Pro's and con's of announcing to an intruder that you're armed

[Kleanbore]

No what your view is the Al Bragg rule a criminal is above reproach

You are mistaken.

and to defend yourself within the confines of your domicile with deadly force in the middle of the night makes you a criminal

No one has said that.

I have not only a legal right to the amount of force within my home but a GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO DEFEND MY HOME.

Yes, and whether you exercised that right lawfully is something that will be decided by someone else, after the fact.

There are many on gun sites who espouse your point of view clearly a ANTI GUN VIEW in my opinion

How can pointing out that a defense act may not be seen as lawful by others ever be characterized as an "anti gun View"?

making it seem you must never fire or keep a loaded firearm within reach or to even own a firearm

Where in the world did you come up with that? And by the way,, one need not use or threaten with a firearm to be charged with a crime. A bat or a nine iron will do. There was one case in which a resident killed an intruder with gum ball dispenser and ended up serving time.
there was no question of the intruder's ability or intent--the problem was tht the residence used deadly force without retreating. The duty to retreat within the house was eliminated in that jurisdiction after that.

 

[Old Dog]

So defending myself in my own home is now illegal yeah and ayoob I remember the conversation with him a few years back about hot loaded hand loads in your own house he danced around that when I asked for a court case where they were found in question to be too lethal and in fact illegal again he thanked me for my service and moved on the prosecution has heard me on several occasions including use of force incidents if you follow the continuum of the scale no problem.

No one has stated that defending yourself in your own home is now illegal. Simply that you cannot preemptively shoot an individual solely due to the fact he/she is inside your house without permission. Every state has a statute on using deadly force in self-defense/defense of another, but you also will have the duty to determine necessity of doing so.

I'd previously asked long you've been retired (no response) but you've given it away with the above remark. First, I would say that if you were trained in the old "use of force continuum," that you would know you would (again, time and circumstance permitting), absent detection of the intruder being armed with a deadly weapon and no immediate attack indicators, start at the lowest level of the continuum, which is -- guess what? -- clear verbals.

However, the old "ladder" graph use of force continuum formerly used in law enforcement (verbals, control tactics (counterjoint techniques, OC), defensive tactics (strikes/kicks), intermediate force options, lethal force) pretty much went away in favor of a use of force option responses (more of a pie graph), chart which does not imply that one has to exhaust each level of force option starting at the lowest prior to escalating to deadly physical force. The continuum proved to have issues in the courtroom, where attorneys would question why a "highly trained" officer went straight to deadly force without attempting lower (and less lethal) force options first.

 

[TarDevil]

and we're officially off the rails now.

Yeah, but not "we." Just one combative individual.
With those rare exceptions, there are many good observations.

 

[starnbar]

Florida Statute 776.013 says that you may defend your home or occupied vehicle from anyone trying to unlawfully gain access or entry to it by use of deadly force. Should this kind of incidence occur, you do not need to retreat or fire a warning shot to scare the intruder. The law permits an absolute assumption that whoever was attempting the unlawful entry into your private property was doing so with the full intention of committing a violent act towards you or your family. read it and weep

 

[starnbar]

No one has stated that defending yourself in your own home is now illegal. Simply that you cannot preemptively shoot an individual solely due to the fact he/she is inside your house without permission. Every state has a statute on using deadly force in self-defense/defense of another, but you also will have the duty to determine necessity of doing so.

I'd previously asked long you've been retired (no response) but you've given it away with the above remark. First, I would say that if you were trained in the old "use of force continuum," that you would know you would (again, time and circumstance permitting), absent detection of the intruder being armed with a deadly weapon and no immediate attack indicators, start at the lowest level of the continuum, which is -- guess what? -- clear verbals.

However, the old "ladder" graph use of force continuum formerly used in law enforcement (verbals, control tactics (counterjoint techniques, OC), defensive tactics (strikes/kicks), intermediate force options, lethal force) pretty much went away in favor of a use of force option responses (more of a pie graph), chart which does not imply that one has to exhaust each level of force option starting at the lowest prior to escalating to deadly physical force. The continuum proved to have issues in the courtroom, where attorneys would question why a "highly trained" officer went straight to deadly force without attempting lower (and less lethal) force options first.

Florida Statute 776.013 says that you may defend your home or occupied vehicle from anyone trying to unlawfully gain access or entry to it by use of deadly force. Should this kind of incidence occur, you do not need to retreat or fire a warning shot to scare the intruder. The law permits an absolute assumption that whoever was attempting the unlawful entry into your private property was doing so with the full intention of committing a violent act towards you or your family

 

[starnbar]

Yeah, but not "we." Just one combative individual.
With those rare exceptions, many are many good observations.

Florida Statute 776.013 says that you may defend your home or occupied vehicle from anyone trying to unlawfully gain access or entry to it by use of deadly force. Should this kind of incidence occur, you do not need to retreat or fire a warning shot to scare the intruder. The law permits an absolute assumption that whoever was attempting the unlawful entry into your private property was doing so with the full intention of committing a violent act towards you or your family

 

[The Night Rider]

you do not need to retreat or fire a warning shot to scare the intruder.

Fire a warning shot to scare the intruder?

I'm positive than other people are going to explain it better than me but that's incredibly bad advice?

 

[hoardingthemanual]

Fire a warning shot to scare the intruder?

I'm positive than other people are going to explain it better than me but that's incredibly bad advice?

Why is your italicized portion omitting the "you do not need" part?

 

[scaatylobo]

Here's a USCCA video addressing this topic. I'd like to see some discussion here.

ONLY a fool & a tool wants to fire rounds in their house !>

They have no idea the mess and trauma to the family,neighbors and all your relatives that will have press on their lawns and cameras up their wazoo for weeks or years [ depending on the race/religion of the perp you blew away ].

I am of the firm belief that a VERY LOUD " I am armed and will defend my family" challenge is the best action.

Yes,be tactical in every way possible.

Know where any rounds fired will finally rest.

Know where all your family members are [ POSITIVE sure ].

Know what guns you will be surrendering to the police after that shoot.

Have that attorney on speed dial after you call for police and ambulance.

KNOW if you are capable of approaching that downed perp [ is he/she still dangerous,do they have friends with them ? ]

So much more to know that you will also be in shock and miss out on.

I hope to hell they take my advise and GET THE FK OUT !.

 

[TarDevil]

Florida Statute 776.013 says that you may defend your home or occupied vehicle from anyone trying to unlawfully gain access or entry to it by use of deadly force. Should this kind of incidence occur, you do not need to retreat or fire a warning shot to scare the intruder. The law permits an absolute assumption that whoever was attempting the unlawful entry into your private property was doing so with the full intention of committing a violent act towards you or your family

Go for it, dude, and enjoy it.

I've never seen anyone on this forum so eager to off someone.

 

[The Night Rider]

Why is your italicized portion omitting the "you do not need" part?

Because I directly quoted the poster right above that.

I read what the poster said as implying that firing a warning shot is a viable option even if not necessary.

IMO the words "Fire A Warning Shot" should never appear together in the same sentence unless it's with a disclaimer that it's a really stupid idea

 

[Kleanbore]

Florida Statute 776.013 says that you may defend your home or occupied vehicle from anyone trying to unlawfully gain access or entry to it by use of deadly force.

What it says is that the occupant would be justified in the use of deadly force if he has a basis for a reasonable belief that such force is immediately necessary to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.

The law permits an absolute assumption that whoever was attempting the unlawful entry into your private property was doing so with the full intention of committing a violent act towards you or your family

It most certainly does not.

The law says that the occupant is presumed to have such a belief if someone is attempting to enter the premises unlawfully and forcibly.

A number of states have similar laws.

All legal presumptions are rebuttable.

 

[starnbar]

Fire a warning shot to scare the intruder?

I'm positive than other people are going to explain it better than me but that's incredibly bad advice?

That is the FL statute verbatim I see you are in the anti camp no matter what I posted is the statute

Go for it, dude, and enjoy it.

I've never seen anyone on this forum so eager to off someone.

Says you I am quoting statutes if you have an anti gun agenda so be it but telling people that they do not have a right to defend themselves in their own homes or vehicles is not only wrong it is tantamount to agreeing with the criminal element that mr bragg is so fond of defending

 

[TarDevil]

Why is your italicized portion omitting the "you do not need" part?

It's irrelevant. A gun should not be discharged for any other reason than last recourse.

 

[starnbar]

What it says is that the occupant would be justified in the use of deadly force if he has a basis for a reasonable belief that such force is immediately necessary to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.

It most certainly does not.

The law says that the occupant is presumed to have such a belief if someone is attempting to enter the premises unlawfully and forcibly.

A number of states have similar laws.

All legal presumptions are rebuttable.

No that is not true read the statute an absolute assumption not reasonable belief no where does it say reasonable belief show me where in statute .776.013 where it says reasonable belief

 

[TarDevil]

they do not have a right to defend themselves in their own homes or vehicles

Not one soul here has said or implied that.

Most of us, however, would rather not take a life until no other option is available.

 

[The Night Rider]

It's irrelevant. A gun should not be discharged for any other reason than last recourse.

Or to shoot a deer

 

[The Night Rider]

That is the FL statute verbatim

Post a direct link to that quote

 

[starnbar]

[

 

[Kleanbore]

Says you I am quoting statutes

Misquoting them....

telling people that they do not have a right to defend themselves in their own homes or vehicles is not only wrong it is tantamount to agreeing with the criminal element that mr bragg is so fond of defending

No one has said anything like that.

show me where in statute .776.013 where it says reasonable belief

• 776,013 (1)  and use or threaten to use:
  (a) Nondeadly 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’s imminent use of unlawful force; or
  (b) 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.
• 776.013 (2)  A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril ...

 

[The Night Rider]

That is the FL statute verbatim

That's not the Florida Statute verbatim

\/ This is the Florida Statute verbatim \/

Current through Chapter 77 of the 2023 Legislative Session
Section 776.013 - Home protection; use or threatened use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm
(1) A person who is in a dwelling or residence in which the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and use or threaten to use:
(a) Nondeadly 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's imminent use of unlawful force; or
(b) 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.
(2) 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.
(3) The presumption set forth in subsection (2) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened 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 threatened; or
(c) The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force is engaged in a criminal activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further a criminal activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using or threatening to use force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(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.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

Fla. Stat. § 776.013

Amended by 2017 Fla. Laws, ch. 77,s 1, eff. 7/1/2017.
Amended by 2014 Fla. Laws, ch. 195,s 4, eff. 6/20/2014.
s.1, ch. 2005-27.


The words "Fire A Warning Shot" do not appear in it anywhere

 

[TarDevil]

I would guess this is one of the challenging threads for mods; no one really crossed the boundaries, but there is a sense of duty to keep participants aware of implied perils within.

Kleanbore, well done.

 

[The Night Rider]

I would guess this is one of the challenging threads for mods; no one really crossed the boundaries, but there is a sense of duty to keep participants aware of implied perils within.

Kleanbore, well done.

It hasn't crossed the line but it has gone completely off the rails

 

[21H40]

(b) 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.

This doesn't encourage to shoot anything that moves, legally speaking. Perhaps phrases like "imminent death" or "great bodily harm" are more ambiguous in some people's mind.

No that is not true read the statute an absolute assumption not reasonable belief no where does it say reasonable belief show me where in statute .776.013 where it says reasonable belief

Maybe there is a different rule for retired LEO with unreasonable beliefs?

 

[Kleanbore]

We have had some constructive discussion here, and I hope that most members have found it informative.

I will say that I was not at all impressed by the discussion in the video.

I think it worth emphasizing that when one uses deadly force, one's destiny is entirely in the hands of others, in all jurisdictions, from that point in time on.

Oh, and thanks Tar Devil, and thanks to others for their reasoned contributions.