p*********e
发帖数: 32207 | 1 6月份州长刚签字核准了Threatened Use of Force Act
2014版的Florida Statutes已经对
F.S. 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE一章
及F.S. 775 (TITLE XLVI CRIMES的总章)的部分章节
进行了增删
法案基本上就是将use of deadly force和threatened use of deadly force
放在同一地位
包括可以使用的场合,以及事后的
immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action
均一视同仁
并取消了对符合F.S. 776描述的情况下用枪威胁对方的刑事处罚
下面附上F.S. 776:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_
和一部分法案原文:
F.S. 776.012
"
(2)?A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he
or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use 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. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance
with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to
stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly
force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or
she has a right to be.
"
F.S. 776.013
"
776.013?Home protection; use or threatened 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 or
threatening to use 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 or threatened 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 or threatens to use defensive force knew or had
reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and
forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
"
F.S. 775.087
"
(6)?Notwithstanding s. 27.366, the sentencing court shall not impose the
mandatory minimum sentence required by subsection (2) or subsection (3) for
a conviction for aggravated assault if the court makes written findings that:
(a)?The defendant had a good faith belief that the aggravated assault was
justifiable pursuant to chapter 776.
(b)?The aggravated assault was not committed in the course of committing
another criminal offense.
(c)?The defendant does not pose a threat to public safety.
(d)?The totality of the circumstances involved in the offense do not justify
the imposition of such sentence.
"
以及法案本身:
http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Documents/loaddoc.aspx?F
和部分原文:
"
Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:
71
72 Section 1. (1) The Legislature finds that persons have
73 been criminally prosecuted and have been sentenced to mandatory
74 minimum terms of imprisonment pursuant to s. 775.087, Florida
75 Statutes, for threatening to use force in a manner and under
76 circumstances that would have been justifiable under chapter
77 776, Florida Statutes, had force actually been used.
78 (2) The Legislature intends to:
79 (a) Provide criminal and civil immunity to those who
80 threaten to use force if the threat was made in a manner and
81 under circumstances that would have been immune under chapter
82 776, Florida Statutes, had force actually been used.
83 (b) Clarify that those who threaten to use force may claim
84 self-defense if the threat was made in a manner and under
85 circumstances that would have been justifiable under chapter
86 776, Florida Statutes, had force actually been used.
87 (c) Ensure that those who threaten to use force in a
88 manner and under circumstances that are justifiable under
89 chapter 776, Florida Statutes, are not sentenced to a mandatory
90 minimum term of imprisonment pursuant to s. 775.087, Florida
91 Statutes.
92 (d) Encourage those who have been sentenced to a mandatory
93 minimum term of imprisonment pursuant to s. 775.087, Florida
94 Statutes, for threatening to use force in a manner and under
95 circumstances that are justifiable under chapter 776, Florida
96 Statutes, to apply for executive clemency.
" | l*****t
发帖数: 3117 | | p*********e
发帖数: 32207 | 3 按照原有州法,只有当你的生命受到立即的威胁,或者有立即的重大人身伤害危险
或者在有人进行暴力犯罪的时候,才可以使用枪
而只是用枪威胁人的话,属于aggrevated assault
现在相当于在原本可以用枪的场合,多了一个选择只威胁不打.
【在 l*****t 的大作中提到】
: 以前不让拔枪示威的原因是什么？
| l*****t
发帖数: 3117 | 4 我觉得允许 掏枪但不开枪 还是挺好的。
比如road rage , 对方不让我走, 只好停车, 然后对方空手朝我的车过来了, 掏枪吓走
对方是比较好的结果。
但如果掏枪就必须kill, 就只能等对方做出更aggressive的举动, 然后掏枪击毙, 总是
很麻烦的。 | p*********e
发帖数: 32207 | 5 怎么说呢,这个政策对于有枪的人来说是好事儿,因为毕竟多了一个选择
要是能不开枪解决问题,还是比开枪和惹来的麻烦要方便
但对于整个社会,或者说对于CCW政策对罪犯的威吓,可能是减分
前几天才看到一个案子,就在FL,有个teenager(没说族裔不过你懂的)
把路人拦住先问有没有携枪,回答没有之后一拳打过去要玩knockout game
以前规定掏枪就要打,那之前aggressor也不知道victim身上是否有枪
那么就要掂量一下自己的风险,权衡之下可能就不动手了,
这就是CCW政策整体对犯罪行为的威吓作用
现在有了这个政策,aggressor知道即便有CCW的人,
很可能在被攻击时也不是打死自己而只是用枪吓自己走
这样的话犯罪的潜在成本就会小很多,可能权衡之下的结果更倾向于犯罪
最后整体的社会影响如何,就不确定了.
【在 l*****t 的大作中提到】
: 我觉得允许 掏枪但不开枪 还是挺好的。
: 比如road rage , 对方不让我走, 只好停车, 然后对方空手朝我的车过来了, 掏枪吓走
: 对方是比较好的结果。
: 但如果掏枪就必须kill, 就只能等对方做出更aggressive的举动, 然后掏枪击毙, 总是
: 很麻烦的。
| l*****e
发帖数: 1431 | 6 你这个做法是会给自己招来麻烦的，如果你需要“等对方做出更aggressive的举动”才
能掏枪击毙，那么一样，在对方没有做出更aggressive的举动之前，你也不能掏枪威胁
。按照法律的条文，use or threaten to use deadly force的前提是一致的，没有说
掏枪威胁的要求比实际开枪的门槛低。
【在 l*****t 的大作中提到】
: 我觉得允许 掏枪但不开枪 还是挺好的。
: 比如road rage , 对方不让我走, 只好停车, 然后对方空手朝我的车过来了, 掏枪吓走
: 对方是比较好的结果。
: 但如果掏枪就必须kill, 就只能等对方做出更aggressive的举动, 然后掏枪击毙, 总是
: 很麻烦的。
| m********s
发帖数: 55301 | 7 靠，记住了。
一旦拔枪，必须把对方打死。
只有死人才是没有机会为自己争辩的。
【在 p*********e 的大作中提到】
: 6月份州长刚签字核准了Threatened Use of Force Act
: 2014版的Florida Statutes已经对
: F.S. 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE一章
: 及F.S. 775 (TITLE XLVI CRIMES的总章)的部分章节
: 进行了增删
: 法案基本上就是将use of deadly force和threatened use of deadly force
: 放在同一地位
: 包括可以使用的场合,以及事后的
: immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action
: 均一视同仁
| p*********e
发帖数: 32207 | 8 对
这个新法案只是在你已经可以开枪的时候可以选择不开枪
并没有扩大threaten to use deadly force的许可场合
road rage如果还没到可以开枪的地步,就拿枪吓人,
很可能被界定为aggregated assault
【在 l*****e 的大作中提到】
: 你这个做法是会给自己招来麻烦的，如果你需要“等对方做出更aggressive的举动”才
: 能掏枪击毙，那么一样，在对方没有做出更aggressive的举动之前，你也不能掏枪威胁
: 。按照法律的条文，use or threaten to use deadly force的前提是一致的，没有说
: 掏枪威胁的要求比实际开枪的门槛低。
| G*******g
发帖数: 3729 | | p*********e
发帖数: 32207 | 10 看了一下好像不行
texas statutes里面
用枪吓人本身属于aggrevated assault:
Sec. 22.01. ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person:
...
(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily
injury, including the person's spouse; ...
"
Sec. 22.02. AGGRAVATED ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the
person commits assault as defined in Sec. 22.01 and the person:
...
(2) uses or exhibits a deadly weapon during the commission of the assault.
...
"
然后在use of deadly force这个section也没看到provision可以threaten to use
deadly force或者类似的语句
那么你如果拔枪威吓的话就要有麻烦了
FL这个似乎是全美首例,google搜threatened use of deadly force,
全部都指向fl最近通过的这个法案
而且印象里以前版上共识就是要么不拔枪,拔就得打,不然有麻烦.
【在 G*******g 的大作中提到】
: Texas是神马规定? 可以掏枪威慑吗?
| d*******s
发帖数: 15155 | 11 不错，值得欢迎的法律．不过GA好像根本不需要，检查官都是红脖子，吓人也好打了也
好根本不起诉．
Well, I mean "Georgia" Georgia, not "Atlanta" Georgia. |
|
