Here you go Jack....we're back on track
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Z
Why I do declare, is that a threat of litigation I detect from you Mr. Brainerd?
|
No
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Z
Well I guess my question is not going to be answered.
I had said I wasn't going to remain in the wetting contest. That's why you didn't get a response.
Since Bob K chose to take this discussion to another new thread of his creation, I figure it is only fair to point any interested readers following THIS thread to that new one -> http://www.corvetteflorida.com/forum...ad.php?t=56245 |
Now that the thread is back on topic....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Z
Now that the other unpleasantness has moved on to another thread, it's time to put this thread back on topic, I think,
http://www.gunlaws.com/FloridaCastleDoctrine.htm
1) Referencing the above quote, what other reasons except in the above noted examples, would anyone break into someone else's home?
2) Without a specific invite or permission, what would the probably intentions be of someone entering your home unannounced?
3) Does the homeowner need to have some sort of questionnaire at the ready for a trespasser to fill out?
4) Do they first have to secure proof positive the intentions of the trespasser before taking steps to neutralize a threat?
5) 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?
6) 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?
7) 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?
8) Where does the burden of proof lie?
9) My belief is that the Castle Doctrine puts that burden on the trespasser, and not the homeowner.
10) But how can a trespasser prove such a thing?
11) Is there a PRESUMPTION of guilt? |
You have a multitude of questions.
In order:
1) Self explanitory.
2) You'd need to be a mindreader to answer that.
3) Ludicrous.
4) Resonableness.
5) No, Yes, and be carefule with the term "trespasser." You can't use deadly force on a misdemeanor trespassing.
6) Unfortunately yes. This is where it's going to be a judgment call. When you say "walks through" and "open doorway" you change the scenario somewhat.
Do they appear to be entering aggressively or are they simply staggering in?
Are they lost or bent on violence.
All questions you're going to have to be ready to answer, all in milliseconds
...just like a cop in many cases.
7) The evidence I believe will be self evident. Again, one more reason we teach (when applicable) locking oneself in a secure area and letting the bad guy come to you.
You reduce your field of fire, increase the level of probable cause and evidentiary factors, and, provide a less open target. You allow the offender to formulate the intent instead of trying to figure it out on the move.
8) With the state
9) If it's merely a tresspasser, the castle doctrine doesn't really protect you.
10) Depends on if they're still in one piece? Defense attorneys can do some interesting things
11) There are standards.
HTH?