f***a
发帖数: 1434 | 1 今天去上CCW的课，教官说了一个极端情况，他说如果有人break in，然后你拿着
shotgun出去load gun的声音把他吓住了，然后他往外跑，你该不该开枪？
各位讨论一下，下面是教官的答案。可以先回复再看答案。
我还是会开枪，你在紧张的时候有tunnel view，眼里除了罪犯根本看不到别的。
1，你怎么确定他是被声音吓跑？而不是在门口放着一把枪，跑到门口去拿枪，然后返
回来干你？
2，你怎么能确定他没有同伙，而他是跑到门口去吼“he has a gun, go to get the
gun in the car ?" 然后带3个人回来干你？
所以我会开枪，除非他已经跑到门外，只要他在房里，我就会开枪。当然打了多半就是
上法庭，花钱请好律师。但是我家人的命肯定比钱重要。
——教官的话。
——————————另外————————————————
教官是个attorney。他提到，千万千万不要跟警察多说话——这个很多人都知道了。同
时也千万千万不要跟911说多了。很多案例是打通911之后的录音反过来against自己的。
教官是这么说的，先放倒敌人。
然后打911，只说三句就挂电话：
1，我家有home defense shooting（报地址）
2，我在家等警察，我手里有枪
3，最好来救护车
警察来了就三句话：
1，我叫XXX
2，我有CCW，手里有枪
3，我要律师 | j*****v
发帖数: 7717 | 2 在家里开枪需要ccw干什么
【在 f***a 的大作中提到】
: 今天去上CCW的课，教官说了一个极端情况，他说如果有人break in，然后你拿着
: shotgun出去load gun的声音把他吓住了，然后他往外跑，你该不该开枪？
: 各位讨论一下，下面是教官的答案。可以先回复再看答案。
: 我还是会开枪，你在紧张的时候有tunnel view，眼里除了罪犯根本看不到别的。
: 1，你怎么确定他是被声音吓跑？而不是在门口放着一把枪，跑到门口去拿枪，然后返
: 回来干你？
: 2，你怎么能确定他没有同伙，而他是跑到门口去吼“he has a gun, go to get the
: gun in the car ?" 然后带3个人回来干你？
: 所以我会开枪，除非他已经跑到门外，只要他在房里，我就会开枪。当然打了多半就是
: 上法庭，花钱请好律师。但是我家人的命肯定比钱重要。
| f***a
发帖数: 1434 | 3 后面是一般情况，包括平时self-defense
【在 j*****v 的大作中提到】
: 在家里开枪需要ccw干什么
| N****E
发帖数: 81 | 4 这到底是抢劫还是暗杀？明知道里面人有枪还回去招人招枪杀回来？
这个我跟本地的sheriff聊过，杀人不讲技巧麻烦很大的，背后中枪会官司缠身的。
【在 f***a 的大作中提到】
: 今天去上CCW的课，教官说了一个极端情况，他说如果有人break in，然后你拿着
: shotgun出去load gun的声音把他吓住了，然后他往外跑，你该不该开枪？
: 各位讨论一下，下面是教官的答案。可以先回复再看答案。
: 我还是会开枪，你在紧张的时候有tunnel view，眼里除了罪犯根本看不到别的。
: 1，你怎么确定他是被声音吓跑？而不是在门口放着一把枪，跑到门口去拿枪，然后返
: 回来干你？
: 2，你怎么能确定他没有同伙，而他是跑到门口去吼“he has a gun, go to get the
: gun in the car ?" 然后带3个人回来干你？
: 所以我会开枪，除非他已经跑到门外，只要他在房里，我就会开枪。当然打了多半就是
: 上法庭，花钱请好律师。但是我家人的命肯定比钱重要。
| l***1
发帖数: 1500 | 5 同意你的教官的观点,只要罪犯还在屋內就有危险。
【在 f***a 的大作中提到】
: 今天去上CCW的课，教官说了一个极端情况，他说如果有人break in，然后你拿着
: shotgun出去load gun的声音把他吓住了，然后他往外跑，你该不该开枪？
: 各位讨论一下，下面是教官的答案。可以先回复再看答案。
: 我还是会开枪，你在紧张的时候有tunnel view，眼里除了罪犯根本看不到别的。
: 1，你怎么确定他是被声音吓跑？而不是在门口放着一把枪，跑到门口去拿枪，然后返
: 回来干你？
: 2，你怎么能确定他没有同伙，而他是跑到门口去吼“he has a gun, go to get the
: gun in the car ?" 然后带3个人回来干你？
: 所以我会开枪，除非他已经跑到门外，只要他在房里，我就会开枪。当然打了多半就是
: 上法庭，花钱请好律师。但是我家人的命肯定比钱重要。
| s**********d
发帖数: 36899 | 6
还要看你在哪个州（甚至哪个县）。
【在 N****E 的大作中提到】
: 这到底是抢劫还是暗杀？明知道里面人有枪还回去招人招枪杀回来？
: 这个我跟本地的sheriff聊过，杀人不讲技巧麻烦很大的，背后中枪会官司缠身的。
| f***a
发帖数: 1434 | 7 的确是每个州不一样。
要是在马里兰州，都不用考虑这些问题，因为你必需主动逃跑。
【在 N****E 的大作中提到】
: 这到底是抢劫还是暗杀？明知道里面人有枪还回去招人招枪杀回来？
: 这个我跟本地的sheriff聊过，杀人不讲技巧麻烦很大的，背后中枪会官司缠身的。
| N****E
发帖数: 81 | 8 没啥区别，因为你很难说人背对着你有多大威胁。
【在 s**********d 的大作中提到】
:
: 还要看你在哪个州（甚至哪个县）。
| f***a
发帖数: 1434 | 9 1，你怎么确定他是被声音吓跑？而不是在门口放着一把枪，跑到门口去拿枪，然后返
回来干你？
2，你怎么能确定他没有同伙，而他是跑到门口去吼“he has a gun, go to get the
gun in the car ?" 然后带3个人回来干你？
后背开枪肯定是有争议的，但你不是一定就错了。法庭上好律师还是能给出理由的。最
关键的一点，这是发生在你的家里，不是路边的抢劫。罪犯拿着刀冲到你家里，已经主
观上要对你伤害了，跟路边碰到抢劫你是两回事。
【在 N****E 的大作中提到】
: 没啥区别，因为你很难说人背对着你有多大威胁。
| k**o
发帖数: 85 | 10 如果面对面时都没有能够开枪，等到打劫的转过身准备开溜时才开枪， 我认为绝对不
可行。
原因倒不是因为背身的时候就没威胁了（当然还有威胁），但是如果真是背后中枪，
self-defense的理由就变得questionable 了。
不用说对self-defense严格的州，即便像florida这样有支持拥枪传统，并且有stand
on your ground 法律的州，zimmerman 这样一个明显的案例，还经历了无数曲折，如
果不是最后有牛逼的律师，还真有可能有完全相反的结果 | | | N****E
发帖数: 81 | 11 你惹谁了横竖人家要杀你？这个假设法庭上还不如说自己吓懵了更可信，当然好莱坞电
影除外。
你自己也说得很清楚了，拿着刀冲向你当然是现实危险。人挥着刀离开你就还这么说?
律师的话也不能全信，不过可以确定的是你要这么干的话就是他的潜在客户。
【在 f***a 的大作中提到】
: 1，你怎么确定他是被声音吓跑？而不是在门口放着一把枪，跑到门口去拿枪，然后返
: 回来干你？
: 2，你怎么能确定他没有同伙，而他是跑到门口去吼“he has a gun, go to get the
: gun in the car ?" 然后带3个人回来干你？
: 后背开枪肯定是有争议的，但你不是一定就错了。法庭上好律师还是能给出理由的。最
: 关键的一点，这是发生在你的家里，不是路边的抢劫。罪犯拿着刀冲到你家里，已经主
: 观上要对你伤害了，跟路边碰到抢劫你是两回事。
| T*R
发帖数: 25894 | 12 Sounds like these guys are kinda determined to kill you. In this case,
POLICE maybe the least of your worries.
【在 f***a 的大作中提到】
: 今天去上CCW的课，教官说了一个极端情况，他说如果有人break in，然后你拿着
: shotgun出去load gun的声音把他吓住了，然后他往外跑，你该不该开枪？
: 各位讨论一下，下面是教官的答案。可以先回复再看答案。
: 我还是会开枪，你在紧张的时候有tunnel view，眼里除了罪犯根本看不到别的。
: 1，你怎么确定他是被声音吓跑？而不是在门口放着一把枪，跑到门口去拿枪，然后返
: 回来干你？
: 2，你怎么能确定他没有同伙，而他是跑到门口去吼“he has a gun, go to get the
: gun in the car ?" 然后带3个人回来干你？
: 所以我会开枪，除非他已经跑到门外，只要他在房里，我就会开枪。当然打了多半就是
: 上法庭，花钱请好律师。但是我家人的命肯定比钱重要。
| p*********e
发帖数: 32207 | 13 florida法律有明文规定,只要是非法闯入民宅,并且与屋主不存在一些明文列出的关系
比如亲属,或者landord/tenant之类,便直接构成使用deadly force的充分理由
属于justifiable use of deadly force.
zimmerman这个案子之所以曲折,不就是因为有人是干儿子么
【在 k**o 的大作中提到】
: 如果面对面时都没有能够开枪，等到打劫的转过身准备开溜时才开枪， 我认为绝对不
: 可行。
: 原因倒不是因为背身的时候就没威胁了（当然还有威胁），但是如果真是背后中枪，
: self-defense的理由就变得questionable 了。
: 不用说对self-defense严格的州，即便像florida这样有支持拥枪传统，并且有stand
: on your ground 法律的州，zimmerman 这样一个明显的案例，还经历了无数曲折，如
: 果不是最后有牛逼的律师，还真有可能有完全相反的结果
| k**o
发帖数: 85 | 14 入室抢劫的能QUAlify 干儿子的很少么？
【在 p*********e 的大作中提到】
: florida法律有明文规定,只要是非法闯入民宅,并且与屋主不存在一些明文列出的关系
: 比如亲属,或者landord/tenant之类,便直接构成使用deadly force的充分理由
: 属于justifiable use of deadly force.
: zimmerman这个案子之所以曲折,不就是因为有人是干儿子么
| f***a
发帖数: 1434 | 15 zimmerman是在室外，如果是FL在你家，性质就完全不一样了。
stand your ground 不是说着玩的。
【在 k**o 的大作中提到】
: 入室抢劫的能QUAlify 干儿子的很少么？
| N****E
发帖数: 81 | 16 去看看florida 的database吧，不是这么简单像你这么说着玩的。明确的直接的威胁是
必须的。不是说人在你家里你就有权想杀就杀的。
补注一下，我的意思是说，除非你就是想暗杀你，你背后放倒人家的麻烦远大于放人一
码。
【在 f***a 的大作中提到】
: zimmerman是在室外，如果是FL在你家，性质就完全不一样了。
: stand your ground 不是说着玩的。
| f***a
发帖数: 1434 | 17 在stand your ground的州，在自己家满足使用deadly force的条件比大街上遇到的条
件少多了。以UTAH为例。
在大街上，必需要满足you must have a reasonable belief that it is necessary
to protect yourself against the imminent use of unlawful force.
这个包含3点：1，reasonable belief，也就是普通大众的观点；2，necessary，也就
是开枪是必需的；3，imminent ，也就是犯罪马上就要发生的。
转身之后，imminent的条件基本就没有了，所以大街上转身不要开枪。
在你的habitation，只需要：(1) break in + you have a reasonable fear that
they are going to harm you；或者(2) you reasonably believe that the
assailant is there to commit a felony.
最重要的是少了necessary这个条件。也少了imminent的条件，也就是说如果你觉得他
可能跑出门去叫同伙，虽然他“当下”放弃了向你冲过来，你也能开枪。并不需要“明
确的直接的威胁”。
这里并不是鼓励对方转身一定要开枪。我想通过这个极端案例说明，大家基本都同意在
大街上，对方转身就不能开枪了；但是在自己家，即使转身了，虽然有争议，也能开枪。
在自己家，转身开不开枪更多是personal choice。
【在 N****E 的大作中提到】
: 去看看florida 的database吧，不是这么简单像你这么说着玩的。明确的直接的威胁是
: 必须的。不是说人在你家里你就有权想杀就杀的。
: 补注一下，我的意思是说，除非你就是想暗杀你，你背后放倒人家的麻烦远大于放人一
: 码。
| n**********o
发帖数: 713 | | a***x
发帖数: 26368 | 19 没看出有啥不正常的
【在 n**********o 的大作中提到】
: 伊力诺依州的相关法律如下：
: http://www.illinoislegalaid.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.dsp_c
: 芝加哥地区的法律更加严格的限制家防的时候开枪，基本上是开枪就会有麻烦
| f***a
发帖数: 1434 | 20 我也没看出问题。开枪条件甚至比UTAH的还要宽松。
1，trespassing + felony就可以开枪，甚至不需要是break in。
When you’re defending yourself or someone else, or stopping that “trespass
on or criminal interference with” other property, deadly force is also OK
to prevent “the commission of a forcible felony.”
2，break in 就能开枪。只要是暴力进入的就可以开枪。
When it’s used to stop someone’s “unlawful entry into or attack upon” a
dwelling, deadly force gets harder to justify. It’s justified to prevent “
an assault upon, or offer of personal violence to” yourself or someone else
in the dwelling, but only if the deadly force is used against someone whose
“entry is made or attempted in a violent, riotous, or tumultuous manner.”
It’s also OK to prevent “the commission of a felony in the dwelling.”
【在 n**********o 的大作中提到】
: 伊力诺依州的相关法律如下：
: http://www.illinoislegalaid.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.dsp_c
: 芝加哥地区的法律更加严格的限制家防的时候开枪，基本上是开枪就会有麻烦
| | | u*3
发帖数: 44 | 21 I don't support this way of thought. And of course this is just my take,
maybe the instructor meant otherwise.
Almost any HD scenario can be concluded as "better to shoot first" if only
focused on extreme conditions. A "general tactics" without specific
environment definition and interaction is very difficult to comprehend, and
use. Rules like this tend to blur the other options defender may have,
amplify the risk side, thus amplify the opportunity cost of doing it in
other less aggressive ways. This is hardly critical thinking, more of a "
mind storm" to help expanding listener's perspective.
There is a clear difference between "risk" and "imminent threat". Let the
robber go, you will take a higher risk, presented by the fact that the
robber "had" the intention to break in, and he may have a backup plan. But
shot him when he retreats, will almost definitely break the SD rule of "
imminent threat", because "to eliminate a potential threat" means there is
no other greater threats at that moment, it is clearly aggressive tactic.
A policeman maybe choose to do it on duty, as defined by his code; an
attorney may have the confidence to defend it (without successful track
record I guess), but not for an average home defender.
A good discussion though. | I*3
发帖数: 7012 | 22 正解来了。。。注意看题目。。。律师给出的理由是，“。。。但是我家人的命肯定比
钱重要。。。”， 而不是“我的命比钱重要”。
对于这道脑筋急转弯，关键词是“家人”。
一个人在家，射人背后，事后的确要费点事辩护。
如果有家人，无脑一律解释为罪犯转身企图扑向娇妻二奶，或者半岁的宝宝，或者相依
为命被视为家人的小狗小猫小黄小强。
【在 f***a 的大作中提到】
: 今天去上CCW的课，教官说了一个极端情况，他说如果有人break in，然后你拿着
: shotgun出去load gun的声音把他吓住了，然后他往外跑，你该不该开枪？
: 各位讨论一下，下面是教官的答案。可以先回复再看答案。
: 我还是会开枪，你在紧张的时候有tunnel view，眼里除了罪犯根本看不到别的。
: 1，你怎么确定他是被声音吓跑？而不是在门口放着一把枪，跑到门口去拿枪，然后返
: 回来干你？
: 2，你怎么能确定他没有同伙，而他是跑到门口去吼“he has a gun, go to get the
: gun in the car ?" 然后带3个人回来干你？
: 所以我会开枪，除非他已经跑到门外，只要他在房里，我就会开枪。当然打了多半就是
: 上法庭，花钱请好律师。但是我家人的命肯定比钱重要。
| s*****r
发帖数: 152 | 23 昨天刚上完手枪课(nra pistol first step introduction class)，在加州，致命武力
只能用来保护人命，所以保护家人，二奶，甚至无辜路人都是可以的，但是像家人一样
的小猫小狗等宠物是不行的，它们只是财物，不等同于人命。
【在 I*3 的大作中提到】
: 正解来了。。。注意看题目。。。律师给出的理由是，“。。。但是我家人的命肯定比
: 钱重要。。。”， 而不是“我的命比钱重要”。
: 对于这道脑筋急转弯，关键词是“家人”。
: 一个人在家，射人背后，事后的确要费点事辩护。
: 如果有家人，无脑一律解释为罪犯转身企图扑向娇妻二奶，或者半岁的宝宝，或者相依
: 为命被视为家人的小狗小猫小黄小强。
| f***a
发帖数: 1434 | 24 非常好的分析。很有逻辑的观点，虽然我不完全同意。
只是里面有一点错了，法律上说，在大街上self defense才需要"imminent threat"。
在家里home defense是没有"imminent"的要求的。（请看我的11/10update）所以我才
说，在大街上背后开枪基本是错的，而在家背后开枪只是有争议的。
and
【在 u*3 的大作中提到】
: I don't support this way of thought. And of course this is just my take,
: maybe the instructor meant otherwise.
: Almost any HD scenario can be concluded as "better to shoot first" if only
: focused on extreme conditions. A "general tactics" without specific
: environment definition and interaction is very difficult to comprehend, and
: use. Rules like this tend to blur the other options defender may have,
: amplify the risk side, thus amplify the opportunity cost of doing it in
: other less aggressive ways. This is hardly critical thinking, more of a "
: mind storm" to help expanding listener's perspective.
: There is a clear difference between "risk" and "imminent threat". Let the
| f***a
发帖数: 1434 | 25 你说的是大街上的情况，在家里某些情况下是可以使用deadly force来保护财产的。
【在 s*****r 的大作中提到】
: 昨天刚上完手枪课(nra pistol first step introduction class)，在加州，致命武力
: 只能用来保护人命，所以保护家人，二奶，甚至无辜路人都是可以的，但是像家人一样
: 的小猫小狗等宠物是不行的，它们只是财物，不等同于人命。
| p*********e
发帖数: 32207 | 26 请你注意,zimmerman的case,至少还要证明他处在死亡威胁中
而如果是入室抢劫,只要落实对方是非法进入就可以了
【在 k**o 的大作中提到】
: 入室抢劫的能QUAlify 干儿子的很少么？
| p*********e
发帖数: 32207 | 27 什么叫"database"?
florida statutes里面明文说,只要对方未授权进入或者试图进入,
你就有权使用deadly force
776.012:
" ... However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force
and does not have a duty to retreat if:
...
(2)?Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
"
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.
"
【在 N****E 的大作中提到】
: 去看看florida 的database吧，不是这么简单像你这么说着玩的。明确的直接的威胁是
: 必须的。不是说人在你家里你就有权想杀就杀的。
: 补注一下，我的意思是说，除非你就是想暗杀你，你背后放倒人家的麻烦远大于放人一
: 码。
| s*****r
发帖数: 152 | 28 The instructor clearly said even at home, the gun can not be used for
protecting property. What you said maybe true for other states, in
California, seems a person can not use gun for protecting property. The CA
handgun safety certificate brochure does mention that the right of deadly
force end if there is no further life-threatening from assailant:
Permissible Use of Lethal Force in Defense of Life and Body
The killing of one person by another may be justifiable when necessary to
resist
the attempt to commit a forcible and life-threatening crime, provided that a
reasonable person in the same or similar situation would believe that (a)
the person
killed intended to commit a forcible and life-threatening crime; (b) there
was
imminent danger of such crime being accomplished; and (c) the person acted
under the belief that such force was necessary to save himself or herself or
another
from death or a forcible and life-threatening crime. Murder, mayhem, rape
and
robbery are examples of forcible and life-threatening crimes. (Pen. Code, §
197.)
Limitations on the Use of Force in Self-Defense
The right of self-defense ceases when there is no further danger from an
assailant.
Thus, where a person attacked under circumstances initially justifying self-
defense
renders the attacker incapable of inflicting further injuries, the law of
self-defense
ceases and no further force may be used. Furthermore, a person may only use
the
amount of force, up to deadly force, as a reasonable person in the same or
similar
circumstances would believe necessary to prevent imminent injury. It is
important
to note the use of excessive force to counter an assault may result in civil
or
criminal penalties.
The right of self-defense is not initially available to a person who
assaults another.
However, if such a person attempts to stop further combat and clearly
informs the
adversary of his or her desire for peace but the opponent nevertheless
continues
the fight, the right of self-defense returns and is the same as the right of
any
other person being assaulted.
【在 f***a 的大作中提到】
: 你说的是大街上的情况，在家里某些情况下是可以使用deadly force来保护财产的。
| s******9
发帖数: 1451 | 29 关键点在于，什么官司、麻烦、不同地区、法律解释...等等都是事后的。不管是在芝
加哥还是在德州，强盗闯入你家背对你时，对你的威胁大小都是一样的。在具体情形下
要快速根据威胁大小判断是否需要开枪，对后续官司的考虑要放在极次要的位置。 | f***a
发帖数: 1434 | 30 看了条款，你是对的。加州的stand your ground 规定跟UT, FL, IL不一样。
加州转身就不能打了。
a
【在 s*****r 的大作中提到】
: The instructor clearly said even at home, the gun can not be used for
: protecting property. What you said maybe true for other states, in
: California, seems a person can not use gun for protecting property. The CA
: handgun safety certificate brochure does mention that the right of deadly
: force end if there is no further life-threatening from assailant:
: Permissible Use of Lethal Force in Defense of Life and Body
: The killing of one person by another may be justifiable when necessary to
: resist
: the attempt to commit a forcible and life-threatening crime, provided that a
: reasonable person in the same or similar situation would believe that (a)
| | | f***a
发帖数: 1434 | 31 做事还是要考虑后果的。提前查好法律的好处就是帮助你判断。
极端一点的例子，假如家里偷藏了一把枪，身处中国和身处美国，敢不敢拿出来用还是
不一样的。
同样的威胁，不说我提的转身的例子，而是正面冲过来。在法律宽松的州就可以大胆一
点，开枪消除安全隐患；在法律严格的州（比如有duty to retreat的maryland, new
york...），就要谨慎一点，能逃跑就逃跑。
【在 s******9 的大作中提到】
: 关键点在于，什么官司、麻烦、不同地区、法律解释...等等都是事后的。不管是在芝
: 加哥还是在德州，强盗闯入你家背对你时，对你的威胁大小都是一样的。在具体情形下
: 要快速根据威胁大小判断是否需要开枪，对后续官司的考虑要放在极次要的位置。
| p*********e
发帖数: 32207 | 32 talking about home defense, laws are written quite differently in different
states. What you have from your instructor thus only applies to your home,
not everybody else's.
a
【在 s*****r 的大作中提到】
: The instructor clearly said even at home, the gun can not be used for
: protecting property. What you said maybe true for other states, in
: California, seems a person can not use gun for protecting property. The CA
: handgun safety certificate brochure does mention that the right of deadly
: force end if there is no further life-threatening from assailant:
: Permissible Use of Lethal Force in Defense of Life and Body
: The killing of one person by another may be justifiable when necessary to
: resist
: the attempt to commit a forcible and life-threatening crime, provided that a
: reasonable person in the same or similar situation would believe that (a)
| s*****r
发帖数: 152 | 33 是的，你讲得对。我前面贴子也一直提到的，在加州那样做不行，其他州也许可以
different
【在 p*********e 的大作中提到】
: talking about home defense, laws are written quite differently in different
: states. What you have from your instructor thus only applies to your home,
: not everybody else's.
:
: a
| u*3
发帖数: 44 | 34 In my understanding, "imminent threat" is fundamental for use of deadly
force, indoor or outdoor.Even in FL, the state with strongest SD law, this
clause is clearly presented. Borrowing a quote from above:
"776.013(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:" -- imminent peril of death is still presented,
while "presumed" when HD occurs.
【在 f***a 的大作中提到】
: 非常好的分析。很有逻辑的观点，虽然我不完全同意。
: 只是里面有一点错了，法律上说，在大街上self defense才需要"imminent threat"。
: 在家里home defense是没有"imminent"的要求的。（请看我的11/10update）所以我才
: 说，在大街上背后开枪基本是错的，而在家背后开枪只是有争议的。
:
: and
| f***a
发帖数: 1434 | 35 你只看了（1），还有（2）
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(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.
http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/776.013
break in + intent of unlawful act，是intent，而不必是imminent。这时候intent
这个点是可以argue的，好律师可以找出来。举个例子，律师可以说他是往回跑找掩体
——对方到底为什么往回跑已经没有人知道，还不是靠一张嘴。
再次说明，我并非鼓励背后开枪，而是告诉大家从法律上HD和SD有些许不同。家防的时
候转身开枪有争议，但并非像自卫时转身开枪一样不被允许。
imminent
,
【在 u*3 的大作中提到】
: In my understanding, "imminent threat" is fundamental for use of deadly
: force, indoor or outdoor.Even in FL, the state with strongest SD law, this
: clause is clearly presented. Borrowing a quote from above:
: "776.013(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:" -- imminent peril of death is still presented,
: while "presumed" when HD occurs.
| c*m
发帖数: 836 | 36 不说法律，只说常识，在一个劫匪看到你手里有枪，撒腿往外跑的时候，他是逃跑，还
是去拿枪甚至叫同伙，哪种可能大一些？现实生活中前者的可能远远大于后者吧？除非
他是杀人狂或者别人雇来杀专门杀你的或者跟你有仇，很难想象一个进门偷东西或者打
算实施强奸的劫匪会面对一杆shotgun还硬上。
当然反例是肯定有的，但是你面对陪审团的时候，陪审团考虑的是what a reasonable
person would think。有人说，I'd rather judged by 12 than carried by 6, 这在
歹徒对你攻击的时候，再对也没有了。哪怕最后因此坐牢或者破产，也完全值得，我
100%认同。
但是在歹徒已经转身跑掉的情况下，你不开枪，绝大多数情况下就此结束，你开枪，非
常非常大的可能就是判你二级谋杀或者manslaughter坐几年甚至十几年的牢，外加倾家
荡产的赔偿。而这一切的原因，只不过来自于一个你假象的可能性非常小的攻击。我觉
得不值得。枪的目的是为了最大限度保护自己，而不是为了打死别人。如果因为打死一
个很可能已经准备逃跑的人而坐牢加破产，那买枪只是害了自己而已。
如果是我，歹徒朝外跑，我绝不会朝他后背开枪，但是我会马上关灯，躲在客厅家具后
面，shotgun瞄准门口。因为门口是歹徒的必经之路，只有不到一米宽，用shotgun打人
基本上十拿九稳。这样既可以减少自己吃不必要官司的可能性，也可以最大限度地防止
歹徒回来伤人。 | u*3
发帖数: 44 | 37 I agree it is alright to say that in Florida, HD has less restrictive
prerequisites than regular SD at other places. I am partially in agree with
OP.
I just want to point out that from my understanding, "imminent threat" is
key to successful HD both at the scene and later in court. Now using this
same example:
FL 776.013
1) defines "presumption of resonable fear of imminent peril of death"
2) EXCLUDES (1) in following situation. It is NOT a waiver for defender to
shoot at will.
2.a) when intruder has legal right to enter
2.b) when intruder was to remove his child from the house (legal custodian)
2.c) when defender was engaging unlawful activity himself (unlawful, not
felony, this is wide open for interpretations and claims)
2.d) when intruder is officer on duty
3) Stand your ground clause, for SD and HD. It allows defender to use 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"
4) defines "presumption of unlawful activities including force and voilance"
against defender.
Read 1) (3)and 4) again, you can see that 4) is a very vague definition. An
intruder breaks in to a house doesn't mean you can shoot him at will.
Because "unlawful activity with violance" (4) is far far away from "
reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great
bodily harm to himself"(3). So (4) is not going to be adequate for using
deadly force, but it gives presumption of "unlawful and forcible act", this
is also important.
The only benefit gives home defender that allows defender to engage with
less restrictions, is this"imminet threat" presumption in (1), because the "
reasonable belief" required to use deadly force in (3) has been given to
home defender as a "presumption" in (1), which calls for "unlawful and
forcible act" as a necessary prerequisite in (1.b), which in turn has been
given to defender in (4).
-----------------
IMHO, YMMV
a
doing
intent
【在 f***a 的大作中提到】
: 你只看了（1），还有（2）
: (2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
: (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.
: http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/776.013
: break in + intent of unlawful act，是intent，而不必是imminent。这时候intent
: 这个点是可以argue的，好律师可以找出来。举个例子，律师可以说他是往回跑找掩体
: ——对方到底为什么往回跑已经没有人知道，还不是靠一张嘴。
: 再次说明，我并非鼓励背后开枪，而是告诉大家从法律上HD和SD有些许不同。家防的时
| h*********n
发帖数: 11319 | 38 枪的目的是为了最大限度保护自己，而不是为了打死别人。如果因为打死一
个很可能已经准备逃跑的人而坐牢加破产，那买枪只是害了自己而已。
完全赞同
reasonable
【在 c*m 的大作中提到】
: 不说法律，只说常识，在一个劫匪看到你手里有枪，撒腿往外跑的时候，他是逃跑，还
: 是去拿枪甚至叫同伙，哪种可能大一些？现实生活中前者的可能远远大于后者吧？除非
: 他是杀人狂或者别人雇来杀专门杀你的或者跟你有仇，很难想象一个进门偷东西或者打
: 算实施强奸的劫匪会面对一杆shotgun还硬上。
: 当然反例是肯定有的，但是你面对陪审团的时候，陪审团考虑的是what a reasonable
: person would think。有人说，I'd rather judged by 12 than carried by 6, 这在
: 歹徒对你攻击的时候，再对也没有了。哪怕最后因此坐牢或者破产，也完全值得，我
: 100%认同。
: 但是在歹徒已经转身跑掉的情况下，你不开枪，绝大多数情况下就此结束，你开枪，非
: 常非常大的可能就是判你二级谋杀或者manslaughter坐几年甚至十几年的牢，外加倾家
| f***a
发帖数: 1434 | 39 又看了一遍，你对FL的法律解释更准确。
with
【在 u*3 的大作中提到】
: I agree it is alright to say that in Florida, HD has less restrictive
: prerequisites than regular SD at other places. I am partially in agree with
: OP.
: I just want to point out that from my understanding, "imminent threat" is
: key to successful HD both at the scene and later in court. Now using this
: same example:
: FL 776.013
: 1) defines "presumption of resonable fear of imminent peril of death"
: 2) EXCLUDES (1) in following situation. It is NOT a waiver for defender to
: shoot at will.
| p*********e
发帖数: 32207 | 40 However, in terms of how "imminent threat" is defined, laws in different
states are written differently.
In the Florida Statute case, the law clearly states that, the intruder
doesn't not need to do anything special to constitute his "imminent
threat", literally, against the home owner. As long as he is attempting
to enter or have already entered the dwelling, his physical existence
alone has become an imminent threat, be him facing whichever direction.
imminent
,
【在 u*3 的大作中提到】
: In my understanding, "imminent threat" is fundamental for use of deadly
: force, indoor or outdoor.Even in FL, the state with strongest SD law, this
: clause is clearly presented. Borrowing a quote from above:
: "776.013(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:" -- imminent peril of death is still presented,
: while "presumed" when HD occurs.
| | | p*********e
发帖数: 32207 | 41 你请注意,776.13的(2)条和(4)条乃是并列的条款
(2)条的if条件是其下面的(2)(a)至(2)(d),而并不是(3)或者(4)
我不知道你是没读懂原文还是故意偷换概念.
(4)一条是明文指出,只要某人非法暴力闯入民宅,
便可揣测其具有进行涉及暴力的非法活动的动机.
(2)一条是给出了四条例外:
"
(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.
"
a
doing
intent
【在 f***a 的大作中提到】
: 你只看了（1），还有（2）
: (2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
: (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.
: http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/776.013
: break in + intent of unlawful act，是intent，而不必是imminent。这时候intent
: 这个点是可以argue的，好律师可以找出来。举个例子，律师可以说他是往回跑找掩体
: ——对方到底为什么往回跑已经没有人知道，还不是靠一张嘴。
: 再次说明，我并非鼓励背后开枪，而是告诉大家从法律上HD和SD有些许不同。家防的时
| p*********e
发帖数: 32207 | 42 your understanding of 776.013 (4) need great improvement.
with
【在 u*3 的大作中提到】
: I agree it is alright to say that in Florida, HD has less restrictive
: prerequisites than regular SD at other places. I am partially in agree with
: OP.
: I just want to point out that from my understanding, "imminent threat" is
: key to successful HD both at the scene and later in court. Now using this
: same example:
: FL 776.013
: 1) defines "presumption of resonable fear of imminent peril of death"
: 2) EXCLUDES (1) in following situation. It is NOT a waiver for defender to
: shoot at will.
| f***a
发帖数: 1434 | 43 看错了。
【在 p*********e 的大作中提到】
: 你请注意,776.13的(2)条和(4)条乃是并列的条款
: (2)条的if条件是其下面的(2)(a)至(2)(d),而并不是(3)或者(4)
: 我不知道你是没读懂原文还是故意偷换概念.
: (4)一条是明文指出,只要某人非法暴力闯入民宅,
: 便可揣测其具有进行涉及暴力的非法活动的动机.
: (2)一条是给出了四条例外:
: "
: (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
| u*3
发帖数: 44 | 44 OK, with "imminent threat" established as a key element in HD, we can now
focus on 776.013 (4). Which quotes:
776.013 (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.
This clause clearly states a presumption of "unlawful act involving force or
violence" when intruder was entering/entered the premise A)unlawfully B)by
force.
And this presumption of "unlawful act involving force or violence" is called
for in 776.013 (1)(b) as "unlawful and forcible act". It is clear (1)(b)
is one of the two pre-conditions before home defender can be given another
presumption of "fear of imminent peril of death". The other precondition to
be (1)(a) "a person was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully
entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered,..., or if that person had
removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will ..."
This means home defender will only be given the presumption of "imminent
threat" when both preconditions (1)(a) and (1)(b) are fulfilled. Then if you
read (3), using deadly force requires other two pre-conditions: the
defender "reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or
great bodily harm to himself", or "to prevent the commission of a forcible
felony."
This means defender can use deadly force only when A) "imminent threat" is
evident, or being presumed by (1); or B) to prevent "forcible FELONY".
Notice B) said "forcible felony" instead of "forcible violent", which means
only with presumption in (4) and (1)(b) won't be adequate for (3) to prevail.
To sum it up in another way, when home defender claims 776.013 (3) to be
reasonably used deadly force, it will exam to see if A)"imminent threat" is
evident, or B)"forcible felony" is evident. For A), it will exam (1) to see
if "imminent threat" could be presumed, which will in turn exam (1)(a) AND (
1)(b). Since (1)(a) can be proved easier, (1)(b) of "unlawful and forcible
act" will become the mud zone. Fortunately there is (4), which essentially
gives defender a presumption of (1)(b), when (1)(a) "unlawfully and forcibly
entering" is evident.
So (4) is important, but not by itself, but by its position in the chain of
reasons. Which means if prosecutor breaks this chain, (maybe by claiming
that the defender was acting unlawfully at that moment) then (4) itself won'
t be able to stand the trial. In a word, the whole
776.013 has to be intact for "reasonable use of force" to prevail.
-----------------
IMHO, YMMV
【在 p*********e 的大作中提到】
: your understanding of 776.013 (4) need great improvement.
:
: with
| p*********e
发帖数: 32207 | 45 "
776.013 (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.
This clause clearly states a presumption of "unlawful act involving force or
violence" when intruder was entering/entered the premise A)unlawfully B)by
force.
"
How can you find the "when" clause in the original writing?
Actually, "doing so with the intent to ..." is a judgement, not a condition.
it simply states that whoever unlawfully enters a dwelling is automatically
having the intent to commit unlawful act, which is stated in 776.013 (1)
as one of the conditions under which use of deadly force is justifiable.
In another word, this section, the 776.013 (4), explicitly states that
the unlawful entering of a dwelling itself constitutes justifiable use
of deadly force. That's it.
to
or
by
called
【在 u*3 的大作中提到】
: OK, with "imminent threat" established as a key element in HD, we can now
: focus on 776.013 (4). Which quotes:
: 776.013 (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.
: This clause clearly states a presumption of "unlawful act involving force or
: violence" when intruder was entering/entered the premise A)unlawfully B)by
: force.
: And this presumption of "unlawful act involving force or violence" is called
| u*3
发帖数: 44 | 46 "How can you find the "when" clause in the original writing?"
--------if you like to follow original scripting, you can replace "when"
with "who" in my post for easier comprehension, try :
"776.013 (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.
This clause clearly states a presumption of "unlawful act involving force or
violence" against who was entering/entered the premise when A)unlawfully B)
by force."
to
or
by
【在 p*********e 的大作中提到】
: "
: 776.013 (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.
: This clause clearly states a presumption of "unlawful act involving force or
: violence" when intruder was entering/entered the premise A)unlawfully B)by
: force.
: "
: How can you find the "when" clause in the original writing?
| p*********e
发帖数: 32207 | 47 "
who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts
to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle
"
this is the clause the describes "a person".
starting from "is presumed to", it continues to make statement about
what kind of intent such person is presumed to have.
Or just find any native speaker and explain to them your interpretation,
and see what they say. I'm tired of this.
to
or
B)
【在 u*3 的大作中提到】
: "How can you find the "when" clause in the original writing?"
: --------if you like to follow original scripting, you can replace "when"
: with "who" in my post for easier comprehension, try :
: "776.013 (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.
: This clause clearly states a presumption of "unlawful act involving force or
: violence" against who was entering/entered the premise when A)unlawfully B)
: by force."
| u*3
发帖数: 44 | 48 "In another word, this section, the 776.013 (4), explicitly states that
the unlawful entering of a dwelling itself constitutes justifiable use
of deadly force. That's it."
I can't agree with your statement. You actually mentioned it yourself: "it
simply states that whoever unlawfully enters a dwelling is automatically
having the intent to commit unlawful act, which is stated in 776.013 (1) as
one of the conditions under which use of deadly force is justifiable."
(4) provides presumption for one of the conditions of (1), while (1)
provides presumption for (3). (3) is the ONLY clause mentions "use of deadly
force", and the ONLY clause gives "right of stand ground".
(1)(4) both gives presumptions, and one can not conclude that HD or SD is
justifiable with presumptions. The reason to this "extreme" caution is
because the chain from (4)-->(1)(b)-->(1)-->(3) might be broken in a case,
or (3) itself couldn't be established if defender was found "engaging
unlawful activity" at the moment (which in turn opens door to more exams).
Again this is my interpretation, YMMV. One thing is for sure, each HD/SD
case will be different and challenging, defenders will have to risk a lot
when pull the trigger, and long after that. It's a choice of life.
to
or
by
【在 p*********e 的大作中提到】
: "
: who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts
: to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle
: "
: this is the clause the describes "a person".
: starting from "is presumed to", it continues to make statement about
: what kind of intent such person is presumed to have.
: Or just find any native speaker and explain to them your interpretation,
: and see what they say. I'm tired of this.
:
| u*3
发帖数: 44 | 49 even with your interpretation, (4) still provides only a presumption of "
unlawful entry with forcible violence,etc". it doesn't mention anything
about "use of deadly force" or "has the right to stand ground". which was
stated only in (3). So in my perspective, (4) can't be stand-alone "that's
it", it is an element of the FL SYG right.
have a good weekend.
【在 p*********e 的大作中提到】
: "
: who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts
: to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle
: "
: this is the clause the describes "a person".
: starting from "is presumed to", it continues to make statement about
: what kind of intent such person is presumed to have.
: Or just find any native speaker and explain to them your interpretation,
: and see what they say. I'm tired of this.
:
| p*********e
发帖数: 32207 | 50 NO 776.013 (3) is NOT the only clause mentioning use of deadly force.
there is 776.012:
"
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.桝 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抯 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.
"
Read this first.
as
deadly
【在 u*3 的大作中提到】
: "In another word, this section, the 776.013 (4), explicitly states that
: the unlawful entering of a dwelling itself constitutes justifiable use
: of deadly force. That's it."
: I can't agree with your statement. You actually mentioned it yourself: "it
: simply states that whoever unlawfully enters a dwelling is automatically
: having the intent to commit unlawful act, which is stated in 776.013 (1) as
: one of the conditions under which use of deadly force is justifiable."
: (4) provides presumption for one of the conditions of (1), while (1)
: provides presumption for (3). (3) is the ONLY clause mentions "use of deadly
: force", and the ONLY clause gives "right of stand ground".
| | | p*********e
发帖数: 32207 | 51 please, if you want to talk about the florida statute on the justifiable
use of deadly force, read EVERYTHING in 776, not just 776.013.
【在 u*3 的大作中提到】
: even with your interpretation, (4) still provides only a presumption of "
: unlawful entry with forcible violence,etc". it doesn't mention anything
: about "use of deadly force" or "has the right to stand ground". which was
: stated only in (3). So in my perspective, (4) can't be stand-alone "that's
: it", it is an element of the FL SYG right.
: have a good weekend.
| p*********e
发帖数: 32207 | 52 AND FYI:
Title of 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.
776.013 is actually an expansion of 776.012, which gives the principle
of under what circumstances deadly force can be used justifiably.
【在 u*3 的大作中提到】
: even with your interpretation, (4) still provides only a presumption of "
: unlawful entry with forcible violence,etc". it doesn't mention anything
: about "use of deadly force" or "has the right to stand ground". which was
: stated only in (3). So in my perspective, (4) can't be stand-alone "that's
: it", it is an element of the FL SYG right.
: have a good weekend.
| u*3
发帖数: 44 | 53 Well, I was talking about the context within 776.013, when (3) was the only
clause mentions "use of deadly force" for home defense.
776.012 is for personal defense.
776.013 is for home defense.
76.031 is for defense of others.
I don't see how it could change my assessment about HD chain (4-->1-->3) by
extending the discussion to other 776 sections.If any, I saw other sections
exclusively refer to 776.013 for Home Defense scenario.
IMHO, YMMV
-----------------------------------------
Finally, want to state my position in HD:
that if someone unlawfully breaks in, I won't hesitate to arm myself and use
whatever legal force I can use to protect myself and my family. To
understand law is to be better prepared, but when things go bad, one ought
to do what he have to do to protect himself, to stand his ground, to
improvise, with 911 and good attorney on speed dial.
【在 p*********e 的大作中提到】
: NO 776.013 (3) is NOT the only clause mentioning use of deadly force.
: there is 776.012:
: "
: 776.012 Use of force in defense of person.桝 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抯 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:
| c*m
发帖数: 836 | 54 米国的法律很复杂，既有条文，又有先例，还有修正。更何况还有很多本来就含混不清
的条文，还要法官或者行政部门来解释所谓的立法者的真正意图。在没有这些背景知识
的情况下，不明白你们抓住一条条文死抠有什么意义。要真这么简单，虽然一个会
Google的人都能做律师了。
only
by
sections
【在 u*3 的大作中提到】
: Well, I was talking about the context within 776.013, when (3) was the only
: clause mentions "use of deadly force" for home defense.
: 776.012 is for personal defense.
: 776.013 is for home defense.
: 76.031 is for defense of others.
: I don't see how it could change my assessment about HD chain (4-->1-->3) by
: extending the discussion to other 776 sections.If any, I saw other sections
: exclusively refer to 776.013 for Home Defense scenario.
: IMHO, YMMV
: -----------------------------------------
| p*********e
发帖数: 32207 | 55 776.012 is NOT ONLY FOR PERSONAL DEFENSE, but for JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE,
including DEADLY FORCE.
Wake up!
only
by
sections
【在 u*3 的大作中提到】
: Well, I was talking about the context within 776.013, when (3) was the only
: clause mentions "use of deadly force" for home defense.
: 776.012 is for personal defense.
: 776.013 is for home defense.
: 76.031 is for defense of others.
: I don't see how it could change my assessment about HD chain (4-->1-->3) by
: extending the discussion to other 776 sections.If any, I saw other sections
: exclusively refer to 776.013 for Home Defense scenario.
: IMHO, YMMV
: -----------------------------------------
| u*3
发帖数: 44 | 56 "Justifiable use of force, including deadly force" is default context, the
whole chapter is under such a title:
CHAPTER 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
Then it breaks down to specific sections:
- 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.
Look, to me it's self explanatory. The original topic is about home defense,
so section 776.013 should be applied and focused upon.
That is it.
,
【在 p*********e 的大作中提到】
: 776.012 is NOT ONLY FOR PERSONAL DEFENSE, but for JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE,
: including DEADLY FORCE.
: Wake up!
:
: only
: by
: sections
| p*********e
发帖数: 32207 | 57 home protection is a special case for use of force in defense of person
or against forcible felony. Just read again 776.012.
and again, what I said is based on the assumption that you really believe
what you have said and have simply made a wrong interpretation of the
florida statute. In this case, I want to spend my time helping you. If
you just want to win a debate instead of participating in some productive
discussion, please let me know. I don't want to spend time on meaningless
fight.
And also, how about putting some real money on a bet? I will bring your
interpretation to a local (I live in Florida) criminal attorney and let
him judge whether it is wrong or not. I'll pay the attorney if you are
right, and you pay if you are wrong. Want to play?
of
defense,
FORCE
【在 u*3 的大作中提到】
: "Justifiable use of force, including deadly force" is default context, the
: whole chapter is under such a title:
: CHAPTER 776
: JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
: Then it breaks down to specific sections:
: - 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.
: Look, to me it's self explanatory. The original topic is about home defense,
: so section 776.013 should be applied and focused upon.
| p*********e
发帖数: 32207 | 58 and also, whoever lose the bet donates 200USD to qiangyou.org.
are you in?
【在 p*********e 的大作中提到】
: home protection is a special case for use of force in defense of person
: or against forcible felony. Just read again 776.012.
: and again, what I said is based on the assumption that you really believe
: what you have said and have simply made a wrong interpretation of the
: florida statute. In this case, I want to spend my time helping you. If
: you just want to win a debate instead of participating in some productive
: discussion, please let me know. I don't want to spend time on meaningless
: fight.
: And also, how about putting some real money on a bet? I will bring your
: interpretation to a local (I live in Florida) criminal attorney and let
| K****h
发帖数: 1073 | 59 最近据说很多黑小孩街上 KNOCK OUT GAME， 如果被突然袭击了，然后小黑跑，回头开
枪不行？那个老太婆怎么开枪的，还打死2个？ | l*b
发帖数: 4369 | 60 一帮老中猛拽chinglish，生怕别人不知道自己会讲洋文。
打中文很难么？ |
|
