Duty to retreat vs stand your ground and castle laws: Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater

[iverglas]

85. unfortunately, the wiki article is totally false

One of the characteristics of "castle doctrine" laws it lists is:

The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home

In Florida-style laws, the entire point is that there is NO requirement of any such belief on the part of the occupant.

The law creates an IRREBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION that an occupant who reasonably believes that someone has unlawfully or forcibly entered the home has such a fear. The occupant need not even assert the fear, let alone offer any evidence or argument to show that it was reasonable.

An occupant who kills or injures someone they reasonably believed had entered the home forcibly or illegally -- and yes, that absolutely includes the sleeping 10-year-old who broke in a basement window and drank the liquor cabinet contents -- is IMMUNE from prosecution.

A lot of people don't bother to read and understand what these laws say. And a lot of other people don't want anybody to understand what they say.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=125237&mesg_id=125237

According to the Senate Committee Report, this presumption is irrebuttable.(20) Therefore, a court will not entertain arguments showing the nonexistence of the presumed fact, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. Rather, a court will direct a jury that if they find the basic fact, that the victim was unlawfully in the actor’s dwelling or vehicle, to be proven, then they must find the presumed fact that the actor had a reasonable fear of imminent death or bodily injury. This finding in turn justifies the use of deadly force, regardless of the circumstances.

(20) Fla. S. Rep. No. 107-436, 6pt. III, at 6 (2005) (Judiciary Rep.) (“Legal presumptions are typically rebuttable. The presumptions created by the committee substitute, however, appear to be conclusive.”). Accord Fla. H.R. Rep. No. 107-249 (2005) pt. B, at 4 (Judiciary Rep.) (“A person is presumed, rather than having the burden to prove, to have a reasonable fear.”).