General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Reuters: Man Lives to Tell of Florida 'Shoot First' Horror [View all]iverglas
(38,549 posts)These laws have been talked about in the Guns forum since Florida started the whole thing. I have tried since the beginning to get the fans to acknowledge what they really say. Some of them, I think are truly incapable of grasping it. And it's not actually simple.
Eventually I encountered a publication in a Harvard student law journal that went into it all in great detail. I quoted from it extensively here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=125237&mesg_id=125237
The "castle doctrine" aspect (and I can barely bring myself to type those words, over and over, because these ugly laws have nothing to do with the real castle doctrine) includes an irrebuttable presumption that a householder who reasonably believes that someone has forcibly or unlawfully entered their home has a reasonable fear of death or injury. The person in question could be a 10-year-old who broke in a basement window, drank the contents of the liquor cabinet and fell asleep. The householder could establish their reasonable belief about the unlawful entry, and then could not be prosecuted for using force against the "intruder", even to the point of causing death.
(20) Fla. S. Rep. No. 107-436, 6pt. III, at 6 (2005) (Judiciary Rep.) (Legal presumptions are typically rebuttable. The presumptions created by the committee substitute, however, appear to be conclusive.). Accord Fla. H.R. Rep. No. 107-249 (2005) pt. B, at 4 (Judiciary Rep.) (A person is presumed, rather than having the burden to prove, to have a reasonable fear.).
The laws are legal garbage, and have been described as such by judges and legal experts, repeatedly.
typo