Thread: who likes custom knives?

Florida law is basically of the opinion that breaking and entering an occupied residence shows sufficient disregard for human life as to be regarded as posing an "imminent and immediate threat" to the persons inside and is cause for use of deadly force.

I'm providing the definition of "forcible felony" first so you can keep in mind that any forcible felony is justification for the use of deadly force under Fl law.


776.08 Forcible felony.--"Forcible felony" means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; car-jacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.
History--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 4, ch. 75-298; s. 289, ch. 79-400; s. 5, ch. 93-212; s. 10, ch. 95-195.


I'll provide the entire link so you can wade through it yourself but I'm also gonna paste out the important stuff.

Q. What if someone is attacking me in my own home?
A. The courts have created an exception to the duty to retreat called the “castle doctrine.” Under the castle doctrine, you need not retreat from your own home to avoid using deadly force against an assailant. The castle doctrine applies if you are attacked in your own home by an intruder or an invited guest.

Q. What if I am in my vehicle?
A. A person has no duty to retreat in his lawfully occupied vehicle against a person who was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering or had unlawfully and forcefully entered an occupied vehicle or had unlawfully and forcefully removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the occupied vehicle.

Q. When can I use my handgun to protect myself?
A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:

• Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
• Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.

Q. What if someone uses threatening language to me so that I am afraid for my life or safety?
A. Verbal threats are not enough to justify the use of deadly force. There must be an overt act by the person which indicates that he immediately intends to carry out the threat. The person threatened must reasonably believe that he will be killed or suffer serious bodily harm if he does not immediately take the life of his adversary.


http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/wea...f_defense.html

Real statutes

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly 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 such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that 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.
History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102.


776.031 Use of force in defense of others.--A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.
History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1189, ch. 97-102.


I've nearly met my maker a few times, but never was my death prevented by standing there trying to figure out if I was going to die or not.

As far as your accusation that I would have been killing in cold blood.....
That is an awful big judgment to make considering that I would be well within my rights.
I would not be so pretentious as to claim to judge mens souls.
That's Gods job. My function is to arrange the meeting !

I can't see how you would be within the law to shoot two people who were obviously no threat. They were probably terrified and to kill a 17 year old who may have been led astray by the older thief wouldn't be very nice. In fact it may well end up with you being shot at a later date by one of his friends or relatives.
He may have been that scared that he refused to break in to another house again or just as likely grew out of it.

There was a farmer here a while back that went to jail for shooting some kids who had broken into his house when they were in the process of jumping out a window.

Originally Posted by gratewhitehuntr

I've nearly met my maker a few times, but never was my death prevented by standing there trying to figure out if I was going to die or not.

As far as your accusation that I would have been killing in cold blood.....
That is an awful big judgment to make considering that I would be well within my rights.
I would not be so pretentious as to claim to judge mens souls.
That's Gods job. My function is to arrange the meeting !

I don't say that you should not react and if the need is there you have to use force, deadly or otherwise.
But in this particular situation, the guy was sitting there in a shooting stance, waiting for them to kick in his door.

In this particular case, the intruders were unarmed (at least there was no mention of arms), not intent on assaulting the homeowner (or they wouldn't have knocked for minutes) and were completely surprised and scared speachless. They did the first thing that came to mind and ran away.

So in this particular case, shooting the intruders would have been murder as soon as they turned away.
Whether the state law says it's allright or not is only a practical detail.
It used to be perfectly legal to beat and/or rape your wife, kill your slaves or discriminate against coloured people, but that didn't make it right either.
Legal right does not always equate to morally right.

I perfectly understand that there are situations in which you have to use force, as you mentioned somewhere else in this thread (the baby seal clubbing thing )
And I realize it is easy for me to make my decisions, sitting in a couch while typing on my laptop.

Btw, did you know that your words were first uttered by Pope Innocent the 3d?
The inquisition had to arrest 200 people (Cathari I think) inside a big city in france.
The leader of the group sent to capture / kill them asked the pope how they should recognize them, to which the pope literally said 'Kill them all, God will know which are his'.
According to wikipedia, the body count was between 7 and 20 thousand.

Ok, I finally have 3 mins to write a response to all this hug a burglar stuff that has been posted.

Points that were made.

Originally Posted by murph

He may have been that scared that he refused to break in to another house again or just as likely grew out of it.

I highly doubt it.
The people I knew who were criminal teens are now criminal adults. Some are in and out of jail and others are in prison.

If we are to believe the argument against marijuana, that it is a "gateway drug", meaning that marijuana use leads to other drugs and eventual addiction, then we could easily make the same case against burglary.
It IS only a small step away from home invasion.

How bout when they go to the next town over and break into your grandmas house but she is deaf (bless her heart) and didn't hear the knocking so she sees them and they kill her?
What then?
Do you think your grandma would have wanted you to stop the evil home invaders from killing her?
I'll bet not right ?

Originally Posted by Bruno

In this particular case, the intruders were unarmed (at least there was no mention of arms), not intent on assaulting the homeowner (or they wouldn't have knocked for minutes) and were completely surprised and scared speachless. They did the first thing that came to mind and ran away.......

And I realize it is easy for me to make my decisions, sitting in a couch while typing on my laptop.

So you think that they didn't learn anything from being at the wrong end of a gun?
I'll bet the one who got caught will bring a gun next time.

Let's say for a moment that they didn't catch either guy.
Do you think this guys rifle is safe now that a burglars know it's there?

Of course a when they break back in to steal his guns it won't make the razor forum news.

Originally Posted by murph

In fact it may well end up with you being shot at a later date by one of his friends or relatives.

So he has friends. Who the hell cares?
A dog who is known to bite is much scarier than a barker.

Fear and respect are nearly the same thing.

Originally Posted by murph

There was a farmer here a while back that went to jail for shooting some kids who had broken into his house when they were in the process of jumping out a window.

Yeah, cause it's manslaughter at the least if they are fleeing and possibly murder 2.


My grandfather always used to say "Never point a gun at anyone unless you are going to kill them. If you don't kill them you will likely scare or anger them so badly that they will go get their gun and come kill you."

Now the guy has all the time in the world to go get drunk or high or whatever and come back for revenge !

Take the initiative. Be a man. Swing before they even know it's a fight.
Homo Sapien didn't survive this long by exploring the marvels of pacifism.

These people repeat offend and are in and out of jail constantly.
It costs the taxpayers money. More people are victimized. Property is damaged.
Irreplaceable family keepsakes are stolen and pawned for $20 never to be seen again. They may turn to rape, murder, car theft.
What if they run from the cops in a stolen car and kill your wife/kid/parent/grandparent/friend??
Your nice old granny would want you to protect her from the home invaders right?

Do your duty to society. Pacifism is Sissy-ism.
The gene pool needs chlorine. Step up pool boy.

Originally Posted by gratewhitehuntr

These people repeat offend and are in and out of jail constantly.
It costs the taxpayers money. More people are victimized. Property is damaged.
Irreplaceable family keepsakes are stolen and pawned for $20 never to be seen again. They may turn to rape, murder, car theft.
What if they run from the cops in a stolen car and kill your wife/kid/parent/grandparent/friend??
Your nice old granny would want you to protect her from the home invaders right?

Do your duty to society. Pacifism is Sissy-ism.
The gene pool needs chlorine. Step up pool boy.

But by that logic, we should just shoot people on principal, just in case.
Guy runs away when you hold him at gun point: shoot him.
Guy hits your car with his: shoot him.
Guy insults your wife: shoot him.
Guy walks on the sidewalk, minding his own business: shoot him.

Any situation at all could be a scenario where you or your loved ones end up hurt, and shooting everybody is not a solution.

But from a more practical point of view:
Shooting those burglars from the story would almost certainly send most europeans to jail for 15 to life. Would that perhaps be better?

Right, 15 years.
I'm guessing some of that would be since guns are supposed to be used for hunting or target practice and home defense is illegal usage?

It would only land you in that sort of problem here in certain states.

I already said that you can't shoot a fleeing suspect.

Traffic accidents do happen. If the guy tries to hurt you after hitting your car then shoot him. There is a lot of road rage here and that would be perfectly justifiable.

Verbal attacks are not even assault under the law and no where near a forcible felony. Some states require you to " retreat if armed since you know better than the other person that the confrontation has the potential to become a deadly force situation" their words.

sidewalk? public property, no crime being commited there. Unless maybe he is ugly?
I don't think "putting him out of his misery" is justifiable.

See how I say I would shoot someone in my house, a act that the government of the state I live in says is completely within my rights, and now all of a sudden you have me shooting people for walking with a limp.

Do you see me condemning the Dutch for purchasing sex, which here can get you a couple of years?
No. It is within their rights.

GW, Bruno did not say you do not have the right. He simply pointed out what he percieved in a flaw in your reasoning.

I vote that this subject (which is WAY offtopic anyway) be left alone for now. Partly because everytime I open up this topic I hope to see another custom knife and all I see is debate. (somewhat interesting also but not in anyway as nice as the knife Pappabull made.)

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

GW, Bruno did not say you do not have the right. He simply pointed out what he percieved in a flaw in your reasoning.

I vote that this subject (which is WAY offtopic anyway) be left alone for now. Partly because everytime I open up this topic I hope to see another custom knife and all I see is debate. (somewhat interesting also but not in anyway as nice as the knife Pappabull made.)

We are definitely off topic, and I somewhat agree that this direction we have gone does cheapen Roberts original thread.
I think I shall restart this in another thread, maybe next week.
With that in mind, this will be my last post here till I can find my camera to post pics of my custom knives.

I would not call what Bruno did "pointing out a perceived flaw in my reasoning" since his argument (except the part about laws differing in Europe)
did not address any of my post in a serious manner.
His examples of who you could shoot "according to my reasoning" bear no resemblance to the original example and are simply the standard demagoguery of the left.
This particular example is called the "straw man".
The concept is to distort my original stance and then argue against something that I never stated to show how unreasonable I must be.

Go look it up. It is obvious that this is what he did. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
My god, look at example #2 !!

A common example of a real world use of this fallacy might concern capital punishment:

Person A: The death sentence would also remove some financial stresses on the prison system.

Person B: It's terrible that you think we should kill people just to clear out prisons.

I'm going to end my side with the sig of a fellow member, Jersey Lawyer.

"'The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail - its roof may shake - the wind may blow through it - the storm may enter - the rain may enter - but the King of England cannot enter - all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement.' So be it - unless he has justification by law."

Southam v Smout [1964] 1 QB 308 at 320 [Denning, L.] quoting William Pitt, 1763

GW, please don't feel offended like you're acting now. I was simply trying to keep the peace. The whole point of this website is to be able to discuss things without being offended. No-one is attacking you personally so there's no need to take it personal.

Straw Man: