Fla's new no-retreat law works just fine..

[mindpilot]

 

[DunedinDragon]

The reason I see this as an interesting test of the new law is because the shooter is unstable. As with most new laws, it takes a while to work out all the kinks the lawmakers didn't think of when they wrote it, and see how it gets interpreted in unusual and different circumstances. And I would submit this is about as different and unusual as it gets.

The new law centers on whether it's reasonable for the person to believe he was in grave danger. In this case, the shooter appears to be clinically paranoid, but the issue is NOT whether HE was reasonable, but rather if his actions would be considered reasonable by most people being placed into that situation. Under the old law he would have been compelled to at least TRY to escape or avoid the problem. The fact that he confronted the problem without retreat will truly test the reasonableness of shooting in this type of situation, solely on it's own merits, and not flavored by the guys obvious mental problems.

The first item of interest will be whether or not the police and the DA feel they can prove he was unreasonble in his actions. Under the new law the burden of proof is on the police to show his actions were unreasonble by most standards before he can even be charged. The second item of interest will be, if they do decide to prosecute, how will the judges and/or juries interpret the "reasonableness" factor.

For those of us that DON'T hear voices and live in Florida this will give us a VERY good lesson on how the new law is going to be interpreted without having to incur the legal costs of hiring a good lawyer to defend us.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

The reason I see this as an interesting test of the new law is because the shooter is unstable. As with most new laws, it takes a while to work out all the kinks the lawmakers didn't think of when they wrote it, and see how it gets interpreted in unusual and different circumstances. And I would submit this is about as different and unusual as it gets.

The new law centers on whether it's reasonable for the person to believe he was in grave danger. In this case, the shooter appears to be clinically paranoid, but the issue is NOT whether HE was reasonable, but rather if his actions would be considered reasonable by most people being placed into that situation. Under the old law he would have been compelled to at least TRY to escape or avoid the problem. The fact that he confronted the problem without retreat will truly test the reasonableness of shooting in this type of situation, solely on it's own merits, and not flavored by the guys obvious mental problems.

I believe you are mistaken. I do not see this as a test of the new law at all, because Devries was inside his own home. Floida's old law already allowed people to defend their homes with no duty to retreat. You are incorrect in saying the old law would have compelled him to retreat. Retreat OUT of your own house? Very few states would require that, and Florida wasn't one of them.

Secondly, the new law only removed the duty to retreat. It did not center on the issue of whether or not a person believes himself to be in danger. I'm pretty sure that's in other parts of Florida law, and the new law simply establishes that WHEN a person feels he is in grave danger in a public place, he/she no longer must try to retreat before being allowed to use deadly force in self defense.

 

[LynnMassGuy]

I believe you are mistaken. I do not see this as a test of the new law at all, because Devries was inside his own home.

Indeed, he was inside his house BUT the "bad guys" (maybe so maybe no) were not inside his house.

 

[MarshallDodge]

With the details I have seen I personally would not have shot.
Devries is very unstable and who knows what was going through his mind but if walking up to a front door at 2 AM and knocking on it is grounds for getting shot I have a problem with that. I would have told them to go away and called the police. If they came through the front door then they would have been shot.

In the case of the Colorado incident mentioned earlier, the shooter had been shooting at the neighbors barking dog with his pellet gun. When the neighbor got mad, grabbed a 2X4, and went over to the guys house and began smashing the glass in the front door the guy blasted him with a 12 gauge and killed him.

The law may protect from jail you but you will probably be poor from the lawsuit.

 

[Coronach]

Seems the story is a changin quite a bit.

No. Really?

Who- I ask- who could have predicted this?

Hint:

What it looks like, as usual, is we don't have enough information...More specifically, I can think of plenty of reasons why this would be a good shoot. I can also think of plenty of reasons why it would not. The propriety of it will depend upon exactly what the shooter and the victims specifically say happened, and the physical evidence. We have access to none of that at this time.

Also, I'll be very curious as to an examination of the shooter's mental condition at the time of the shoot.

OK. Snark aside, this was a case-in-point about newsblurbs being of little use in determining the propriety of a shoot. We had several posters chanting "Good shoot!" and "bad shoot!" a few hours ago, but I think most rational people will consider a news report pretty flimsy for the purposes of determining if a shoot is justified.

Mike