[lit-ideas] Re: Gun control [law]
- From: "Mike Geary" <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 15:36:14 -0500
Florida (where, you may remember, a citizen was acquitted of shooting
a trick-or-treater),
Wasn't that Louisiana? Baton Rouge, to be specific. In 1992 Yashihiro
Hattori, a 16 year old Japanese high school exchange student was shot dead
by the home owner Rodney Peairs whose door bell he rang in error, believing
he was at the house where there was a party he had been invited to.
"Hattori was shot to death by a suburban homeowner who said he feared
for his life as the youngster approached his home inquiring about a
Halloween party."
"In Baton Rouge, Rodney Peairs, the homeowner who gunned down Yoshi
Hattori, was indicted by a grand jury. He was charged with
manslaughter and put on trial in May. The jury, apprently convinced
that Peairs was well within his rights to blow away an inquiring
teenager, deliberated for just over three hours before acquitting
him."
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Paul" <rpaul@xxxxxxxx>
To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 2:24 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Gun control [law]
Lawrence asked
I wonder about certain aspects of these statistics, e.g., if a
criminal breaks into my house and I shoot him, does that count as a
violent crime? If I kill him before he kills me, how does that show up
in the statistics?
Andreas replied
No, that's justifiable homicide.
Here are the rules of engagement. You'd better be sure you see a threat
of violence that is greater than your possiblity of violence. If he is
carrying a water balloon, you can't shoot him. His threat has to be
greater than what you have. If he has a little pocket knife, you can't
shoot him.
perceived threat. The law discussed below went into effect in 2005.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/sebok/20050502.html
How the New "Stand Your Ground" Law Changed the "Castle" Doctrine*
Florida's new "Stand Your Ground" law changes Florida's self-defense
rules in several ways.
First, it is now very easy to invoke the "castle" doctrine in Florida.
Under the old law, a person who killed someone in their home had the
burden of proof to show that they were in fear for their safety. Now,
all a person has to do is establish that the person they killed was
"unlawfully" and "forcibly" entering their home when they shot the
victim.
That is because the new creates a presumption that anyone who forcibly
and illegally enters a home is intent on threatening the lives of the
people within. And, at least according to a report written for the
Judiciary Committee of the Florida Senate, that presumption is
conclusive; it cannot be rebutted with contrary evidence.
So let's [use the example of] Lisa and Bob. Under the old law, Lisa would
have had to prove not only that Bob was in her home, but also that she was
afraid for her life (or the lives of others in the house). In reality,
that was often easy to do -- usually juries would take the word of a
living homeowner over a dead burglar (even if the burglar was
unarmed). But now Lisa, in theory, has a free hand to shoot even a
plainly unarmed burglar as to whom he or she, in fact, felt no fear at
all.
Second, the new Florida law expands the definition of "castle" to
include vehicles -- such as cars and boats. This expansion the castle
doctrine was clearly intended to address carjacking.
Third, in Florida, Lisa can now "stand her ground" even if she is
outside of her home. But to do so, she must "reasonably believe" that
using deadly force is necessary to prevent "imminent" use of deadly
force against herself or others.
Thus, Florida is now joining the large number of states who do not
value "life" above the right to stand unmolested wherever one wants.
It's unlikely, however, that this change will change outcomes in
particular cases.
Previously, all Lisa had to do to win her case was argue that she
honestly and reasonably believed that she could not retreat safely.
Now, she has to argue, instead -- somewhat similarly -- that she
reasonably believed that if she didn't use deadly force, Bob
imminently would.
Under either standard, Lisa still has the burden of proof to justify
her killing. Also, under either standard, the jury may disbelieve her
if there are witnesses around to contradict her story.
--------
*The Common Law maxim that one's home is one's castle, and that one has
the right to protect it by force.
Robert Paul
Reed College
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
