is right or legal to consult the website or the book.

REMEMBER, Legal and Right are NOT THE SAME THING. Justice is, indeed, blind and being blind, often makes big mistakes. Protect yourself by preparing not just tactically but also mentally.

http://www.floridafirearmslaw.com/m...gal-Frequently-Asked-Questions&Store_Code=FFL

I should also point out that the more incidents of unjustified shootings (or justified ones on the edge that result in lots of publicity or prosecution of the CCW holder) , with the great increase in licensees, gives the opponents of our Second Amendment Right to Carry more ammunition to try and take away our Constitutional birthrights.

 

[Glock23-4-Me]

1st off, I am not leo. They have certain things they do or should do that is not required of me. I dont have to tell someone to put there gun down when they break into my house in the middle of the night. In that situation, I would be in fear of my life and that of my family. I would shoot to stop the threat, I would not try to get him to comply with my demands or he may very well pull out a gun and shoot me before he could be stopped.

2nd. I agree that one should be prepared and in a way, this forum helps me and probably others do just that. I highly recommend that people be aware of the law. I hope to never have to discharge a firearm or to take someones life, but if it comes down to it, I will. I am sad to read that people claim to be so passionate about their 2a rights and they go through the troubles of getting a CCWL for the purposes of defending themselves and their family, and are willing to give up their rights. IMHO if a bad guy commits a forceable felony or puts me or my family in fear of great bodily harm then I am going to stop that threat period. If f.s. 776 authorizes me to use force to include deadly force, then I will use that force. If a bad guy is willing to ignore the law and put my family at risk, then he gets what he deserves.

stand up for your rights people or you wont have any left.

 

[MPDC66]

I totally agree with what you have said. It is the QUESTIONABLE uses, when life is not in danger or you are not inside your house or in a clearly authorized situation that I was referring to.

Maybe its just me but I see alot of enthusiam for dispensing justice in some of the threads. I was not suggesting you be timid about defending yourself, just that you know when that is justified and necessary.

 

[Glock23-4-Me]

I totally agree with what you have said. It is the QUESTIONABLE uses, when life is not in danger or you are not inside your house or in a clearly authorized situation that I was referring to.

Maybe its just me but I see alot of enthusiam for dispensing justice in some of the threads. I was not suggesting you be timid about defending yourself, just that you know when that is justified and necessary.

I could be the wrong one here, but I dont think people want to do that, I know that I dont. I do enjoy running scenarios by people to see their thoughts. It gets the wheel in my brain turning to make sure that I was not looking at something incorrectly. Granted just because you get opinions here does not mean you can shoot someone and say someone of florida concealed carry told me it was okay. :rolf
When you have discussions about these types of things, one could draw the conclusion that you did because we are in deed talking about using deadly force, but I dont think people are walking around their neighborhood trying to find a situation in which they can shoot someone.

It is the questionable scenarios that people talk about to make sure they have a better understanding of the rules. It may be that a discussion on this forum may prevent a CCWL holder from making a bad choice in shooting when it was not justified but it was through conversation and discussion that they learned they were not justified. Just my .02

 

[MPDC66]

Well, alrighty then.......................................

 

[Paladin]

Both of you bring up solid arguments.

Use of the weapon should be done only when it is absolutely necessary. Unfortunately those words mean one thing to the law and can mean something else to the CW holder.

How can you, the law or anyone else really know when I am "in fear for my life"? That is a subjective thing and I don't believe any jury in any courtroom can ever fully comprehend that without being present at the time of the incident.

 

[MPDC66]

Paladin, I totally agree with what you have said. I also understand 23-4ME's stance on rights.

I didn't mean to imply anyone should hesitate in a real threatening situation. Just feel that, based on some of my reading here and some experience in the world, that many new licensees may not be aware of the awesome responsibility they now have. NOT being fully aware could cost them dearly.

Everyone here owes themselves a legal education as well as a tactical competence education to protect themselves and all of our rights.

Cavalier is not the right attitude, IMHO. Not saying that applies to Glock 23 but may to many new "Wally Walkers".

Arm yourself both physically and mentally with clear understanding of the law and a mindset that discourages mistakes.

 

[Paladin]

Paladin, I totally agree with what you have said. I also understand 23-4ME's stance on rights.

I didn't mean to imply anyone should hesitate in a real threatening situation. Just feel that, based on some of my reading here and some experience in the world, that many new licensees may not be aware of the awesome responsibility they now have. NOT being fully aware could cost them dearly.

Everyone here owes themselves a legal education as well as a tactical competence education to protect themselves and all of our rights.

Cavalier is not the right attitude, IMHO. Not saying that applies to Glock 23 but may to many new "Wally Walkers".

Arm yourself both physically and mentally with clear understanding of the law and a mindset that discourages mistakes.

I didn't think you were implying that.

I agree that a WWW doesn't make you a good CCW holder. Other than putting you at ease it does nothing to make you a good CCW holder.

My only point was that in addition to the legality of when you can and can't shoot there is a huge issue in that the "fear for my life" is hard to prove or disprove.

 

[Glock23-4-Me]

Paladin, you always keep me in fear for my life :ak

 

[MPDC66]

Yep, the standard is , "What a reasonable person would think" and we all know one man's reason is another's madness.

I think I liked it better in the "good old days" when , in certain parts of the country, "'Cause he needed killin' !" was an acceptable legal defense.:rolf

 

[Mac45]

It is really not too difficult to convince a jury that you were 'in fear for your life". Juries are instructed to apply the reasonable person test. But, in all cases of being justified in shooting another person [self defense is the only recognized justifcation] the evidence has to show that the subject who was shot had the means and opportunity to harm the shooter and that he had done something that would indicate his intention to harm the shooter and that, in the same circumstances, a reasonable person would have been in fear for his life.

Simply snatching your wife's purse, or entering your home at night is usually not enough to justify homicide. You must identify a clear threat that any reasonable person would recognize as being sufficient to justify using deadly force against another person. And you have to be "in fear of your life". Not annoyed, not angry, not righteous, but justifiable in fear of your life.

 

[Glock23-4-Me]

It is really not too difficult to convince a jury that you were 'in fear for your life". Juries are instructed to apply the reasonable person test. But, in all cases of being justified in shooting another person [self defense is the only recognized justifcation] the evidence has to show that the subject who was shot had the means and opportunity to harm the shooter and that he had done something that would indicate his intention to harm the shooter and that, in the same circumstances, a reasonable person would have been in fear for his life.

Simply snatching your wife's purse, or entering your home at night is usually not enough to justify homicide. You must identify a clear threat that any reasonable person would recognize as being sufficient to justify using deadly force against another person. And you have to be "in fear of your life". Not annoyed, not angry, not righteous, but justifiable in fear of your life.

This sir is where you are incorrect for a couple reasons.

1st is you dont have to be in fear of great bodily harm if a forceable felonly is being committed

776.012 Use of force in defense of person

a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.


2nd in the case of someone breaking into your home

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,

 

[Mac45]

Glock,
The stautes are a good starting point, but case law can not ony modify the meaning of statutory language, but can actually change it. In the case of 776.013, the operant wording is "unlawfully and forcefully entering". Confronting a subject in your livingroom does not give you an automatic right to shoot that person. If you do, and it turns out that it is your drunken neighbor who wandered into your home thinking it was his own because a member of your family forgot to lock the door, you are going to have problems, some criminal and some civil. Common sense has to prevail at all times. Shooting a fleeing burglar presents its own problems, as it can be diffucult to convince the authorities or a jury that a fleeing subject can reasonably be assumed to pose a threat of death or great bodily harm to you or another.You arm yourself to provide for the defense of you and your family from imminent death or serious bodily harm. You have no authority to arm yourself and use a deadly weapon against another person for trespass into your dwelling. As I pointed out in another thread, the jurisdiction of the occurrance plays a large role in how the authorities view the use of deadly force. Shooting a fleeing burglar may play well in some areas, and not so well in others. Using a defensive handgun is based on the KISS principle. Keep it simple. If the person does not present an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, then you might want to refrain from shhoting that person, until he does present such a threat. Identify the target, assess the threat level and respond accordingly. This is where common sense and training come into play.

 

[Glock23-4-Me]

Glock,
The stautes are a good starting point, but case law can not ony modify the meaning of statutory language, but can actually change it. In the case of 776.013, the operant wording is "unlawfully and forcefully entering". Confronting a subject in your livingroom does not give you an automatic right to shoot that person. If you do, and it turns out that it is your drunken neighbor who wandered into your home thinking it was his own because a member of your family forgot to lock the door, you are going to have problems, some criminal and some civil.

I agree 100% with that statement, but I can guarantee that my doors and windows are always locked 100% of the time also. This may not be the case for everyone but for me, I assure you it is. So if my neighbor is in my living room, its because he forcibly entered into my house.

Common sense has to prevail at all times. Shooting a fleeing burglar presents its own problems, as it can be diffucult to convince the authorities or a jury that a fleeing subject can reasonably be assumed to pose a threat of death or great bodily harm to you or another.

I agree with you here. Although you may be able to do so by law, if someone has left my front door on the way out, I dont plan on shooting at all.

If the person does not present an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, then you might want to refrain from shhoting that person, until he does present such a threat.

I agree with the statute on this one

A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself if 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.

As I previously stated, if they are in my house, they have forcibly entered.

 

[henryher]

OK, here is a scenario. You shot and killed someone who was committing a forcible felony. He was, Uhm, trying to take the stereo you just bought from Walmart while doing your Walmart walk and he used a pipe threatening to bludgeon you if you do not lelt him take the stereo.

For some reason a pinko left wing liberal DA decides he is going to charge you. You go to trial, the judge is Pelosi and the jury consists of Opra Winfry, Ellen Degeniris, Rosie O'donald, Senator Kennedy, and well, all a bunch of left wing anti gun liberals. What are your chances that you are going to be found not guilty? Would you file for an appeal before the trial begins?

 

[brownie]

1st off, I am not leo. They have certain things they do or should do that is not required of me. I dont have to tell someone to put there gun down when they break into my house in the middle of the night. In that situation, I would be in fear of my life and that of my family. I would shoot to stop the threat, I would not try to get him to comply with my demands or he may very well pull out a gun and shoot me before he could be stopped.

2nd. I agree that one should be prepared and in a way, this forum helps me and probably others do just that. I highly recommend that people be aware of the law. I hope to never have to discharge a firearm or to take someones life, but if it comes down to it, I will. I am sad to read that people claim to be so passionate about their 2a rights and they go through the troubles of getting a CCWL for the purposes of defending themselves and their family, and are willing to give up their rights. IMHO if a bad guy commits a forceable felony or puts me or my family in fear of great bodily harm then I am going to stop that threat period. If f.s. 776 authorizes me to use force to include deadly force, then I will use that force. If a bad guy is willing to ignore the law and put my family at risk, then he gets what he deserves.

stand up for your rights people or you wont have any left.

Regarding the bolded----- It's clear you don't have a background or clear understanding that LEO are under no obligation to tell someone to put their gun down when they have found someone has broken into their domicile any more than you are required to BY LAW.

Regarding the underlined----- So would any person who found an intruder with a gun in their hand in the home unlawfully [ be in fear of one's life ].

If you find a person in your home unlawfully AND ARMED, you have the presumption of fear of great bodily harm or death.


Ones mindset at all times should be to use deadly force as a last resort, not because one believes the courts presume criteria for deadly force is met generally in any given circumstance. Automatically shooting and killing the guy found in your living room with his hands full of tv simply because he is there unlawfully is not an acceptable mindset IMO.

Edited to add:

In talking with another Fla resident I now understand you can shoot the SOB without any concern for prosecution whether he's met the criteria for deadly force or not under the Fla. castle doctrine. Shoot away, have a field day folks. I don't agree with it as you should have to meet the deadly force criteria, but it stands the way it is.

I'll say this, I'm not shooting anyone even when in Fla. if they do not meet the deadly force criteria of means, motive and opportunity. That's a moral decision, one I've made before and one I hope will not have to be made again. I've related stories in another thread of three instances while working the streets where I could have capped one or two, having easily met the criteria for SD and did not as doing so was not necessary. I'll not use some law to kill another when it's not deemed absolutely necessary.

Ones mindset at all times should be to use deadly force as a last resort :thumbsdwn

Brownie

 

[RadTek]

I'm not going to disagree with you there Brownie....

I've read over the laws, read some books, and watched these kind of discussions over and over again. And I'll never pretend to know all I can know about it. I'm making an effort to learn as much as I can, each and every day. I too found myself in a SD situation a few years ago, at that time I was unarmed, unprepared, and unknowlageable. I just got lucky that instinct kicked in and I made the right choices that, in all likely hood, saved myself and my wife's lives. But, it's an event that, literally, changed my life and haunts me to this day. It's soley why I began the quest to learn everything I can regarding the protection of my family and myself.

I agree that Florida law now requires no "last resort" criteria you've described. It appears that one is allowed to defend themselves simply on the basis of stopping a forcible felony. (in a nutshell anyway)

However, I believe completely that if you ever do have to fire your weapon in self defense, you have to assume that you are taking LETHAL force. Meaning, in my humble opinion anyway, that you have to presume the action you are taking will be taking a life! It's my feeling that you can't operate on the presumpsion that they will survive your actions. That's at least the mindset I've started to pick up on.

That being said, I dont WANT to ever take a life...even in self defense. So, that action is, again, in my humble opinion, an absolute last resort!

That's where I'm hoping to now begin to get into the kind of training that will, hopefully, give me the tools, knowlage, and experience that will allow me to make the right choices and take the appropirate actions based on the need of the moment, and hopefully, will allow me to take only the action required to protect my family and myself and nothing more, basically, being one step in front of the bad guy, no more, no less.

Just my 2 cents..not trying to argue with anyone. It's my feeling that carrying and potentially using lethal force for self defense is a very personal choice that each and everyone has to make and come to grips with in their own way. :thumsup

 

[brownie]

RadTek:

That being said, I dont WANT to ever take a life...even in self defense. So, that action is, again, in my humble opinion, an absolute last resort!

You'll go far with that mentality, no matter what the law states when you can lawfully use lethal force in Florida. :thumsup

Your quest to obtain the skills and knowledge to stay one step ahead of the BG's is, again, the proper mindset and should stand you well in the future IMO.

It's been my experience both in the LE and private sector that the more training, skills, experience and resultant confidence one has in their own abilities, the less apt they are to panic and subsequently respond with lethal force when it may not be necessary at that moment.

A lack of training and subsequent skills to be able to defend yourself, with or without weapons, is no excuse for a panicked premature decision to take a life. One should not argue for the legality of killing so much as the morality of the act and whether or not the need to kill was morally justified.

That is not to say one should hesitate to lethally defend oneself at a moments notice should that become necessary at any time, but the necessity to kill another should be tempered with the morality of that act and not be determined solely on the state's presumption of anything. A tempered use of deadly force, reserved for those men who NEED killing at that moment in time is something to aspire to. It takes character to show restraint in such matters when emotions would subject a man to act otherwise.

I appreciate your thoughtful post, it showed maturity and forethought in your stated decisions. Though you may run into many a person who might be deemed in need of killing, the self restraint to resist doing so until it's a last resort is to be applauded.

Stay sharp

Brownie

 

[RadTek]

Thank you Brownie.

It really boils down to this for me anyway....I always thought I took security seriously, until a SD scenario my wife and I encountered a few years ago in Denver.

I swore to myself I'd never feel that helpless again. Yea, I know, training, firearms, permits..etc.. doesn't guarantee anything...but, I'm not willing to leave it up to chance or dumb luck again.

My only problem is I'm just so darned obsessive when it comes to learning about something I know nothing about, I've taken darn near 3 years to get comfortable with a gun at the range and keeping one around the house, decide which one I want to carry, get my permit, and get some training...:rolf

It really is true what they say about old dogs and new tricks I guess..

 

[MPDC66]

Well, I started this with the word, "Mindset". Both of you gentlemen, IMHO, have a correct mindset.

Human nature being what it is, the mindset of , "I am allowed to kill if XYZ factors are present" sets the stage for a bad decision, IMHO. God help the man who lives with having killed a child, a drunken or diabetic neighbor or any other human being while caught up in that "kill mindset".

I was taught and believe in the use of deadly force as a last resort. I am fully prepared to kill for my family's safety, my Country, my neighbors safety BUT not so I can feel "righteous" or, worse, powerful.

The "Castle" doctrine in Florida has some good points BUT using it for an excuse to blow somebody away will quickly result in its repeal, overturning on appeal (you don't wanna be the guy in that scenario) and more ranting on the part of the anti-gun crazies.