FYI: New Florida laws

darthdarrel

New Member
DMC-12 said:
Walking by a 'Jerry Springer' studio audience, lined up around NBC Tower, always makes me nervous & frightened. :( :lookaroun

I guess I should start packin heat. :lol: :lookaroun

:lol: :lookaroun
 

Erika

Moderator
speck76 said:
the true problem with guns are not the guns, but the idiots that own the guns, as seen below


:lol: :sohappy:

I know there are plenty of intelligent people out there with guns, and that's fine, I have some in my family... but I have known a few gun owners who shouldn't be trusted with a fork, much less a firearm.
 

wannab@dis

Well-Known Member
MouseMadness said:
Dang, I'm trying to find a picture of the guy in Happy Gilmore with the "Guns don't kill people, I kill people" t shirt. :lol: :lookaroun

Like this one?

12296377_F_tn.jpg
 

garyhoov

Trophy Husband
I've been shooting since I was about 5 years old, and I have experience with nearly every caliber/configuration readily available, but I haven't owned a gun in the 13 years since my son was born. I just feel safer without a gun in the house than with one.

I remember one time, shortly before Ryan was born, I heard someone in my apartment. I sat bolt upright, got out of bed, grabbed a baseball bat from my closet and headed for the bedroom door. I listened, and I could clearly hear that not only was someone out there in the dark, but they were PEEEING IN MY BATHROOM. I held the bat above my head, flicked on the bathroom light and . . .



















. . . scared the crap out of Linda who was sitting there wondering what the hell was wrong with me. She had gotten out of bed, but I hadn't woken up until I heard her moving around in the hallway.

I'm glad I didn't have a gun that evening.
 

MouseMadness

Well-Known Member
garyhoov said:
I've been shooting since I was about 5 years old, and I have experience with nearly every caliber/configuration readily available, but I haven't owned a gun in the 13 years since my son was born. I just feel safer without a gun in the house than with one.

I remember one time, shortly before Ryan was born, I heard someone in my apartment. I sat bolt upright, got out of bed, grabbed a baseball bat from my closet and headed for the bedroom door. I listened, and I could clearly hear that not only was someone out there in the dark, but they were PEEEING IN MY BATHROOM. I held the bat above my head, flicked on the bathroom light and . . .



















. . . scared the crap out of Linda who was sitting there wondering what the hell was wrong with me. She had gotten out of bed, but I hadn't woken up until I heard her moving around in the hallway.

I'm glad I didn't have a gun that evening.

I'm not sure if that story makes me more :lol: or :eek: It is both... you're right! Could've turned out very badly. :-\

Andy occasionally goes away for periods of time... and the first time it happened, my dad said "Well, do you have a gun in the house?" I said "Nope, I got a bat" THEN he implied that some large, menacing stranger could easily steal my bat and use it against me! :eek:
 

SpongeScott

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
MouseMadness said:
I'm not sure if that story makes me more :lol: or :eek: It is both... you're right! Could've turned out very badly. :-\

Andy occasionally goes away for periods of time... and the first time it happened, my dad said "Well, do you have a gun in the house?" I said "Nope, I got a bat" THEN he implied that some large, menacing stranger could easily steal my bat and use it against me! :eek:
turn it against you protecting four girls? Heck, you scare me just in the way that you post! :)
 

PhotoDave219

Well-Known Member
objr said:
They could. But again, it's Florida...people here are too preoccupied with the shiny lights....

Didn't people vote for the law? *tries to remember, ohhhh shiny light*

:lookaroun

I sure as hell know *I* didnt..... and i've given crap to any state congressional critters ive run across....
 

PhotoDave219

Well-Known Member
wannab@dis said:
*sigh*

Please try to be informed by more than a special interest website. Go read more about the law.

Ive talked with the leading criminal defense attorney in the area about this law... he said it was a big bunch of BS and continues to make Florida teh laughingstock of the legal community.

The problem isn't the guns, its the morons who use them. There are plenty of morons in Florida who will use this as an excuse to do as they please.
 

Woody13

New Member
I Think It's A Good Law (but I carry too)!

The 2005 Florida Statutes
600x3_gradient.gif




CHAPTER 776

JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.

776.031 Use of force in defense of others.

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.

776.05 Law enforcement officers; use of force in making an arrest.

776.051 Use of force in resisting or making an arrest; prohibition.

776.06 Deadly force.

776.07 Use of force to prevent escape.

776.08 Forcible felony.

776.085 Defense to civil action for damages; party convicted of forcible or attempted forcible felony.

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in using 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 the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) 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; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.

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.

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or

(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or

(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

(5) As used in this section, the term:

(a) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.

(b) "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.

(c) "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

History.--s. 1, ch. 2005-27.

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 the 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. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1189, ch. 97-102; s. 3, ch. 2005-27.

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.--

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

History.--s. 4, ch. 2005-27.

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.

History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.

776.05 Law enforcement officers; use of force in making an arrest.--A law enforcement officer, or any person whom the officer has summoned or directed to assist him or her, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. The officer is justified in the use of any force:

(1) Which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or herself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest;

(2) When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have escaped; or

(3) When necessarily committed in arresting felons fleeing from justice. However, this subsection shall not constitute a defense in any civil action for damages brought for the wrongful use of deadly force unless the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by such flight and, when feasible, some warning had been given, and:

(a) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon poses a threat of death or serious physical harm to the officer or others; or

(b) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm to another person.

History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1, ch. 75-64; s. 1, ch. 87-147; s. 54, ch. 88-381; s. 1191, ch. 97-102.

776.051 Use of force in resisting or making an arrest; prohibition.--

(1) A person is not justified in the use of force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer who is known, or reasonably appears, to be a law enforcement officer.

(2) A law enforcement officer, or any person whom the officer has summoned or directed to assist him or her, is not justified in the use of force if the arrest is unlawful and known by him or her to be unlawful.

History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1192, ch. 97-102.

776.06 Deadly force.--

(1) The term "deadly force" means force that is likely to cause death or great bodily harm and includes, but is not limited to:

(a) The firing of a firearm in the direction of the person to be arrested, even though no intent exists to kill or inflict great bodily harm; and

(b) The firing of a firearm at a vehicle in which the person to be arrested is riding.

(2)(a) The term "deadly force" does not include the discharge of a firearm by a law enforcement officer or correctional officer during and within the scope of his or her official duties which is loaded with a less-lethal munition. As used in this subsection, the term "less-lethal munition" means a projectile that is designed to stun, temporarily incapacitate, or cause temporary discomfort to a person without penetrating the person's body.

(b) A law enforcement officer or a correctional officer is not liable in any civil or criminal action arising out of the use of any less-lethal munition in good faith during and within the scope of his or her official duties.

History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1, ch. 99-272.

776.07 Use of force to prevent escape.--

(1) A law enforcement officer or other person who has an arrested person in his or her custody is justified in the use of any force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to prevent the escape of the arrested person from custody.

(2) A correctional officer or other law enforcement officer is justified in the use of force, including deadly force, which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to prevent the escape from a penal institution of a person whom the officer reasonably believes to be lawfully detained in such institution under sentence for an offense or awaiting trial or commitment for an offense.

History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 7, ch. 95-283; s. 1193, ch. 97-102.

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.

History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 4, ch. 75-298; s. 289, ch. 79-400; s. 5, ch. 93-212; s. 10, ch. 95-195.

776.085 Defense to civil action for damages; party convicted of forcible or attempted forcible felony.--

(1) It shall be a defense to any action for damages for personal injury or wrongful death, or for injury to property, that such action arose from injury sustained by a participant during the commission or attempted commission of a forcible felony. The defense authorized by this section shall be established by evidence that the participant has been convicted of such forcible felony or attempted forcible felony, or by proof of the commission of such crime or attempted crime by a preponderance of the evidence.

(2) For the purposes of this section, the term "forcible felony" shall have the same meaning as in s. 776.08.

(3) Any civil action in which the defense recognized by this section is raised shall be stayed by the court on the motion of the civil defendant during the pendency of any criminal action which forms the basis for the defense, unless the court finds that a conviction in the criminal action would not form a valid defense under this section.

(4) In any civil action where a party prevails based on the defense created by this section:

(a) The losing party, if convicted of and incarcerated for the crime or attempted crime, shall, as determined by the court, lose any privileges provided by the correctional facility, including, but not limited to:

1. Canteen purchases;

2. Telephone access;

3. Outdoor exercise;

4. Use of the library; and

5. Visitation.

(b) The court shall award a reasonable attorney's fee to be paid to the prevailing party in equal amounts by the losing party and the losing party's attorney; however, the losing party's attorney is not personally responsible if he or she has acted in good faith, based on the representations of his or her client. If the losing party is incarcerated for the crime or attempted crime and has insufficient assets to cover payment of the costs of the action and the award of fees pursuant to this paragraph, the party shall, as determined by the court, be required to pay by deduction from any payments the prisoner receives while incarcerated.

(c) If the losing party is incarcerated for the crime or attempted crime, the court shall issue a written order containing its findings and ruling pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (b) and shall direct that a certified copy be forwarded to the appropriate correctional institution or facility. History.--s. 1, ch. 87-187; s. 72, ch. 96-388.



http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0776/ch0776.htm
 

Debbie

Well-Known Member
The Mom said:
I HAVE read the law, as I had to vote on it. It is a "meet deadly force with deadly force" law, which only clarifies what is considered self defense. In the past, if someone were breaking into my house, or stealing my occupied car, or entering my place of business wearing a mask, I would only be allowed (legally) to shoot him if he were blocking my escape, or directly threatening me or my family. (His breaking in , etc was not considered a deadly threat in and of itself.) Now I can shoot him as soon as it becomes apparent that he is entering my home/car/business illegally or with illegal intent.

This doesn't mean that I can legally shoot the homeless guy who is panhandling on the sidewalk, or the guy who makes sexual comments as I walk by, or the person who starts cussing me out in traffic, UNLESS he starts to grab me, comes at me with a weapon, etc.


Which means now, if you catch someone trying to break into your house; you don't have to make sure that he falls INTO your house if you have to shoot him.
I just wonder how this new law will affect someone's perception of performing street justice? IE: Two years ago, a man walked out of his second floor apartment to find someone breaking into his car. He yelled for the suspect to 'get out' and the suspect just ignored him. So, the car's owner shot the perpetrator. The car owner said he was tired of having his vehicles stolen (and in New Orleans, 911 means 9 hours and 11 minutes before the NOPD arrive.) The suspects mother was on TV saying "Why he kill my boy? He wa(s)n't doing nothing but stealing a car?" :rolleyes:

As a child of an NOPD officer; I have the upmost respect for weapons, and human life, but I also realize alot of folks don't have any common sense regarding firearms. Many shouldn't be around them......It will be interesting to see how this law plays out.
 

lamarvenoy

New Member
The "shoot 1st law" is the first GOOD piece of law I've seen written in Florida this year. It means YOU can protect yourself against someone who you feel will cause you harm without fear of the DA prosecuting you for the assault. Most people don't realize if you catch someone and shoot them and they survive they can sue you even if they were treaspassing or robbing you or even raping you. The law didn't allow you to shoot someone unless you can PROVE they were going to KILL you. I know if I come face to face with a intruder I don't want to have to worry about what weapon they have or what kind of harm they want to commit to me or my family.
 

Woody13

New Member
lamarvenoy said:
The "shoot 1st law" is the first GOOD piece of law I've seen written in Florida this year. It means YOU can protect yourself against someone who you feel will cause you harm without fear of the DA prosecuting you for the assault. Most people don't realize if you catch someone and shoot them and they survive they can sue you even if they were treaspassing or robbing you or even raping you. The law didn't allow you to shoot someone unless you can PROVE they were going to KILL you. I know if I come face to face with a intruder I don't want to have to worry about what weapon they have or what kind of harm they want to commit to me or my family.
"Kill Them All, Let God Sort Them Out!"
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom