PDA

View Full Version : The other sunshine state. incredible!


MP301
01-04-2009, 1:51 AM
This should be the rule and not the exception in every state! Anybody know if the law makers in Florida responsible for making enacting this law might be interested in relocatiing to CA?

This sums it up....

http://www.gunlaws.com/FloridaCastleDoctrine.htm

The Actual Statute

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0776/ch0776.htm

Q&A from the State of Flrida

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html

bwiese
01-04-2009, 3:15 PM
Why do they need to relocate to CA? They wouldn't get elected anyway.

And, finally, Florida catches up to CA - since CA has had, at least since mid-1980s, what is in effect a fairly reasonable castle doctrine codified in 198.5.

Don't shoot someone stealing your VCR or repossessing your car after 6pm (Texas!) -- but if a bad guy is inside your home and you're in legit fear of life & limb for you or your family, there's no BS about 'duty to retreat'.

nick
01-04-2009, 3:29 PM
It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them.

Not quite the same.

MP301
01-04-2009, 10:50 PM
Yeah, Nicks right! Thats the part that I was most impressed with that Ca doesnt have.

In Ca, it seems you will more likely be prosecuted then not, depending on jurisdiction, and you are almost certain to be sued in civil court.

bwiese
01-04-2009, 10:58 PM
That can happen over there too.
Just because a law exists doesn't mean a lawyer won't sue.
Just because you shoot someone in your home in FL, doesn't mean a DA won't try to prosecute.

Functionally the CA law does pretty well.

Thinking you shoot an intruder and won't have any legal involvement in non-CA states is pure naivete.

MP301
01-05-2009, 3:08 AM
I agree for sure Bill, but my understanding is that if the DA chooses not to prosecute, there is no avenue after that for a civil suit against a person. If this is true, then that differs greatly from CA where your probably in the 90% or more range on getting sued in civil court, no matter what the DA decides to do.

Paladin
01-05-2009, 8:17 AM
Another important difference: FL's Castle Doctrine applies *outside* the home, to wherever you are legally entitled to be (e.g., walking on the side walk, driving your car, etc.). Thus, getting their (i.e., the NRA's Model Castle Doctrine, http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=188), in CA is VITALLY important if you plan on carrying (OC or CCW) and/or if we plan on taking CA to "Shall Issue" of CCW permits.

http://www.nraila.org/images/cd.jpg

bwiese
01-05-2009, 9:54 AM
We have a reasonable sufficient castle doctrine now.
It's actually worked pretty well for good shoots.

Trying to fix it now in the CA legislative environment is like gilding a lily while riding a horse. I think other things need to be fixed first.

Paladin
01-05-2009, 10:29 AM
We have a reasonable sufficient castle doctrine now.
It's actually worked pretty well for good shoots.

Trying to fix it now in the CA legislative environment is like gilding a lily while riding a horse. I think other things need to be fixed first.Don't get me wrong -- we do have a very good Castle Doctrine given the composition of our legislature. But we do need to change it if we go to "Shall Issue" since the current law does nothing to help Good Guys/Gals when they are away from home.

Unfortunately, I don't see Castle Doctrine reform realistically happening for at least 5 - 10 yrs after we get "Shall Issue," even w/the redistricting reform proposition that passed last year. So, while it is vital, it is not a priority for the foreseeable future. :mad:

M. Sage
01-05-2009, 2:52 PM
Don't get me wrong -- we do have a very good Castle Doctrine given the composition of our legislature. But we do need to change it if we go to "Shall Issue" since the current law does nothing to help Good Guys/Gals when they are away from home.

Unfortunately, I don't see Castle Doctrine reform realistically happening for at least 5 - 10 yrs after we get "Shall Issue," even w/the redistricting reform proposition that passed last year. So, while it is vital, it is not a priority for the foreseeable future. :mad:

There is no duty to retreat from any place you have a legal right to be, inside or outside your home in CA. The only difference between home and away in that section is that you have a presumed fear if you're in your home and someone breaks in (or if they've already broken in and you come home to a surprise). That's it. That's the only difference.

Rivers
01-05-2009, 3:07 PM
We have a reasonable sufficient castle doctrine now.
It's actually worked pretty well for good shoots.

Trying to fix it now in the CA legislative environment is like gilding a lily while riding a horse. I think other things need to be fixed first.

With all due respect, you can have the most justifiable shoot possible in CA and still get your butt sued.

Case in point: recent shooting in Stockton where a neighbor hears his female neighbor being assaulted by her (known troublemaker) ex-boyfriend. Neighbor goes to her aid, gets shot in foot by ex-BF, neighbor returns fire and seriously wounds assailant (who may have later died from wounds.) Called a good shoot by police and DA, no charges.

However, in CA, the estate of the dead BG can still file a civil suit as there is NO immunity against civil claims. It will not be automatically dismissed meaning the good Samaritan gets to hire an attorney to defend his action. This is a specific and distinct issue that is not addressed in CA's version. You can probably thank the very lucrative campaign donations of the attorneys' lobby. But it still isn't right or fair.

Calling CA's "castle doctrine" "reasonably sufficient" is surprising. I honestly expected more from one who has been so "on the ball" in other topics.

Paladin
01-05-2009, 3:52 PM
There is no duty to retreat from any place you have a legal right to be, inside or outside your home in CA. The only difference between home and away in that section is that you have a presumed fear if you're in your home and someone breaks in (or if they've already broken in and you come home to a surprise). That's it. That's the only difference.Wrong.

If you look at the NRA webpage I linked in my 1st post above, you'll read:

Florida's "Castle Doctrine" law does the following:

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, so the occupant may use force, including deadly force, against that person.

Two: It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others.

Three: It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force. It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them. In short, it gives rights back to law-abiding people and forces judges and prosecutors to focus on protecting victims.

So, the FL Castle Doctrine law also: (1) extends the presumption of evil intent on part of a BG breaking into your vehicle (e.g., carjacking). Shifting these legal burdens of proof off of the GG and onto the BG or prosecutor is very important.

(2) Currently in CA, BGs or their families (e.g., BG dies) can drag you into civil court ($$$) even if you were justified in shooting the BG! The FL law puts a stop to this kind of "legal extortion." Without the FL law, many would probably settle out of court (i.e., pay the BG or his family a few tens of thousands of dollars) just to save the time, money and stress of defending themselves even in a good shoot.

Quake0
01-05-2009, 5:33 PM
Another important difference: FL's Castle Doctrine applies *outside* the home, to wherever you are legally entitled to be (e.g., walking on the side walk, driving your car, etc.). Thus, getting their (i.e., the NRA's Model Castle Doctrine, http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=188), in CA is VITALLY important if you plan on carrying (OC or CCW) and/or if we plan on taking CA to "Shall Issue" of CCW permits.

http://www.nraila.org/images/cd.jpg

I can not see any reason for this not being implemented in all states.