Learn Something Every Day

[Gohon]

Sat down last night and read the entire Oklahoma Self-Defense Act, Title 21. A lot of reading but well worth it. I knew we were a right to carry state and that we were protected in our own homes to use deadly force. But what I didn't know was this was a no retreat state also. Didn't know that a police officer could not confiscate your gun after a shooting unless there was clear evidence that you had actually broken a law. Knew one could not be sued for a justifiable shooting but if you were sued and found not guilty, the party that brought the charges were responsible for your court and lawyer fees and that not only included individuals such as family members but police departments and the county. Kind of makes me wonder just how many people really know their full protections by the law or are just going on hearsay that may or may not be correct.

[PWB]

MS has what several states term as "Castle Law"...MS Code of 1972, 97-3-15 Crimes Against Persons; para. (3) defines being able to use deadly force in protection of a dwelling, vehicle, business, or place of employment, para.(4) defines a person who is not the aggressor has no duty to retreat.

[Brian in FL]

We have a similar Castle Doctrine law here in Florida.

[Jhawker]

You are so correct. Everyday is a learning day.

BTW, most people don't know the law regarding the rights that they have or don't have regarding just about anything. Too bad, isn't it?? :P

[Gaterskiner]

Florida has the castle doctrine. The one guy I know of lost everything he had before he was cleared of all charges. He is still alive but I bet he wishes he had run.

[2shotal]

Interesting comment by the last poster about the person wishing he/she had run instead. According to Section 776.032, paragraph (3), if the person had committed a lawful action, they should have been reimbursed for their costs to defend themselves. See the Florida Statutes below:


The 2009 Florida Statutes

CHAPTER 776

JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.

776.031 Use of force in defense of others.

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.

776.05 Law enforcement officers; use of force in making an arrest.

776.051 Use of force in resisting arrest or making an arrest or in the execution of a legal duty; prohibition.

776.06 Deadly force.

776.07 Use of force to prevent escape.

776.08 Forcible felony.

776.085 Defense to civil action for damages; party convicted of forcible or attempted forcible felony.

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in using 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 the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) 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; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.--

(1) 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 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 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 defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used 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

(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used 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 force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(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.

History.--s. 1, ch. 2005-27.

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 the 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. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1189, ch. 97-102; s. 3, ch. 2005-27.

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.--

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting 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 force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

History.--s. 4, ch. 2005-27.

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.--The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

[Gaterskiner]

The incident I refered to happened in West palm Beach. The man shot 2 (1dead) gang members. A 3rd man admitted they were going to f*%k him up. He was arrested and jailed. While in jail gang members burned his house. He lost his job. The county put his dogs down rather than board them. My info comes from The Palm Bch. Post.
The pics showed A nice 4" group in the windshield of the car they were trying to run him over with. the man knew how to shoot.
Just because your right don't mean it is going to be easy.

[2shotal]

Ouch!....I see your point....but, if the sitaution/event deals with gangs, then I guess all norms and standards are off....