Fair Warning?

[CGSTL]

If you have a concealed weapon in Florida and you get robbed, can you shoot your robber dead even when you don't communicate to him that you have a gun and you are prepared to kill him?

Maybe if he warned them in English the robber would still be alive

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=11704

[B-Line]

2 things, I used to live in Florida.

1) Florida has a "castle" law, if you are being robbed and you are in your home (or your CASTLE). You have the right to use what ever force necessary to protect yourself, including deadly force. This is because, it is reasoned, if you are in your home, or running back to your home, you have no where else to go that is safe and deadly force is ok.

2) The other law in Florida states, You can not use excessive force against an assilant. Meaning, if someone comes at you with a fist, you can't stab em with a knife. -- Unless you feel that his fist can kill you...
-- But let me continue by saying, in Florida, it is considered, if someone is outnumbered, 2-1, 3-1, 4-1, etc. Then any action by assilant and his group, because you are outnumbered, is considered "deadly force" and you may retiliate with any force you deem necessary to protect yourself. This includes shooting them.

(I am paraphrasing... And these were the rules as I remember them, when I took my concealed weapons permit class, when I lived in S. Florida.)

On a side note.... I could care less if he warned the robbers in Spanish or in Yiddish or not at all. Why are we as a society on the side of the robbers on this one. Head line should be, Old man with with big balls protects himself and his family. Robbers that didn't get shot learn their lesson and will now get jobs and become positive, helpful, members of society..

P.S. - Did the robbers give fair warning to the old man. "Hey, if you go in the bank and take out money, we're going to follow you home and choke you?"

B

[Eric5273]

No reason to feel sorry for the robbers. There was a famous case here in NYC a number of years back. A guy named Bernard Goetz opened fire on a group of 4 teenagers trying to rob him in the subway. They made a big deal about it because he was white and they were black, but somehow I doubt that race had anything to do with the shooting. They later named him the "subway vigilante". If I remember correctly, none of them died, but one ended up in a wheelchair.

[B-Line]

Eric,

I'm from NY and lived there during the Bernard Goetz days.
Yes, it was made into a race issue. Rightly or wrongly, I can't say.

- But there were two bigger issues of the Goetz case.
1) Goetz had an ILLEGAL firearm. He did not have a weapons permit.
2) Goetz shot at the robbers in a crowded subway, as the kids were running away. The kid in the wheelchair was shot in the back. So, at the time Goetz shot, his life was no longer in danger. He was out of danger and fired at the young kids. That is why he was called the "subway vigilante"..

It's one thing to shoot someone in revenge, (like Bernard Goetz), with an illegal handgun.

It's another thing all together to shoot someone while they are strangling you. And you are carrying a weapon and a permit to do so, because you have been trained and understand what is and is not considered life threatening.

-- No one thought Bernard Goetz did the right thing, that is why he went to jail. But at the time, (pre-Guiliani NYC). The NYC subways were a VERY dangerous place and people got robbed all the time. New Yorkers were happy that someone finally stood up to the young punks as it served as a warning to other would be thiefs, "You may get shot in the back if you try to rob me also..." -- It was New Yorkers trying to take back the city from crime, even though Goetz went way overboard. (I think he was mugged with a screwdriver..)

B

[motordavid]

BLine/S...
very well written posts, on both states' situs, imo.
BR,mD

[brian5]

B-Line,

I too lived in NYC in the Bernhard Goetz days. That was headlines for months and your summary does it justice. Just wanted to say that I'm not sure about him shooting them as they were running away but I do remember he was "speed shooting" --- so he knew what he was doing and his intent was clear.

The NY subways were not a safe place at that time and I think that that case's visibility helped to get it right. When I moved back to NY (from California)in 2003, I was amazed at how safe the subways were.

[Eric5273]

Originally Posted by B-Line

Eric,

I'm from NY and lived there during the Bernard Goetz days.
Yes, it was made into a race issue. Rightly or wrongly, I can't say.

- But there were two bigger issues of the Goetz case.
1) Goetz had an ILLEGAL firearm. He did not have a weapons permit.
2) Goetz shot at the robbers in a crowded subway, as the kids were running away. The kid in the wheelchair was shot in the back. So, at the time Goetz shot, his life was no longer in danger. He was out of danger and fired at the young kids. That is why he was called the "subway vigilante"..

It's one thing to shoot someone in revenge, (like Bernard Goetz), with an illegal handgun.

It's another thing all together to shoot someone while they are strangling you. And you are carrying a weapon and a permit to do so, because you have been trained and understand what is and is not considered life threatening.

-- No one thought Bernard Goetz did the right thing, that is why he went to jail. But at the time, (pre-Guiliani NYC). The NYC subways were a VERY dangerous place and people got robbed all the time. New Yorkers were happy that someone finally stood up to the young punks as it served as a warning to other would be thiefs, "You may get shot in the back if you try to rob me also..." -- It was New Yorkers trying to take back the city from crime, even though Goetz went way overboard. (I think he was mugged with a screwdriver..)

B

Good summary!

If I remember correctly, he even tried to run for mayor a few years later.

[blondboinsd]

Hmm if someone robbed my house, I say kill em!

Carry on!

[ylwjacket]

Your quote of Florida law is a little off. What you described is the way it was until last year.

Last year, our state legislature extended the Castle Doctrine to anywhere you feel threatened. The idea of Castle Doctrine is that you are allowed to assume that someone means you harm if they invade your home. This doctrine was extended to your car, boat, and, in a way, your "personal space".

It used to be that you had to try to flee before you could use deadly force. Now, if you feel threatened, you do not have to "flee first". You are allowed, by extension of the Castle Doctrine, to defend yourself, without the flee first requirement.

When this was passed, it was feared that people would be shooting each other with great frequency in the streets and sidewalks, because they felt "threatened". So far, that has not happened.

The example most used to justify this law change is that, if someone tries to carjack you, you can assume they mean you great harm, and you can shoot them in their tracks.

Moralizing aside, carrying a concealed weapon carries great responsibility. Even more so now, in my opinion, at least in Florida.

[Krimson X]

The "Castle Doctrine" applies in Louisiana as well. However, you'd better make sure they are inside your house before you pop one off. if not, drag their ass over the threshold. It too is applicable to your car as an extension of the home.