Florida Concealed Carry banner
1 - 20 of 42 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,522 Posts
If I catch a burglar, The Burglar will have 911 called on them. Ain't no way I am going to be shooting a burglar even if they are carrying a gun.
This is why it is very important to always carry your cell phone or house phone in your home no matter what room you are in.
You pay for these services through your tax & phone bill. (((USE THEM FIRST)))
Be smart,
Hide in a closet and dial 911 and the Police will be there as soon as they are finished the coffee & donuts.
Ronnie
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,877 Posts
I’m awake so here goes: I am inherently suspicious of taking legal advice from non-lawyers as many of you may have noticed. The guy gives some generic advice that may or may not apply in many states and I am also suspicious of USCCA because I get more solicitations from them than from people trying to sell me an extended warranty on my car.

Here’s the way generally it works in Florida chapter 776.013 Florida statutes does not say anything about castle doctrine it is entitled “home protection, use of force, presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.” What it provides is that if you are not using the home for a criminal enterprise, if someone breaks in the home or tries to kidnap somebody you were justified in using force up to and including lethal force.You are presumed to be in fear of death or great bodily harm.

Castle doctrine comes from old English law and really addresses a duty to retreat. The old saying was that you had a duty to retreat up to the wall of your castle/your home.

Here’s kind of a Laymans explanation of how it works gone if you wake up in the middle of the night and someone has crashed your front door, You have the right to believe they are up to no good and you are presumed to be in fear of death or great bodily harm. There are exceptions, if the one you shot was a police officer and you knew, is the father of a child that he’s trying to remove from the house or things like that it doesn’t apply.

What advice do I give people: if you are armed, barricade yourself in a room or run to your children’s room barricade yourself, call 911 and wait. Everybody talks tough but shooting somebody is something that will stick with you forever and it gets a little worse trying to get to sleep sometimes as you age. If you see the light go out in somebody’s eyes, you will never forget that moment. Next, if you surprise the burglar and he runs, let him go unless he’s carrying your Chihuahua at which point I would shoot him regardless of the law. Don’t shoot them in the back in other words.

Next, if you shoot him, if he goes down quickly check the area for accomplices and either leave him alone or put pressure on the wound. There was a case I knew of locally where castle doctrine protected a local homeowner up until the point that he delivered the coup de grace by shooting the the burglar directly in the forehead as he laid on the kitchen floor still alive from the other wound. The homeowner went to jail.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,877 Posts
What’s the difference between castle doctrine and pure self-defense?

Case in point, Seminole county Florida many years back. Two thugs crashed into a dope dealers house holding the dope dealer and his friend at gunpoint in the living room. One of the robbers said “where is the dope?“ The homeowner said “it’s in the bedroom“ the robber said “take me to it“ they entered the bedroom, the homeowner, still at gunpoint said it’s under the mattress on the opposite side of the bed from the robber.

After the robber told him to get the dope, he picked up the mattress concealing himself for a second, grabbed a 357 magnum and shot the robber directly in the head as he dropped the mattress. DRT. Robber number two heard the shot and assumed robber number one shot the homeowner so he came running back to the bedroom. He too got a 357 magnum round delivered to the head. Also DRT.

The dopers were worried that eventually somebody would notice the two bodies hanging around cluttering up the place. They put them in the back of a small pick up drove them into the woods, hosed them down with gasoline and lit them on fire. Somebody called the fire department which precipitated the arrest. The fire department was a little surprised when they happened upon the scene.

Castle doctrine did not protect them because the house was used for a criminal enterprise. Ultimately it was ruled pure self-defense since the robbers were armed and the dopers were charged with the unlawful disposal of a human body.

I guess the lesson here is when you were planning to rob dopers you might engage them in conversation and ask “do you like guns, do you ever go to the range and practice?”
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
86 Posts
" In Florida, these “Castle Doctrine” type laws are implemented in section 776.013 of Title XLVI, and include a powerful “presumption of reasonableness.” Florida “Castle Doctrine” laws extend to a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle. "

"SECTION 013Home protection; use or threatened use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.

776.013 Home protection; use or threatened use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person who is in a dwelling or residence in which the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and use or threaten to use:
(a) Nondeadly force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force; or
(b) Deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use 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.
(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
(b) The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(3) The presumption set forth in subsection (2) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened 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 threatened; or
(c) The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force is engaged in a criminal activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further a criminal activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened 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 or threatening to use force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(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."

FYI for those who live in Florida
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
86 Posts
If I catch a burglar, The Burglar will have 911 called on them. Ain't no way I am going to be shooting a burglar even if they are carrying a gun.
This is why it is very important to always carry your cell phone or house phone in your home no matter what room you are in.
You pay for these services through your tax & phone bill. (((USE THEM FIRST)))
Be smart,
Hide in a closet and dial 911 and the Police will be there as soon as they are finished the coffee & donuts.
Ronnie
To each their own. Odds are once I have clearly identified that the person is an intruder, I'd make a different choice.

Besides, I do not usually know where my phone is. I always know where my gun is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,622 Posts
The safest rule is always DON’T PARSE THE LAW. ONLY SHOOT IF YOU ARE LEGITIMATELY IN FEAR OF LIFE AND LIMB FOR YOURSELF OR OTHER LEGSL OCCUPANTS. Never kill someone “‘cause it’s legal”. Never hesitate to consider the legality IF your fears are legitimate. :cool:
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
31,670 Posts
The safest rule is always DON’T PARSE THE LAW. ONLY SHOOT IF YOU ARE LEGITIMATELY IN FEAR OF LIFE AND LIMB FOR YOURSELF OR OTHER LEGSL OCCUPANTS. Never kill someone “‘cause it’s legal”. Never hesitate to consider the legality IF your fears are legitimate. :cool:
This precisely! 👍👍
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shark1007

·
Registered
Joined
·
86 Posts
The safest rule is always DON’T PARSE THE LAW. ONLY SHOOT IF YOU ARE LEGITIMATELY IN FEAR OF LIFE AND LIMB FOR YOURSELF OR OTHER LEGSL OCCUPANTS. Never kill someone “‘cause it’s legal”. Never hesitate to consider the legality IF your fears are legitimate. :cool:
The law explained why Shark1007 example played out the way it did. It's also a way to judge the video.

Understanding the law can also help shape our choices, options and actions. Take your example of "ONLY SHOOT IF YOU ARE LEGITIMATELY IN FEAR OF LIFE AND LIMB".

You can legitimately be in fear for your life and limb trespassing on someone else's property or when you are the one that provoked the situation?

Guess where the odds of you ending up in the state of Florida are for using a firearm in either of those cases?

We all look at things differently. Knowing the law is a good thing, from my perspective.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,730 Posts
To each their own. Odds are once I have clearly identified that the person is an intruder, I'd make a different choice.

Besides, I do not usually know where my phone is. I always know where my gun is.
I prefer Shark’s Cliff notes. He covered everything succinctly that’s in your longer “cut-n-paste.”
I had to wade through the relevant FS and FAC too many times to count before I retired.
I’ll take an attorney’s guidance over a lay persons opinions or cut-n-paste all day every day. Now the choice of attorney can make quite a difference…
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
86 Posts
I prefer Shark’s Cliff notes. He covered everything succinctly that’s in your longer “cut-n-paste.”
I had to wade through the relevant FS and FAC too many times to count before I retired.
I’ll take an attorney’s guidance over a lay persons opinions or cut-n-paste all day every day. Now the choice of attorney can make quite a difference…
and?

I've never been into cliff notes. There's usually something in the test they miss.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
86 Posts
The right to self defense is absolute. It was granted to us by our Maker. The laws created by man put specific limits to it. Stand Your Ground,, 'Castle Doctrine' are such legal limits.

That doesn't mean one must limit themselves to legal self defense. Life is full of choices.

But I'll be darned if I understand how a post on the laws directly related to the video or asking questions about the legal implications of just using fear as a gauge to when to squeeze a trigger are bad things.

Someone should explain it to me though. I have no problem with suggestions or criticism.

I believed that one of the reasons this board existed was to share information and perspectives. If I'm wrong about that just let me know.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,622 Posts
The law explained why Shark1007 example played out the way it did. It's also a way to judge the video.

Understanding the law can also help shape our choices, options and actions. Take your example of "ONLY SHOOT IF YOU ARE LEGITIMATELY IN FEAR OF LIFE AND LIMB".

You can legitimately be in fear for your life and limb trespassing on someone else's property or when you are the one that provoked the situation?

Guess where the odds of you ending up in the state of Florida are for using a firearm in either of those cases?

We all look at things differently. Knowing the law is a good thing, from my perspective.
Totally silly response. Of course you are violating the law IF you are already committing an offense and are shooting while in the act. Even so, your survival would trump the fact you are illegally using your weapon. Of course, you are a criminal in the first place so would be acting in character.:cautious:

My original post is about “mindset” and is the mantra of most EXPERIENCED LEOs and CC licensees. ;)

As to explaining it to you, IMHO, there is no legitimate reason to take a human life if not protecting your own or removing imminent danger (of a serious attack) on another innocent person. Stopping property crime or presuming and preempting future behavior goes totally against our civil values, both legally and morally. ”Fear“ as used here doesn’t mean a state of trepidation but rather a legitimate belief that catastrophic injury is likely to occur.
Never make a shooting decision based on the belief you COULD legally but rather that you SHOULD morally. End of explanation. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,877 Posts
I think the explanation given is even if the law gives the legal justification to use lethal force, a persons default position ought to be back to the “I had no other choice but to shoot”

Criticizing no one in particular, there are too many people out there I think who are taking a position “if you come in my house I will blow you away“ and, when the rubber meets the road, they may actually do something like that. Sometimes discretion is the better part of valor and if it means holding up in your bedroom armed after calling 911, that’s probably a wise choice. There are of course exceptions.

Sometimes you never know what you’ll do in an emergency. If I heard someone downstairs in my house I know that would be an emotional upheaval between the remnants of my old macho ego and my better sense. Assuming, of course I could get past the six dogs. If someone crashed the front door while we are watching TV, then you’d have no choice but to act.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
86 Posts
I think the explanation given is even if the law gives the legal justification to use lethal force, a persons default position ought to be back to the “I had no other choice but to shoot”

Criticizing no one in particular, there are too many people out there I think who are taking a position “if you come in my house I will blow you away“ and, when the rubber meets the road, they may actually do something like that. Sometimes discretion is the better part of valor and if it means holding up in your bedroom armed after calling 911, that’s probably a wise choice. There are of course exceptions.

Sometimes you never know what you’ll do in an emergency. If I heard someone downstairs in my house I know that would be an emotional upheaval between the remnants of my old macho ego and my better sense. Assuming, of course I could get past the six dogs. If someone crashed the front door while we are watching TV, then you’d have no choice but to act.
'All human beings are born with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.'

I've held that thought near and dear since I first read our Declaration of Independence.

So then comes the question, both moral and lawful of when it's appropriate, necessary to take a human life.

My problem is that I assume everyone that legally purchased a firearm has thought that thru.

As regards the specific topic at hand:
What's the difference between a burglary and a home invasion?

In both scenarios someone has kicked in a door or broken a window and illegally entered the home.

At which point, it is the criminal's intent that differentiates the one from the other.

Having hard set 'rules' to handle a dynamic situation can be bad, though having a practiced plan can save lives. That includes nonlethal plans.

Being mentally prepared to take a human life when necessary is the only way most non sociopaths or psychopaths won't hesitate to aim and squeeze.

From my perspective, the criminal's intent will be determined when my alarm goes off and they run away, or not. At that point, the protection of my children, grandchildren and my wife takes precedence.

and Shark1007, there isn't anything wrong with finding a good comfy chair to rest the bones and letting them come to you, especially if there is a light on in the hallway so they silhouette themselves :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,877 Posts
Well, to quote Mike Tyson “everybody has a plan till they get hit in the mouth”

I can’t give you a legal distinction between burglary and home invasion other than looking at the statue on burglary. That is breaking into a home with the intention to commit a crime therein. That would typically include cutting a window or picking a lock and sneaking I see a home invasion as more like two or three guys crashing the door and rushing at you as you watch TV.

in the latter, you don’t have the ability to stay where you are and call 911, you’ve got to do something immediately or it’s too late.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,622 Posts
To my mind, a home invasion is entry by force into an occupied dwelling. Burglary, at least to me, involves stealth. In DC, Burglary 1 was when the dwelling was occupied while B2, unoccupied. Either charge might be used if the target was a business. Of course, businesses entered in daytime were more often Robberies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
I might observe that offering any opinion on a matter such as this in a public forum whose posts can be examined by a prosecutor if one is involved in a shooting mishap is highly inadvisable.

Rule one: keep your mouth shut

Just sayin'. YMMV.
 
1 - 20 of 42 Posts
Top