Florida Concealed Carry banner

1 - 20 of 77 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,975 Posts
In Florida, falls under the “Castle Doctrine”. Let the felon beware! JMO YMMV :cautious:

“One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, therefore a person may use any manner of force, including deadly force, against that person.”
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,281 Posts
for the Castle Doctrine” don't they have to actually have to break in and not be attempting to? Dangerous and scary but not yet life threatening. Take videos of them to present to LE even though there is a very slim chance they will be interested in following up. Matter of priorities and public image.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,975 Posts
Agree with hornet but the title was about breaking into occupied vehicle, not damaging and jumping away.

property damage is why we carry insurance. ‘’intrudes into”, I believe has been interpreted as reaching inside.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,770 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
for the Castle Doctrine” don't they have to actually have to break in and not be attempting to? Dangerous and scary but not yet life threatening. Take videos of them to present to LE even though there is a very slim chance they will be interested in following up. Matter of priorities and public image.
Once the vehicle has been BREACHED... glass is broken THROUGH, that's the same as IN. At that point, it is reasonable to be in fear of grievous bodily harm. There's now NOTHING between you and that club or brick.

To me... as soon as the glass breaks, it's go time.

Are you going to wait until they actually hit you in the head before you defend yourself? Are you going to wait until they "enter" the car with the CINDER BLOCK or REBAR?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,063 Posts
Shoot until the threat is neutralized.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rick McC.

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,265 Posts
OK, Quick question about the video, above. The two "rioters" were atttempting to break the driver's and passengers window (thank goodness neither had a spring loaded center punch, which I'd expect the ANTIFA people to be able to acquire). However, the back window was already completely out. It had been "breached." Would that have met the criteria for "breaking in" and allowed the use of deadly force, or would the driver/passenger have to wait until either the windshield or side windows closest to them had been "breached" in order to use deadly force? Although they (rioters) did shatter the glass, it would seem they did not conmpletely take out either side door window.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,770 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
OK, Quick question about the video, above. The two "rioters" were atttempting to break the driver's and passengers window (thank goodness neither had a spring loaded center punch, which I'd expect the ANTIFA people to be able to acquire). However, the back window was already completely out. It had been "breached." Would that have met the criteria for "breaking in" and allowed the use of deadly force, or would the driver/passenger have to wait until either the windshield or side windows closest to them had been "breached" in order to use deadly force? Although they (rioters) did shatter the glass, it would seem they did not conmpletely take out either side door window.
Ummm.... no. In the first 4 seconds of the video, the thug DID break the driver's window. Then the video cuts to a SECOND car with a female pounding on an intact driver's window.

The degree to which the window is broken doesn't matter. What matters is whether it's "reasonable" for the driver or passengers to FEAR for their lives?

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously said, "Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife."

Your notion of establishing some arbitrary criteria or litmus test as to the degree of window breakage is effectively doing what Justice Holmes said cannot be demanded.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,265 Posts
Ummm.... no. In the first 4 seconds of the video, the thug DID break the driver's window. Then the video cuts to a SECOND car with a female pounding on an intact driver's window.

The degree to which the window is broken doesn't matter. What matters is whether it's "reasonable" for the driver or passengers to FEAR for their lives?

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously said, "Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife."

Your notion of establishing some arbitrary criteria or litmus test as to the degree of window breakage is effectively doing what Justice Holmes said cannot be demanded.
I wasn't suggesting anything... I was simply asking a question because I didn't know the answer. Yes, the first thug shattered the first driver's window and created a small hole in it. My question was, "would that action be sufficient for a reasonable person to become fearful for their life or serious bodily injury..." and thus authorizing deadly force? It would seem you believe it would be. Fair enough. In the end, I don't think it matters what either of us think... what matters is what the prosecutor thinks...

Now, on to the second car. The back window was fully broken but neither front door window was, that I could see. Would you believe any passengers in the front seat could sufficiently fear for their lives and use deadly force?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,770 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
I wasn't suggesting anything... I was simply asking a question because I didn't know the answer. Yes, the first thug shattered the first driver's window and created a small hole in it. My question was, "would that action be sufficient for a reasonable person to become fearful for their life or serious bodily injury..." and thus authorizing deadly force? It would seem you believe it would be. Fair enough. In the end, I don't think it matters what either of us think... what matters is what the prosecutor thinks...

Now, on to the second car. The back window was fully broken but neither front door window was, that I could see. Would you believe any passengers in the front seat could sufficiently fear for their lives and use deadly force?
What really matters is what the jury thinks (if it gets that far).

But, I will posit that the size of the hole in the window means NOTHING. What matters is someone is TRYING to breach the car. Castle Doctrine applies. To suggest that the size of the hole or the degree to which the perp enters the car's interior space would be akin to suggesting that a home invader with one foot through the door is different than an invader that is 10 steps inside the door. What matters is whether the victim has a REASONABLE fear of grievous bodily harm or death. And, with Castle Doctrine, that reasonableness is pretty much legally assumed.

That's how I understand it based on my study of the subject.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,793 Posts
Chapter 776.013
(2) 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 or threatening to use 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 or threatened was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,770 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Chapter 776.013
(2) 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 or threatening to use 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 or threatened 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
Bingo. Thanks for finding and posting that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,876 Posts
If anyone is attempting to beat their way into my vehicle; I’m scared $hitless and will react accordingly. It doesn’t matter what window it is, how big the hole is, or if they’ve even successfully breached it yet.

Us old folks can’t be too careful about getting cut with broken glass, or even taking the chance of any getting into our iced tea.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
26,364 Posts
Chapter 776.013
(2) 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 or threatening to use 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 or threatened was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or...
This precisely! (y)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,265 Posts
Chapter 776.013
(2) 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 or threatening to use 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 or threatened was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or...
This would clarify it! Thanks! (y)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,265 Posts
What really matters is what the jury thinks (if it gets that far).
Which it won't, unless the prosecutor is thinking first....

But, I will posit that the size of the hole in the window means NOTHING. What matters is someone is TRYING to breach the car. Castle Doctrine applies. To suggest that the size of the hole or the degree to which the perp enters the car's interior space would be akin to suggesting that a home invader with one foot through the door is different than an invader that is 10 steps inside the door. What matters is whether the victim has a REASONABLE fear of grievous bodily harm or death. And, with Castle Doctrine, that reasonableness is pretty much legally assumed.

That's how I understand it based on my study of the subject.
And for which @TitleIIToyLover has clarified.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,770 Posts
Discussion Starter #18 (Edited)
Yeah... it's one thing if the thug is busting out your headlight or beating on your fender. (Though even that could be argued as an assault, if you're inside the car.) It's quite another if he's busting out the window that's less than 12 inches away from your head with a piece of rebar.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,240 Posts
Sorry to say this but
I would just not do anything at all and let it go.
These people now have a good reason to hate me because a month ago I was not a prejudged person.
Now a lot of that has been changed by the Thug & looters actions.
I'm not saying that all Black people make me sick to look at, but when I see them destroying and looting it makes me want to PUKE.
Some of them being interviewed on the Bloomberg & Soroos propaganda news are really pooping out of their hateful mouths.
Now I have to hear they want to eliminate Police Forces.DUH!
I wonder how that will work out for anyone.

I can't understand why anyone would still want to be a Police officer now anyway.
One guy on the poop news this morning want the Police to never use tear gas.
Antifa, Black Lives Matter and the burners and looters need consequences for what they are being paid to do by Bloomberg & Soros and both of these America haters need to be in prison.
Ronnie

My flame suit is on and zipped up tight so go ahead and scold me
 
  • Like
Reactions: johnnie52

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,770 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
Sorry to say this but
I would just not do anything at all and let it go.
These people now have a good reason to hate me because a month ago I was not a prejudged person.
Now a lot of that has been changed by the Thug & looters actions.
Ummm.... what?
 
1 - 20 of 77 Posts
Top