Now that the other unpleasantness has moved on to another thread, it's time to put this thread back on topic, I think,
Quote:
The Florida "Castle Doctrine" law basically does three things:
One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, therefore a person may use any manner of force, including deadly force, against that person.
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. [This is an American right repeatedly recognized in Supreme Court gun cases.]
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 who are prone to coddling criminals to instead focus on protecting victims.
|
http://www.gunlaws.com/FloridaCastleDoctrine.htm
Quote:
"Trespassing (with exception, a misdemeanor in most cases) can not be the basis for "burglary."
When the state is looking at the charge, they're looking for "other charges" such as larceny (theft), assault, Home invasion, etc., combined with the unlawful entry or remaining therein.
Recap:
Burglary= The unlwful entry/remaining in a structure or conveyance (vehicle for short) w/intent to commit some crime other than trespassing therein=FORCIBLE FELONY.
Forcible Felony=The right to the use of deadly force).
And again, there's no need to retreat from the threat!!
|
Referencing the above quote, what other reasons except in the above noted examples, would anyone break into someone else's home? Without a specific invite or permission, what would the probably intentions be of someone entering your home unannounced? Does the homeowner need to have some sort of questionnaire at the ready for a trespasser to fill out? Do they first have to secure proof positive the intentions of the trespasser before taking steps to neutralize a threat? According to the Castle Doctrine, the entry must be "forcible". What exactly does that mean? Most the door be locked and that lock breached? Or can the door simply be closed and the trespasser open the door without permission to enter? If someone walks into your house through and open doorway, does that put the home owner at a disadvantage in that they must first attempt to determine the trespasser's INTENT before taking a definitive step to secure their own welfare by neutralizing this potential threat? And if so, how is that INTENT determined that would be satisfactory evidence in a courtroom that the trespass is for the intention of burglary or a more serious reason? Where does the burden of proof lie? My belief is that the Castle Doctrine puts that burden on the trespasser, and not the homeowner. But how can a trespasser prove such a thing? Is there a PRESUMPTION of guilt?