Homeowner Shoots Burglar, News Video Clip

[WildCat]

Interesting news story about a man who shot a burglar in the Chicago suburb of Wilmette. It seems that Wilmette bans handguns, should be interesting to see what happens w/ this. Will they ignore their own handgun ban? Or charge a wealthy (there's really no other kind in Wilmette) homeowner w/ violating the handgun law, which may well be seen as charging the victim by the citizens of the area?

Video clip here. (http://abclocal.go.com/wls/news/video/1230sbam.html)

Short summary here. (http://abclocal.go.com/wls/news/123003_ns_homeinvasion.html)

The video clip will expire after 9 or 10 days.

[aerocontrols]

Interesting case.

The DA would be an idiot to charge this guy with owning a handgun, is my guess.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by WildCat
Interesting news story about a man who shot a burglar in the Chicago suburb of Wilmette. It seems that Wilmette bans handguns, should be interesting to see what happens w/ this. Will they ignore their own handgun ban? Or charge a wealthy (there's really no other kind in Wilmette) homeowner w/ violating the handgun law, which may well be seen as charging the victim by the citizens of the area?

Video clip here. (http://abclocal.go.com/wls/news/video/1230sbam.html)

Short summary here. (http://abclocal.go.com/wls/news/123003_ns_homeinvasion.html)

The video clip will expire after 9 or 10 days.

I was raised in Wilmette and lived there most of my life. It's a nice town, not as rich as you've probably heard, especially compared to the enclaves north and west of there.

The handgun ban has been around a long, long time, but I remember that no one took it seriously. There were easy ways to skirt it - like keeping your gun in a locker or safe deposit box in Glenview (until they did the same thing) - and I knew several people who kept firearms in the house. My own father kept one in the attic, stored in a box.

Wilmette's pretty activist about social issues, both liberal and conservative. I remember a few years ago Scott Turow, author and famous legal muckety-muck made a big deal about how he'd move out of town if Wilmette didn't support a big proposed school budget increase.

The vote failed, and he stayed put. Go figure.

The thing is, I imagine this will not come back to bite the owner. If anything, it may get the village to reassess the gun ban instead.

[Richard G]

This case is ripe to challenge Chicagos illegal handgun ban. Several pro-gun organizations are already jumping on this. The gun isn't illegal. The village ordinance is illegal.

[Marc]

What troubles me is the part where they talk about excessive force. The guy is in your house, you have the right to protect it and your family. But you are telling me I can't use a gun to protect them if I have it? What if the burgler has one and I don't see it, should I leave my gun behind untill I know he has one?

that to me seems stupid.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Marc
What troubles me is the part where they talk about excessive force. The guy is in your house, you have the right to protect it and your family. But you are telling me I can't use a gun to protect them if I have it? What if the burgler has one and I don't see it, should I leave my gun behind untill I know he has one?

that to me seems stupid.

If someone walks up to you on the street and says "give me your wallet or ill beat you up", you aren not allowed to respond with lethal force. You can respond in kind or run away. You are only allowed to use lethal force when your life is in peril.

Whenever someone invades your home to burglarize it, your life is considered in peril. In contrast, if you open your front door and find someone in your driveway stealing your car, you can't just shoot them. You are not allowed to use lethal force in defense of property (except in Texas). So, a person who uses lethal force is not "defending their home", they are "defending their life".

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Marc
What troubles me is the part where they talk about excessive force. The guy is in your house, you have the right to protect it and your family. But you are telling me I can't use a gun to protect them if I have it? What if the burgler has one and I don't see it, should I leave my gun behind untill I know he has one?

that to me seems stupid.

A lot of states have what are known as "castle laws". If you encounter someone out on the street and have the option of running away---you must do so rather than using deadly force to defend yourself.

Let's say you were sitting in a parked car----engine's running--nobody's blocking your way--when a man with a knife raps on your window. While you have a right to feel that your life is threatened----you also have the ability to simply drive away.
You have a duty to retreat from the situation rather than using deadly force.

We're you to shoot a man in this situation you could wind up being charged with a crime.

On the other hand--you're home is your castle. It's considered the ultimate place of retreat. There is no other safe place to retreat to and if someones invading your ultimate refuge from danger----you can use deadly force without the requirement to retreat--even if it was possible.

That may not apply in Chicago though................

[Richard G]

DO NOT shoot them in the back if they (bad guy) are retreating. This will get you into trouble in some states. If they run, let em go.

[epepke]

Originally posted by corplinx


If someone walks up to you on the street and says "give me your wallet or ill beat you up", you aren not allowed to respond with lethal force. You can respond in kind or run away. You are only allowed to use lethal force when your life is in peril.

It depends on the state.

In Florida, lethal force is legally justified against someone who is in the process of commiting any violent felony.

[waitew]

This is the way I see it.In a world run by democrats....you live near an airport.We're on high terror alert & you see a middle eastern man parked in front of your house. you pay attention & watch him a while...a Plane flys be over head.He goes to the trunk (boot) of his car & as a plane approaches opens it.You become suspecious & get your hunting rifle...as he pulls out his shouldler launched anti-aircraft missle you shoulder your rifle...Bang!!You've just saved the life of a plane full of people!..But now you face charges of...discharging a weapon etc!!!!....in a republican world ..you're a hero!!!

[fishbob]

snipped upIn a world run by democrats.....now you face charges of discharging a weapon ....in a republican world you're a hero!!! I get tired of this silly Dem vs Rep BS. In the real world, there are shades of gray, there are very few absolutes, and this simplistic kind of analysis is nonsense.

[Ed]

Originally posted by corplinx


Whenever someone invades your home to burglarize it, your life is considered in peril.

Not in the UK.

[Hutch]

Ed is right, I remember following a story in the British papers while I was in Abu Dhabi, a couple of buglars broke into a man's house (I believe without guns) and he shot them, killing one. The guy went to jail for it and there has been much fussing and editorial flaming on the topic. Last I heard (some months ago) I think he was still in the slammer.

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by Ed


Not in the UK.

If someone is in your house and threatning your life you are perfectly entitled to use any means at your disposal to protect your life. You will not be convicted for battering someone over the head with a baseball bat if they are coming at you with a knife.

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by Hutch
Ed is right, I remember following a story in the British papers while I was in Abu Dhabi, a couple of buglars broke into a man's house (I believe without guns) and he shot them, killing one. The guy went to jail for it and there has been much fussing and editorial flaming on the topic. Last I heard (some months ago) I think he was still in the slammer.

Tony Martin shot a 17 year old boy who was running away from him out of his house. Even then, he would probably not have been convicted if he had not blatantly lied in the court about what happened.

[Kopji]

Seems like evidence that when the thinking people stay home, the kooky ones come out and make weird laws. The other side of this coin lives in Virgin Utah, where everyone* is mandated to own a gun. (Which for my vote, is the scarier of the two places).

Welcome to Virgin (http://virginutah.com/ordinances.html)

* clarification - head of households

[gnome]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland


Tony Martin shot a 17 year old boy who was running away from him out of his house. Even then, he would probably not have been convicted if he had not blatantly lied in the court about what happened.

Just wanted to notch up the score count on my idea that most political anecdotes intended to point out an offense against common sense, are missing critical details.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ed
Not in the UK.

Which is ironic, since British Common Law is where that idea comes from.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by epepke


It depends on the state.

In Florida, lethal force is legally justified against someone who is in the process of commiting any violent felony.

Even in florida you are expected to retreat if it is possible... You cannot shoot someone for punching you..

[Troll]

Originally posted by The Fool


Even in florida you are expected to retreat if it is possible... You cannot shoot someone for punching you..

Technically that's not quite true. If the attack is ongoing and you can manage to pull a gun and use it you'd be safe in using it without fear of reprisal. If, however you can subdue the attacker then shooting afterwards would land you in trouble. There must still be the threat or feeling of a threat to your life when you use the gun.

[epepke]

Originally posted by The Fool


Even in florida you are expected to retreat if it is possible... You cannot shoot someone for punching you..

Punching someone is a misdemeanour, not a felony.

I looked it up and got it a bit wrong: it's a "forcible felony," not a "violent felony." Here is the relevant statute:

776.08_ Forcible felony.--"Forcible felony" means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

This is linked to lethal force by the following two statutes:

776.012_ Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly 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 such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if 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.

776.031_ Use of force in defense of others.--A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

The only requirement that a person try to retreat is if one provokes the violence in the first place, as given by this statute:

776.041_ Use of force by aggressor.--The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1)__Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2)__Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a)__Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b)__In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

(Edited to add emphasis, emphasis mine.)

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Troll


Technically that's not quite true. If the attack is ongoing and you can manage to pull a gun and use it you'd be safe in using it without fear of reprisal. If, however you can subdue the attacker then shooting afterwards would land you in trouble. There must still be the threat or feeling of a threat to your life when you use the gun.
Technically it is true. The only exception to the "reasonable retreat" requirement is the "castle doctrine" where you are not required to retreat if you are in your own home or workplace.

It doesn't matter If the attack goes no all day...If you have a reasonable avenue of retreat, you should use it, If you use deadly force rather than retreat you are likely to be in some trouble.

This guy explains it quite well.

http://www.floridatoday.com/sections/emergency/force.htm

Q. Can't I protect myself if someone starts hitting me?
A. Even if someone starts a fight with you, you must make every reasonable effort consistent with your own safety to avoid the use of deadly force, including retreating from someone attacking you. Running away from someone who has insulted or punched you may offend your instincts to uphold your honor.
However, as the Second District Court of Appeal has said: "The use of deadly force against another human being (instead of running away) is not countenanced by law even if that force is in response to conduct of human beings who act like animals."
Example: At a convenience store gas pump, a man got into an argument with other customers who were drinking heavily. Three of them approached the man and beat on him while he stood hunched in the open doorway of his car. Armed with a pocket knife, he resorted to stabbing his attackers, killing one of them.
This man was convicted of manslaughter because he pulled the knife before his attack began. This showed that he anticipated the attack and chose to pull a knife and stand his ground instead of getting in his car and leaving.
The court upheld his conviction and contrasted his behavior with the behavior of a man in another case, who was relentlessly stalked by his attacker. He kept retreating from his attacker, begging him to leave him alone, and finally he fired a shot into the ground. When his attacker kept coming at him, he fired a second and fatal shot. The court said that, unlike the man at the gas station, the person being pursued had no choice but to use deadly force.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by epepke


Punching someone is a misdemeanour, not a felony.

yep, thats why I said you can't shoot someone for doing it...


The only requirement that a person try to retreat is if one provokes the violence in the first place, as given by this statute:

sorry but that is absolutely wrong...there is always the absolute requirement for you to retreat if possible. If there is any alternative to avoid using or delay using deadly force you are absolutely required to avoid or delay using it... If you can retreat but instead choose to shoot, you are liable to get in trouble.... The only exception to this is the so called "Castle doctrine" where you are not required to retreat from your own home or place of work.
If you carry a gun you should be completely familiar with these laws.........

[/B]

[NullPointerException]

Actually no, you can shoot anyone who starts a fight with you as long as it is legal to own the handgun, and they don't stop when you pull it. If they still advance on you or go for a weapon than you are fine to shoot. The reasoning behind this in court is twofold:

1. if you are unable to retreat, or fear that once subdued by the assailant your life would be in danger.
- Example: a women is in a two way ally but wearing high heels and is approached by a large athletic man who makes crude comments. At this point she has about 3 minutes to retreat, which in heels is impossible vs an athletic male, therefore lethal force is ok because if subdued by her assailant she could be raped or killed. once again, the semantics of the situation dictate that the assailant continue to approach her after being warned that she has a weapon.

2. Step up law, in many states if someone pulls a weapon you can go the next step. They have firsts, you can get a baseball bat, they take out a knife in response? You can get out a gun.

[Troll]

Originally posted by The Fool

Technically it is true. The only exception to the "reasonable retreat" requirement is the "castle doctrine" where you are not required to retreat if you are in your own home or workplace.

It doesn't matter If the attack goes no all day...If you have a reasonable avenue of retreat, you should use it, If you use deadly force rather than retreat you are likely to be in some trouble.

This guy explains it quite well.

http://www.floridatoday.com/sections/emergency/force.htm

Q. Can't I protect myself if someone starts hitting me?
A. Even if someone starts a fight with you, you must make every reasonable effort consistent with your own safety to avoid the use of deadly force, including retreating from someone attacking you. Running away from someone who has insulted or punched you may offend your instincts to uphold your honor.
However, as the Second District Court of Appeal has said: "The use of deadly force against another human being (instead of running away) is not countenanced by law even if that force is in response to conduct of human beings who act like animals."
Example: At a convenience store gas pump, a man got into an argument with other customers who were drinking heavily. Three of them approached the man and beat on him while he stood hunched in the open doorway of his car. Armed with a pocket knife, he resorted to stabbing his attackers, killing one of them.
This man was convicted of manslaughter because he pulled the knife before his attack began. This showed that he anticipated the attack and chose to pull a knife and stand his ground instead of getting in his car and leaving.
The court upheld his conviction and contrasted his behavior with the behavior of a man in another case, who was relentlessly stalked by his attacker. He kept retreating from his attacker, begging him to leave him alone, and finally he fired a shot into the ground. When his attacker kept coming at him, he fired a second and fatal shot. The court said that, unlike the man at the gas station, the person being pursued had no choice but to use deadly force.


Yeah? In the above the guy made no attempt to run. Your post that was called into question said that if someone punched you could not shoot them. I merely stated, which has been evidenced to be true in both your link and epepke's post, that if you cannot and the attack is continuing that you may shoot.

And you're apparently trying to ride the castle doctrine a little too far. From your link:

"Q. What if I am in my car?
A. The courts have not extended the castle doctrine to cars. You have to retreat before using deadly force if you can retreat without further endangering yourself. "

Castle doctrine does not apply yet you can shoot if you can not escape without putting yourself at more risk.

You posted a Q&A, which is fine, but not entirely all encompassing given the question you seem to focus on and it's example of when not to use deadly force. The law, which epepke posted is a little more explanatory.

776.012_ Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly 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 such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if 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.

And you did a wonderful bit of selective editing in your reply to epepke. Let's look at the whole thing in context.


"Punching someone is a misdemeanour, not a felony.

I looked it up and got it a bit wrong: it's a "forcible felony," not a "violent felony." Here is the relevant statute:"

776.08_ Forcible felony.--"Forcible felony" means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

So you can shoot someone for punching you if they continue to do so and you cannot get away, which is what I said earlier. You are required to try to retreat if possible, but retreat is not your only option, merely the first.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by NullPointerException
Actually no, you can shoot anyone who starts a fight with you as long as it is legal to own the handgun, and they don't stop when you pull it. If they still advance on you or go for a weapon than you are fine to shoot. The reasoning behind this in court is twofold:

1. if you are unable to retreat, or fear that once subdued by the assailant your life would be in danger.
- Example: a women is in a two way ally but wearing high heels and is approached by a large athletic man who makes crude comments. At this point she has about 3 minutes to retreat, which in heels is impossible vs an athletic male, therefore lethal force is ok because if subdued by her assailant she could be raped or killed. once again, the semantics of the situation dictate that the assailant continue to approach her after being warned that she has a weapon.

2. Step up law, in many states if someone pulls a weapon you can go the next step. They have firsts, you can get a baseball bat, they take out a knife in response? You can get out a gun.
Do you own a gun?
If you do, please learn under what circumstances you can use it...please?

Large men making crude comments cannot be shot by women...If this was the case an awful lot of men would be dead. Even if he "continued to approach her" the onus is still on her to retreat if this is a possibility.

And on your point 2 please show me any evidence such a "step up law" exists in any juristiction....

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Troll


Yeah? In the above the guy made no attempt to run. Your post that was called into question said that if someone punched you could not shoot them. I merely stated, which has been evidenced to be true in both your link and epepke's post, that if you cannot and the attack is continuing that you may shoot.

Dude, this is the first you have spoken about not being able to retreat... and as that is the deciding factor, what can I say?? Now that you have added the retreat factor we seem to be in total agreement.


And you're apparently trying to ride the castle doctrine a little too far. From your link:

"Q. What if I am in my car?
A. The courts have not extended the castle doctrine to cars. You have to retreat before using deadly force if you can retreat without further endangering yourself. "

Castle doctrine does not apply yet you can shoot if you can not escape without putting yourself at more risk.

the castle doctrine sets the cases where you don't have to retreat even if retreat is easy...in your own home for example, you need not retreat even if it is easily available. So in your car you must retreat if it is possible. ie drive away...whats your point?


You posted a Q&A, which is fine, but not entirely all encompassing given the question you seem to focus on and it's example of when not to use deadly force. The law, which epepke posted is a little more explanatory.

776.012_ Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly 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 such other's imminent use of unlawful force. [b]However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if 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.
yes but he did not quote any of the sections that point out the requirement to retreat if possible, he then said something about only having to retreat if you are the agressor...this is just not correct


And you did a wonderful bit of selective editing in your reply to epepke. Let's look at the whole thing in context.


"Punching someone is a misdemeanour, not a felony.

I looked it up and got it a bit wrong: it's a "forcible felony," not a "violent felony." Here is the relevant statute:"

776.08_ Forcible felony.--"Forcible felony" means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

So you can shoot someone for punching you if they continue to do so and you cannot get away, which is what I said earlier. You are required to try to retreat if possible, but retreat is not your only option, merely the first.
Which is what you said earlier???? This, as I have pointed out, is the first time you have talked about retreating..... Here is your only previous post in this thread in its entirety...

"Technically that's not quite true. If the attack is ongoing and you can manage to pull a gun and use it you'd be safe in using it without fear of reprisal. If, however you can subdue the attacker then shooting afterwards would land you in trouble. There must still be the threat or feeling of a threat to your life when you use the gun.

Now where oh where is the bit about retreat being impossible? You claim "what I said earlier" was "So you can shoot someone for punching you if they continue to do so and you cannot get away''
where did the "and cannot get away" bit appear from? seeing as it is the deciding factor it makes it very frustrating and probably pointless to try to debate issues with you when you just create whatever version of past posts that suits you...

[epepke]

Originally posted by The Fool
sorry but that is absolutely wrong...there is always the absolute requirement for you to retreat if possible. If there is any alternative to avoid using or delay using deadly force you are absolutely required to avoid or delay using it..

:con2: I quoted the statues. With numbers. You can read them. You can even look them up yourself. Is proof by repeated assertion really the best you can come up with?

[Troll]

Originally posted by The Fool
Now where oh where is the bit about retreat being impossible? You claim "what I said earlier" was "So you can shoot someone for punching you if they continue to do so and you cannot get away''
where did the "and cannot get away" bit appear from? seeing as it is the deciding factor it makes it very frustrating and probably pointless to try to debate issues with you when you just create whatever version of past posts that suits you...

I'll go real slow for you. Since again you're saying I said you said something, which is again, incorrect.

You said you must retreat if possible and then said you cannot shoot someone for punching you.

I merely clarified and elaborated on that. You apparently took issue with my saying "technically thats not true" about your vagueness. Anyone that has ever been in a fight knows that you don't always have a chance to run. I simply clarified that by saying it's an ongoing attack, meaning the person continues to punch, not that he comes back later in the day or stops for a drink giving you ample time and ability to run away, then you can shoot if you can draw your weapon and it would be justified. You were the one that attempted to argue that until this last post

[The Fool]

Originally posted by epepke


:con2: I quoted the statues. With numbers. You can read them. You can even look them up yourself. Is proof by repeated assertion really the best you can come up with?

you are right...It is rude of me to not provide support...

Here's a couple that talk about florida's "duty to retreat" in self defence. There are exceptions to this principle...namely the "castle doctrine" when you have no duty to retreat. The third link is interesting as battered wives have tried to apply this "castle doctrine" to cases where they shoot the abusive partner.

http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:trKRoRjG01kJ:www.flcourts.org/sct/clerk/briefs/2003/201-400/03-366_JurisAns.pdf+florida+%22duty+to+retreat%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

that although Petitioner claimed thatshe killed Robaina in self-defense and that she killed himrather than leave him because she suffered from battered woman’ssyndrome, Petitioner made no attempt to retreat as required byWeiand v. State, 732 So. 2d 1044

http://www.barbri.com/states/fl/news/news1.shtm

7. (B) In Florida, there is a duty to retreat before you use lethal force in self defense. If you can retreat in complete safety, you must do so. An exception is the castle doctrine. If you are in your own home, you do not have to retreat unless both the assailant and the defendant are lawful occupants of the residence.

http://www.fcsl.edu/LawReview/Vol2Num1/Orr.htm

In March 1999, Florida's Supreme Court effectively granted Florida women the ability to rely upon battered spouse syndrome as a defense to killing their abuser. Prior to the Court's decision in Weiand v. State, an abused woman's ability to justifiably defend herself from a physically abusive husband or live-in boyfriend was no greater than that of anyone to defend themselves in a bar fight. (2) Previously, Florida followed the minority rule among states, which imposes a duty to retreat before defending oneself with deadly force. Florida courts did, however, recognize the limited "castle doctrine" exception, which provides that there is no duty to retreat when attacked in one's own home. However, prior to Weiand, a gray area existed; what if both assailant and victim lived in that house? Was there a duty to retreat, or could a battered woman rely upon the "castle doctrine", stand her ground, and defend herself with deadly force? The law was unsettled. The Weiand decision answers this question.


If you google "florida" and "duty to retreat" there are a lot of hits.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Troll


I'll go real slow for you. Since again you're saying I said you said something, which is again, incorrect.

You said you must retreat if possible and then said you cannot shoot someone for punching you.

I merely clarified and elaborated on that. You apparently took issue with my saying "technically thats not true" about your vagueness. Anyone that has ever been in a fight knows that you don't always have a chance to run. I simply clarified that by saying it's an ongoing attack, meaning the person continues to punch, not that he comes back later in the day or stops for a drink giving you ample time and ability to run away, then you can shoot if you can draw your weapon and it would be justified. You were the one that attempted to argue that until this last post

Look dude, I am sick of you.

you said
"So you can shoot someone for punching you if they continue to do so and you cannot get away, which is what I said earlier."

which is rubbish...you said.

"Technically that's not quite true. If the attack is ongoing and you can manage to pull a gun and use it you'd be safe in using it without fear of reprisal. If, however you can subdue the attacker then shooting afterwards would land you in trouble. There must still be the threat or feeling of a threat to your life when you use the gun."

Not the faintest trace of anything about retreating, getting away, running, catching a cab.....nothing, zip, zilch nada...... You just thought you would claim that you said it to cover for the fact that you either forgot to include it or never knew about it in the first place.

You are not very good at this are you troll...you can't just make stuff up as you go along and expect people to not notice.

Anyway, I've tried to be patient and given you plenty of chances but you continue to blatantly make stuff up so you'll forgive me if I don't pay too much attention to any future claims of yours regarding what you, me or anyone else is supposed to have said.

[Troll]

Originally posted by The Fool


Look dude, I am sick of you.

you said
"So you can shoot someone for punching you if they continue to do so and you cannot get away, which is what I said earlier."

which is rubbish...you said.

"Technically that's not quite true. If the attack is ongoing and you can manage to pull a gun and use it you'd be safe in using it without fear of reprisal. If, however you can subdue the attacker then shooting afterwards would land you in trouble. There must still be the threat or feeling of a threat to your life when you use the gun."

Not the faintest trace of anything about retreating, getting away, running, catching a cab.....nothing, zip, zilch nada...... You just thought you would claim that you said it to cover for the fact that you either forgot to include it or never knew about it in the first place.

You are not very good at this are you troll...you can't just make stuff up as you go along and expect people to not notice.

Anyway, I've tried to be patient and given you plenty of chances but you continue to blatantly make stuff up so you'll forgive me if I don't pay too much attention to any future claims of yours regarding what you, me or anyone else is supposed to have said.

Fool, when you cannot understand things the first time I elaborate and expand in hopes that you will be able to ginally grasp things. Apparently that is something you're incapable of doing. You take it all a little too personally and feel either that you've been attacked or your intelligence questioned, I don't know which or if it is something different.

Simply put, the wording of the one post you made it sound as though being punched was never grounds for shooting someone. It is grounds for it, it's just not the immediate course of action one should take.

[WildCat]

No charges: (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-0401010165jan01,1,1415256.story) (link requires free registration)
A Wilmette man will not face criminal charges for shooting an intruder who broke into his house twice within 24 hours, then drove to the hospital in the family's stolen sport-utility vehicle, authorities said Wednesday.

Also:
"Armed with a gun, he went down to the kitchen, where he saw a figure who appeared to be masked," Jensen said. "He fired once. The person advanced in his direction. He fired again. The defendant passed him, went into the living room and tried to break out the window. It took a couple of tries."

He may yet be charged w/ violating the handgun odinance, which carries a $750 fine. He's lucky it's not Chicago, where this would be a felony w/ jail time.

Funny about Chicago, we have the toughest gun laws and the highest murder rate. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/01/city.murders.ap/index.html)

[Troll]

Originally posted by WildCat
No charges: (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-0401010165jan01,1,1415256.story) (link requires free registration)


Also:


He may yet be charged w/ violating the handgun odinance, which carries a $750 fine. He's lucky it's not Chicago, where this would be a felony w/ jail time.

Funny about Chicago, we have the toughest gun laws and the highest murder rate. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/01/city.murders.ap/index.html)

Well that's good news.

The latter doesn't surprise me any.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by WildCat
No charges: (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-0401010165jan01,1,1415256.story) (link requires free registration)


Also:


He may yet be charged w/ violating the handgun odinance, which carries a $750 fine. He's lucky it's not Chicago, where this would be a felony w/ jail time.

Funny about Chicago, we have the toughest gun laws and the highest murder rate. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/01/city.murders.ap/index.html)
What factors besides gun laws affect Chicago's murder rate? Are you surprised there are other factors?

[WildCat]

Originally posted by The Fool

What factors besides gun laws affect Chicago's murder rate? Are you surprised there are other factors?
And what factors are there that New York, LA and every other big American city don't have?

People aren't going to stand up to the gangs if they can't protect themselves in their own homes. That's why a few gangbangers can intimidate a whole neighborhood. The police aren't everywhere, and emergency call response can be very poor in those neighborhoods w/ the high rates.

[epepke]

Originally posted by The Fool


you are right...It is rude of me to not provide support...

Here's a couple that talk about florida's "duty to retreat" in self defence. There are exceptions to this principle...namely the "castle doctrine" when you have no duty to retreat. The third link is interesting as battered wives have tried to apply this "castle doctrine" to cases where they shoot the abusive partner.

Thanks. That's better, and it at least gives us something to discuss.

The key word for the cases you cited is "imminent." It is quite arguable that in a case where a woman has access to a shotgun and her boyfriend who has threatened to kill her is in the bathroom, the danger is not really imminent, and it could also be argued that not running away constituted a provocation of violence, both of which are clearly stated in the statutes I cited. So, I would agree that in a situation like this, Florida law would implictly prefer that one avoid the provocation, but it's already covered. In such cases where there is an imminent threat, there is no obligation to run.

A bigger problem comes from the use of lethal force in the protection of others. According to your description as stated (I'm not going to presume that you actually believe this), as long as I personally can run away from an immediate family member, apart from the Castle doctrine, I have no right whatsoever to use lethal force to prevent said family member from being killed or subjected to greivous harm. Because I can get away, so everything is OK.

However, that is not the case under Florida law. All I need to show is that there is a reasonable, imminent threat of a forcible felony. A forcible felony in progress, I hope you will agree, more than satisfies the criterion of "imminent threat" because the forcible felony will continue if it is not stopped.

All this, I think, Florida law got right.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by WildCat

And what factors are there that New York, LA and every other big American city don't have?


They don't have the factor of being Chicago. Every city is unique in its particular problems. There are many factors that affect the Homicide rate one being the number of firearms loose in the population. Some people even believe that increasing the numbers of machines designed to kill people will reduce the number of people killed. whoda thunk it eh?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by epepke


So, I would agree that in a situation like this, Florida law would implictly prefer that one avoid the provocation, but it's already covered. In such cases where there is an imminent threat, there is no obligation to run.


Unfortunately, courts never "prefer" they oblige. You are strictly required to avoid confrontation if it is at all possible. The only exception is the "castle doctrine" If you check the various Florida high court appeal rulings available on the web...any other attempted interpretation invariably is knocked down.. It is really pretty simple, If there is any other alternative to deadly force available you have to take it..

Of course, you can't retreat for somebody else, In the case of acting to save the life of another the only requirement is a reasonable belief that deadly force was the only option.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by The Fool

They don't have the factor of being Chicago. Every city is unique in its particular problems. There are many factors that affect the Homicide rate one being the number of firearms loose in the population. Some people even believe that increasing the numbers of machines designed to kill people will reduce the number of people killed. whoda thunk it eh?
The US murder rate has dropped dramatically in recent years, at the same time most states passed concealed carry leaws. Whoda thunk that?

And things don't look so rosy for Australia (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15304) in the wake of their crackdown.
Though lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country, the nation's crime statistics tell a different story:


Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent;

Assaults are up 8.6 percent;

Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent;

In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent;

In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily;

There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by WildCat

The US murder rate has dropped dramatically in recent years, at the same time most states passed concealed carry leaws. Whoda thunk that?

And things don't look so rosy for Australia (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15304) in the wake of their crackdown.

So are you claiming it is the concealed carry laws that caused it, or is this the usual brief mention on the fly because it would not stand up for ten minutes if you seriously claimed it... The US murder rate has dropped dramatically in recent years... The average weight of Americans has climbed....obesity makes people kill, whoda thunk it??



Sorry, the only response I have to worldnetdaily articles is laughter. the figures are rubbish, so is the website.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by The Fool
Sorry, the only response I have to worldnetdaily articles is laughter. the figures are rubbish, so is the website.
Can you laugh at this site? (http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tbp/tbp003.pdf) The conclusions are the same.

The first part of your post was just silly.

[epepke]

Originally posted by The Fool
You are strictly required to avoid confrontation if it is at all possible. The only exception is the "castle doctrine"

Look, you keep saying this over and over again, but you fail to back it up. You posted some cases, which were interesting, but all of them were questionable under both your interpretation of the law and mine, so they are useless in distinguishing between them.

If you can find a court ruling where the judge or judges agreed that there was a reasonable belief of an imminent forcible felony but convicted anyway because the person did not try to run away first, then I'm all ears. If not, the least you could do is stop using words like "absolutely" and "strictly."

Of course, you can't retreat for somebody else, In the case of acting to save the life of another the only requirement is a reasonable belief that deadly force was the only option.

I go by the letter of the law, and if I am ever hauled into court will do so. The letter, in terms of self-defense is almost identical to the letter in terms of other-defense. There's nothing that I can see in the laws that imposes a weaker requirement on defending others than in defending oneself, provided that the others are immediate family members.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by WildCat

Can you laugh at this site? (http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tbp/tbp003.pdf) The conclusions are the same.

The first part of your post was just silly.


you want me to laught at it...ok...LOL....its a phone poll. It measures people's opinions and beliefs. Everyone always thinks there is more crime now than when they were young, its part of growing older.....

You Americans who want to manufacture crime in other countries are always good for a giggle. I suggest you try looking at Australian Bureau of statistics figures for crime rates. If you can find any upward movement in crime linked with any gun laws then let me know...
Found anything to disprove my patented obesity/ murder link? Or is it just as silly as the concealed gun/murder link?

[WildCat]

Originally posted by The Fool
you want me to laught at it...ok...LOL....its a phone poll. It measures people's opinions and beliefs. Everyone always thinks there is more crime now than when they were young, its part of growing older.....
Did you even read the questions? It didn't ask what peoples perceptions were. They asked if they had been victims of crimes! Not a single question is of the type, "Do you think there is more crime now than in the past". If I'm wrong, please point it out to me.

You Americans who want to manufacture crime in other countries are always good for a giggle. I suggest you try looking at Australian Bureau of statistics figures for crime rates. If you can find any upward movement in crime linked with any gun laws then let me know...
Found anything to disprove my patented obesity/ murder link? Or is it just as silly as the concealed gun/murder link?
Why don't you post a link? And then show how a decrease in crime is associated w/ the recent gun control efforts. If there is no decrease in crime, what was the point of the gun control?

I never claimed any such thing about obesity. I can show where here in the US where conceaed carry was enacted crime was reduced. In Australia crime increased after gun control.

[WildCat]

And Fool, the link I posted was a survey, not a poll. You should learn to tell the difference, it is rather significant.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by epepke


Look, you keep saying this over and over again, but you fail to back it up. You posted some cases, which were interesting, but all of them were questionable under both your interpretation of the law and mine, so they are useless in distinguishing between them.

Its really quite simple...you have toi retreat if it is reasonably possible...Except for your own home. I have already told you this plain fact of florida common law is all over the web...Here's another one that took me 30 seconds to get.

http://216.239.53.104/search?q=cache:xhONs0fEihkJ:www.3dca.flcourts.org/3d03-2143.pdf+florida+duty+to+retreat&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

"Both Florida statutory and common law permit the use of deadlyforce in self-defense if a person reasonably believes that suchforce is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.Weiand v. State, 732 So. 2d 1044, 1049 (Fla. 1999). Specifically,section 776.012, Florida Statutes (1995), provides that “a person. . . is justified in the use of deadly force only if he reasonablybelieves that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death orgreat bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the imminentcommission of a forcible felony.” Even under these circumstances,there is still a Florida common law duty to use every reasonablemeans to avoid the danger, including retreat, prior to using deadlyforce. Weiand, 732 So. 2d at 1049.The “duty to retreat” rule has an exception, known as the“castle doctrine,” which espouses that one is not required to 5retreat from one’s residence, or one’s “castle,” before usingdeadly force in self-defense, so long as the deadly force isnecessary to prevent death or great bodily harm."

I really have been doing my best to provide this stuff, its there if you look.




I go by the letter of the law, and if I am ever hauled into court will do so.

You should get legal advice on that. If you mean statutes when you say "the letter of the law" then you would be ignoring the vast body of common law outlined in court rulings, its not just as simple as reading the laws.



The letter, in terms of self-defense is almost identical to the letter in terms of other-defense. There's nothing that I can see in the laws that imposes a weaker requirement on defending others than in defending oneself, provided that the others are immediate family members.
Once again, if you carry a gun, get legal advice...you are misinformed on your obligations to retreat or avoid confrontation.

And where did you get the "immediate family members" stuff from? I may be wrong but I've never heard of anything like that.