People's Rights To Self Protection

[Bonnie]

New bill protects attack victims’ rights

The Florida House has now passed a new bill that would allow you to shoot a carjacker or a violent intruder with less fear of being prosecuted.


The bill has plenty of supporters both in Tallahassee and in Jacksonville, and expands the rights of people to shoot or stab someone who threatens them with violence.

Currently, the law says citizens have a duty to retreat in confrontations that could turn violent.

Resident Ted Hires says he never thought twice about fighting back after three men robbed the headquarters of his business, Sonny's Bar-B-Que.

"You know its one of those things where at the time you do what you feel like you need to do," says Hires.

Hires says he is a supporter of the self-defense bill working its way through the state legislature. He believes the bill will allow crime victims to meet force with force.

After hires was robbed he chased after the suspects down Lane Avenue. A gun battle followed for which Ted Hires was almost prosecuted.

“They saw me following along behind them,” says Hires, “and they came out of the sun roof and started shooting at me. It was not like I jumped in a vehicle and said, ‘Hey I'm going to have a gun battle.’ My only thought was just to follow along behind them, [and] tell police where they were at."

Hires says he is not a vigilante. He just wants to give law abiding citizens more rights.


Now that this legislation has passed the House and Senate, all that remains is for Governor Bush to sign it, which he has said he will. Then the legislation would go into affect October 1.

http://www.fox30online.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=3825DA0F-C0EF-4DBB-92DA-7D3FE372D778

In my state NJ If someone enters your home in order to be able to use a gun to protect yourself and not be prosecuted, you must first tell the criminal to stop, then you must run away from them and hide, then and only then do you have the right to shoot to protect yourself and family. I believe NJ is one of the few states to have this ridiculous law in place.
My question is at what point should citizens be allowed to protect family and home????

 

[William Joyce]

Good for Florida. Of course, it goes without saying that there aren't any white carjackers or home invaders. We need laws like this because we live in a Third World country now.

 

[KarlMarx]

New bill protects attack victims’ rights





http://www.fox30online.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=3825DA0F-C0EF-4DBB-92DA-7D3FE372D778

In my state NJ If someone enters your home in order to be able to use a gun to protect yourself and not be prosecuted, you must first tell the criminal to stop, then you must run away from them and hide, then and only then do you have the right to shoot to protect yourself and family. I believe NJ is one of the few states to have this ridiculous law in place.
My question is at what point should citizens be allowed to protect family and home????

Darn... you beat me to it! My bet is that the crime rate in Florida plummets faster than a TV network market share as a result....

Then.... other states adopt the same law and the crime rate plummets in those states too.....

Finally.... the ACLU will get on this claiming that it violates someone's rights...... (yeah, like criminals who like to mug old ladies and rape women)....

 

[Bonnie]

Darn... you beat me to it! My bet is that the crime rate in Florida plummets faster than a TV network market share as a result....

Then.... other states adopt the same law and the crime rate plummets in those states too.....

Finally.... the ACLU will get on this claiming that it violates someone's rights...... (yeah, like criminals who like to mug old ladies and rape women)....

You know Karl this NJ law is a real eye opener for me, It's my understanding that most states especially those out West and South are much more lenient in this regard.

I wonder why Libs are so enthralled in seeing cops do clean up work and put nice yellow tape around crime scenes??

 

[Shattered]

Good for Florida. Of course, it goes without saying that there aren't any white carjackers or home invaders. We need laws like this because we live in a Third World country now.

That supposed to be a joke?

 

[pegwinn]

The second quote in my signature is the law in Texas as long as I am willing to look you in the eye and swear that the other guy started it. You reallydo not want to B&E in an occupied house. Between the dogs and the shotguns, it just aint healthy.

 

[5stringJeff]

Good for Florida. Of course, it goes without saying that there aren't any white carjackers or home invaders. We need laws like this because we live in a Third World country now.

Of course... there was no crime in "white society" before other races got involved...

Sometimes the idiocy you post in here is so inane that I wonder whether you actually believe this crap, or if you're just trolling.

 

[Merlin1047]

In my state NJ If someone enters your home in order to be able to use a gun to protect yourself and not be prosecuted, you must first tell the criminal to stop, then you must run away from them and hide, then and only then do you have the right to shoot to protect yourself and family. I believe NJ is one of the few states to have this ridiculous law in place.
My question is at what point should citizens be allowed to protect family and home????

Bonnie, laws like the NJ outrage that you cited are not nearly as rare as they should be. My personal opinion is that attitudes and laws such as this are the result of incompetent morons populating the various district attorney offices in these jurisdictions. They are too lame to get a conviction on the real criminal, so they go after the victim who had the temerity to defend himself. I have held the belief for many years that your average district attorney cares nothing about truth and justice or guilt or innocence- he simply cares about his win-lose ratio and about putting another notch on his briefcase.

The other part of the equation is the creeping lib propensity for ever more big brother government. Libs see it as the function of the police force to protect us. Never mind that in the average big city the police dispatcher expects you simply to die quietly while they put you on hold. They'll stop by sometime to remove your corpse and to fill out the report. Libs cannot fathom a simple fact of life - there will NEVER be enough cops to protect every one of us individually from crime. That's not a criticism of police, just a simple statement of logistics. Since even the best police in the world cannot protect us, then it seems to me that not only is it our right, but it is our duty to protect ourselves.

 

[Merlin1047]

Good for Florida. Of course, it goes without saying that there aren't any white carjackers or home invaders. We need laws like this because we live in a Third World country now.

Well William, since the Jews really run this country, why don't we write them and see if they can exert their influence with those non-white carjackers and home invaders?

Don't know about you, but every time I've been ripped off by some dishonest scum, his skin was as white as mine.

 

[Bonnie]

Bonnie, laws like the NJ outrage that you cited are not nearly as rare as they should be. My personal opinion is that attitudes and laws such as this are the result of incompetent morons populating the various district attorney offices in these jurisdictions. They are too lame to get a conviction on the real criminal, so they go after the victim who had the temerity to defend himself. I have held the belief for many years that your average district attorney cares nothing about truth and justice or guilt or innocence- he simply cares about his win-lose ratio and about putting another notch on his briefcase.

The other part of the equation is the creeping lib propensity for ever more big brother government. Libs see it as the function of the police force to protect us. Never mind that in the average big city the police dispatcher expects you simply to die quietly while they put you on hold. They'll stop by sometime to remove your corpse and to fill out the report. Libs cannot fathom a simple fact of life - there will NEVER be enough cops to protect every one of us individually from crime. That's not a criticism of police, just a simple statement of logistics. Since even the best police in the world cannot protect us, then it seems to me that not only is it our right, but it is our duty to protect ourselves.

I think that sums it all up very well. I knew that anti-gun lobbyists had the upper hand when it came to carrying handguns in public, but I never figured I wouldn't be able to protect myself in my own home, that was the last bastian I hoped would never be invaded by liberals. Anything else Libs want to control?

 

[NATO AIR]

Thank God I'm from Florida, I can defend myself unlike in say San Francisco or NJ.

We have to help the citizens in the liberal states fight to get their rights to self-defense back, perhaps a massive NRA recruitment drive in the inner cities especially in places like NYC, LA, Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, D.C. Inform these folks about how the liberals want to take away their rights to defend themselves against gangbangers, drug lords and other common hoods.

 

[insein]

Good for Florida. Of course, it goes without saying that there aren't any white carjackers or home invaders. We need laws like this because we live in a Third World country now.

Funny you should say that joyce. The other day i had a middle aged white man get out of his pickup at a red light, come up to my window and punch me in the face for what he perceived as me cutting him off. He took all my patience in the world for me to not get out of my car and beat him senseless right there in traffic. I live in PA and figured if the cops came and saw me beating on a 45 yar old man in the middle of traffic, i'd be the one to goto jail. So i pulled into a parking lot expecting him to follow me and got out of my car ready to confront him. The bitch took off.

Sure he didnt car jack me, but under this law, id have been well within my right to stab this a-hole. How do i know whether he wanted to kill me or not? Too bad its PA and not florida. I would have to have been damn near dead for me to fight back legally here.

 

[nosarcasm]

Thank God I'm from Florida, I can defend myself unlike in say San Francisco or NJ.

We have to help the citizens in the liberal states fight to get their rights to self-defense back, perhaps a massive NRA recruitment drive in the inner cities especially in places like NYC, LA, Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, D.C. Inform these folks about how the liberals want to take away their rights to defend themselves against gangbangers, drug lords and other common hoods.

Well good you had that much of a self restraint.

William Joyce you should work on your perspective.
If a white man rapes children it does not make every white
man a child rapist. Your generalization of blacks go too far and
you should reconsider your viewpoint.

As a part of the Arian race I am superior and you have
to follow my advice,

 

[NATO AIR]

Well where William Joyce goes off to criticize and demean minorities, I'm going off to stand up for them. After all, the people in the suburbs in these liberal states are not in near as much danger as the (mostly) minorities in the inner cities who are under constant threat from some menace to society, being vastly underprotected by underfunded police forces that can't stop the criminals by and large. Yet these liberals pretend to give a damn about minorities and poor people. Its such bullshit.

 

[ReillyT]

I think that sums it all up very well. I knew that anti-gun lobbyists had the upper hand when it came to carrying handguns in public, but I never figured I wouldn't be able to protect myself in my own home, that was the last bastian I hoped would never be invaded by liberals. Anything else Libs want to control?

In most states you never have to retreat from your home. New Jersey must just be an odd state. If you live there, contact your legislature and have the silly law changed.

 

[ReillyT]

Actually, the New Jersey law is not that silly.

Defense of Real Property (Your Home) and Criminal Liability

A section of our criminal law provides that:

"the use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable when the actor is in possession or control of premises or is licensed or privileged to be thereon and he reasonably believes such force necessary to prevent or terminate what he reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by such other person in or upon such premises."

A person commits a criminal trespass if, knowing that (he/she) is not licensed or privileged to do so, (he/she) enters or surreptitiously remains in any structure or separately secured or occupied portion thereof.Our criminal law further provides that, in defense of your home:

"the use of force is justifiable...only if the actor first requests the person against whom such force is used to desist from his interference with the property, unless the actor reasonably believes that (a) such request would be useless; (b) it would be dangerous to himself or another person to make the request or (c) substantial harm will be done to the physical condition of the property which is sought to be protected before the request can effectively be made."

"The use of deadly force is not justifiable in the defense of premises unless the actor reasonably believes that:

(a) The person against whom the force is used is attempting to dispossess him of his dwelling otherwise than under a claim of right to its possession; or

(b) The person against whom the force is used is attempting to commit or consummate arson, burglary, robbery or other criminal theft or property destruction; except that

(c) Deadly force does not become justifiable under subsections (a) and (b) unless

(i) The person against whom it is employed has employed or threatened deadly force against or in the presence of the actor; or

(ii) The use of force other than deadly force to prevent the commission or the consummation of the crime would expose the actor or another in his presence to substantial danger of serious bodily harm."

These are taken from portions of the Model Jury Charges - Criminal, Third Edition, published by the New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education. It should be noted that these are defenses to criminal charges which will be brought against you if you defended yourself.

The link below is to a New Jersey lawyer's website where I got this information.
http://www.njlaws.com/self-defense.htm

So basically, you can use deadly force in your home in New Jersey if (1) the trespassing person won't leave when you ask him (or if it would be silly to try to ask him), (2) he is going to commit arson, burglary (which usually includes any intent to commit a felony in another's residence), robbery or other criminal theft or property destruction, and (3) and the trespassor has threatend you or any other less-deadly application of force by the homeowner to prevent commission of the crime would expose him/her or his/her family to a substantial danger of serious bodily harm.

That is how I read it. That isn't too wacky. Better than I feared.

 

[Annie]

Why start a new thread, when I can pick up this old one? :happy2:

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_05_15-2005_05_21.shtml#1116516262

I'm not sure if the right post will come to the top, it's 'David Kopel' that wrote this:

Florida's New Self-Defense Law: Florida Governor Jeb Bush recently signed Senate Bill 436, which expands and clarifies Floridians’ self-defense rights against violent attackers. The bill was the creation of former NRA President Marion Hammer, who is also head of Unified Sportsmen of Florida, the state’s major pro-gun group. The NRA has announced that it plans to take SB 436 national, and urge other states to adopt similar measures.



Previous Florida programs created by Marion Hammer have done very well in other states. In 1988, her lobbying led Florida to enact “Shall Issue” concealed handgun licensing legislation—so that any law-abiding adult with a clean record and who passes a safety training class may obtain a permit to carry a handgun for lawful protection. Before 1988, only a handful of states had Shall Issue laws; now, only a little more than a dozen states do not have such laws.



Similarly, Hammer invented the “Eddie Eagle” gun safety program, which trains elementary school-age children not to touch a gun unless they are being supervised by a responsible adult. Eddie Eagle has been taught to millions of children, has won an award from the National Safety Council, and has been lauded by state legislature and city councils all over America.



So Florida-style self-defense rights may be coming to your state soon.

[...]

The operative part of the law begins by setting forth the standard for use of deadly force against an attack in one’s home or one’s automobile:

Section 1. Section 776.013, Florida Statutes, is created to read:
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, 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 defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.


In other words, a person may use deadly force against someone who unlawfully and forcefully enters a person’s home or vehicle. A victim may also use deadly force against a criminal who attempts to force a person out of her vehicle or home. Thus, if someone kicks down your front door in the middle of the night, or attempts to carjack you, you can use firearm or other deadly weapon to protect yourself. You do not have to worry that a prosecutor might second-guess your decision, and claim that you should have used lesser force against the violent intruder.

[...]

 

[Bonnie]

Why start a new thread, when I can pick up this old one? :happy2:

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_05_15-2005_05_21.shtml#1116516262

I'm not sure if the right post will come to the top, it's 'David Kopel' that wrote this:

Sounds like good legislation to me, if it ever comes to fruition in NJ I'll keel over from shock though :shocked:

 

[manu1959]

as my father (the criminal defence attorney) once told me ... kill them in the house (drag them inside if you have to) ... make sure they are dead .... then call the police ... then call your attorney ... do not answer any questions until your attorney shows up ....

 

[Johnney]

Funny you should say that joyce. The other day i had a middle aged white man get out of his pickup at a red light, come up to my window and punch me in the face for what he perceived as me cutting him off. He took all my patience in the world for me to not get out of my car and beat him senseless right there in traffic. I live in PA and figured if the cops came and saw me beating on a 45 yar old man in the middle of traffic, i'd be the one to goto jail. So i pulled into a parking lot expecting him to follow me and got out of my car ready to confront him. The bitch took off.

Sure he didnt car jack me, but under this law, id have been well within my right to stab this a-hole. How do i know whether he wanted to kill me or not? Too bad its PA and not florida. I would have to have been damn near dead for me to fight back legally here.

all i have to say is your a better man than i. he would have been bleeding inthe streets if it was me