Home  ›  Can You Shoot a Gun on Your Property in Florida

Can You Shoot a Gun on Your Property in Florida

Written By Sunday, February 20, 2022 Add Comment Edit

Justification defense in a criminal case

A stand up-your-ground law (sometimes called "line in the sand" or "no duty to retreat" police) provides that people may use mortiferous forcefulness when they reasonably believe information technology to be necessary to defend confronting deadly forcefulness, great bodily harm, kidnapping, rape, or (in some jurisdictions) robbery or another serious crimes (correct of self-defense). Under such a law, people have no duty to retreat earlier using deadly forcefulness in self-defense, and then long as they are in a place where they are lawfully nowadays.[1] The exact details vary by jurisdiction.

The culling to stand your ground is "duty to retreat". In states that implement a duty to retreat, fifty-fifty a person who is unlawfully attacked (or who is defending someone who is unlawfully attacked) may non use deadly force if it is possible to instead avoid the danger with consummate safety by retreating.

Fifty-fifty duty-to-retreat states generally follow the "castle doctrine", under which people take no duty to retreat when they are attacked in their homes, or (in some states) in their vehicles or workplaces. The castle doctrine and "stand-your-ground" laws provide legal defenses to persons who have been charged with diverse employ of force crimes against persons, such as murder, manslaughter, aggravated assault, and illegal belch or brandishing of weapons, likewise as attempts to commit such crimes.[two]

Whether a jurisdiction follows stand up-your-ground or duty-to-retreat is only one element of its self-defense laws. Unlike jurisdictions allow mortiferous strength against different crimes. All American states permit it confronting mortiferous force, great bodily injury, and likely kidnapping or rape; some also allow it confronting threat of robbery and break-in.

A 2022 RAND Corporation review of existing research concluded that "there is moderate evidence that stand up-your-footing laws may increase homicide rates and limited evidence that the laws increase firearm homicides in particular."[3] In 2019, RAND authors indicated additional bear witness had appeared to reinforce their conclusions.[4]

Jurisdictions [edit]

United States [edit]

Laws [edit]

Stand your basis law past Us jurisdiction

 Stand-your-ground past statute

 Stand-your-ground past judicial determination or jury instruction

 Duty to retreat except in one'due south abode

 Duty to retreat except in ane's dwelling or workplace

 Duty to retreat except in 1's home or vehicle or workplace

 Middle-footing arroyo (DC, WI)

 No settled rule (AS, VI)

  • 38 states are stand up-your-ground states, 30 by statutes providing "that there is no duty to retreat from an assaulter in any identify in which one is lawfully present": Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa,[5] Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, N Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio,[6] [7] [8] Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Due south Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Due west Virginia, and Wyoming; Puerto Rico is besides stand-your-ground.[9] [ten] Of these, at least xi include "may stand up his or her ground" language (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and S Dakota.)[x] Pennsylvania limits the no-duty-to-retreat principle to situations where the defender is resisting attack with a mortiferous weapon.
  • The remaining 8 of the 38 stand-your-ground states[11] have case law/precedent or jury instructions so providing: California,[12] [13] Colorado,[14] [15] Illinois, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont,[16] Virginia,[17] and Washington;[18] [nineteen] the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands also falls within this category.
  • eleven states impose a duty to retreat when ane can exercise so with absolute rubber: Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island. New York, all the same, does not crave retreat when i is threatened with robbery, burglary, kidnapping, or sexual assault.
  • Washington, D.C. adopts a "eye ground" approach, under which "The law does not require a person to retreat," merely "in deciding whether [defendant] reasonably at the time of the incident believed that south/he was in imminent danger of decease or serious actual damage and that deadly force was necessary to repel that danger, you may consider, along with any other evidence, whether the [defendant] could have safely retreated ... but did not."[20] Wisconsin also adopts a "middle ground" approach, where "while at that place is no statutory duty to retreat, whether the opportunity to retreat was available goes to whether the defendant reasonably believed the force used was necessary to prevent an interference with his or her person."[21]
  • At that place is no settled dominion on the subject field in American Samoa and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
  • In all the duty to retreat states, the duty to retreat does non apply when the defender is in the defender'due south home (except, in some jurisdictions, when the defender is defending against a fellow occupant of that home). This is known as the "castle doctrine".
  • In Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, and Nebraska, the duty to retreat as well does not apply when the defender is in the defender'south place of work; the aforementioned is truthful in Wisconsin and Guam, but only if the defender is the owner or operator of the workplace.
  • In Wisconsin and Guam, the duty to retreat also does non apply when the defender is in the defender's vehicle.
  • 22 states have laws that "provide civil immunity nether certain self-defense circumstances" (Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, N Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Wisconsin).[10] At least 6 states take laws stating that "civil remedies are unaffected by criminal provisions of self-defence constabulary" (Hawaii, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Dakota, and Tennessee).[ten]

Controversy [edit]

Stand-your-ground laws are oft labeled "shoot start" laws by opposition groups, including the Brady Entrada to Forbid Gun Violence.[22] In Florida, cocky-defence force claims tripled in the years following enactment.[22] [23] Opponents debate that Florida'southward police makes it potentially more than hard to prosecute cases against individuals who commit a law-breaking and claim self-defence. Earlier passage of the law, Miami police master John F. Timoney called the law unnecessary and dangerous in that "[west]hether it's trick-or-treaters or kids playing in the grand of someone who doesn't desire them at that place or some drunk guy stumbling into the incorrect house, you're encouraging people to possibly utilise deadly physical force where it shouldn't exist used."[24] [25] A counter statement is that implementing a duty-to-retreat places the safety of the criminal above a victim'southward ain life.[26]

In Florida, a chore force created by former Democratic land Sen. Chris Smith of Fort Lauderdale institute the law to exist "disruptive".[27] Those discussing problems with the group included Buddy Jacobs, a lawyer representing the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association. Jacobs recommended the police force's repeal, stating that modifying the law would not fix its problems. In a July sixteen, 2022 speech communication in the wake of the jury verdict acquitting George Zimmerman of charges stemming from the shooting expiry of Trayvon Martin, Attorney General Eric Holder criticized stand-your-ground laws equally "senselessly aggrandize[ing] the concept of cocky-defense and sow[ing] dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods."[28]

In 2014, Florida's legislature considered a bill that would let people to show a gun or fire a warning shot during a confrontation without drawing a lengthy prison sentence.[29] In 2017, at that place was a bill proposed in Florida'south country legislature that would crave the prosecution to prove that a defendant's use of cocky-defense was not valid.[30] In 2018, the shooting of Markeis McGlockton led some civil rights activists and politicians to call for abolition of the statute.[31]

Racial disparity [edit]

In 2012, in response to the Trayvon Martin case, the Tampa Bay Times compiled a written report on the awarding of stand up your ground, and likewise created a database of cases where defendants sought to invoke the police force.[32] [33] [34] Their report found no racial disparity in Florida cases in which defendants challenge self-defense under the law are prosecuted, with Caucasian subjects being charged and bedevilled at the same rate as African American subjects, and results of mixed-race cases were similar for both white victims of blackness attackers and black victims of white attackers.[32] [34] Victims of African American attackers overall were more successful at using the law than victims of Caucasian attackers, regardless of the victim's race challenge self-defense, but analysis showed that black attackers were also more probable to be armed and to be involved in committing a crime, such as burglary, when shot.[32] [33] [34]

A Texas A&M study found that when whites use the stand up-your-ground defense confronting blackness attackers they are more than successful than when blacks utilise the defense against white attackers.[35] A paper from The Urban Constitute which analysed FBI data constitute that in stand-your-ground states, the use of the defense force by whites in the shooting of a black person is establish to be justifiable 17 percent of the fourth dimension, while the defense when used by blacks in the shooting of a white person is successful one percent of the time.[35] [36] In not-stand-your-ground states, the shooting of a black person by a white is found justified approximately 9 per centum of the time, while the shooting of a white person by a black is found justified approximately 1 percent of the time.[35] [36] According to the Urban Constitute, in Stand Your Ground states, white-on-black homicides are 354 percent more likely to be ruled justified than white-on-white homicides, even though they are more common by over 72 percent.[37] The paper's author noted that the information used practise not detail the circumstances of the shooting, which could be a source of the disparity. They also noted that the full number of shootings in the FBI dataset of blackness victims by whites was 25.[38] A 2022 report found that cases with white victims are two times more likely to result in convictions under these laws than cases with black victims.[39]

Effects on law-breaking [edit]

A 2022 RAND Corporation review of existing research concluded that "at that place is moderate evidence that stand-your-footing laws may increase homicide rates and limited evidence that the laws increase firearm homicides in item."[iii] In 2019, RAND authors published an update, writing "Since publication of RAND'southward study, at least 4 additional studies meeting RAND'south standards of rigor take reinforced the finding that "stand your ground" laws increase homicides. None of them constitute that "stand your ground" laws deter vehement crime. No rigorous study has however adamant whether "stand up your ground" laws promote legitimate acts of cocky-defense force.[4]

A 2022 study in the Journal of Human Resources found that Stand Your Ground laws led to an increment in homicides and hospitalizations related to firearm-inflicted injuries. The study estimated that at least 30 people died per month due to the laws.[twoscore] A 2022 report in the Journal of Human Resources found that Stand Your Ground laws in states across the U.S. "do not deter break-in, robbery, or aggravated attack. In dissimilarity, they lead to a statistically significant 8 percentage net increase in the number of reported murders."[41] A 2022 study in the Social Science Journal establish that stand-your-ground laws were non associated with lower crime rates.[42] A 2022 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association compared homicide rates in Florida post-obit the passage of its "stand your basis" self-defense law to the rates in four control states, New Bailiwick of jersey, New York, Ohio and Virginia, which take no similar laws. Information technology institute that the law was associated with a 24.4% increase in homicide and a 31.6% increase in firearm-related homicide, but no change in rates of suicide or suicide by firearm, between 2005 and 2014. It noted that, "[c]ircumstances unique to Florida may take contributed to our findings, including those that we could non identify," and "[o]ur study examined the event of the Florida law on homicide and homicide by firearm, not on crime and public condom".[43] [44] The report was criticized by researcher and gun rights advocate John Lott, for studying only one state and focusing on a narrow definition of effectiveness. Studies conducted past Lott's Law-breaking Prevention Enquiry Center found that the loosening of restrictions on defensive gun use, including "stand your ground laws", led to a decrease in crime overall.[45] Self-defense law subject area affair expert Andrew Branca was critical of the AMA report for not distinguishing between justifiable homicides and murder, and for relying solely on statutory laws while overlooking case constabulary (i.e. Virginia) in determining the data prepare.[46] The study'southward methodology was dedicated past Knuckles University professor Jeffrey Swanson for its use of other states as controls, saying "[t]hey expect at comparable trends in states that didn't pass the law and don't run across the event.".[47]

In a 2007 National Commune Attorneys Association symposium, numerous concerns were voiced that the constabulary could increase crime. This included criminals using the police force equally a defense for their crimes, more people carrying guns, and that people would non feel safety if they felt that anyone could use deadly strength in a conflict. The report also noted that the misinterpretation of clues could result in utilize of deadly force when in that location was, in fact, no danger. The report specifically notes that racial and ethnic minorities could exist at greater risk considering of negative stereotypes.[48]

A 2022 study examined whether a prominent Stand Your Basis shooting, Joe Horn shooting controversy, in 2007, which brought public attention to Texas' stand-your-ground constabulary impacted criminal offense. The study establish that subsequent to the shooting, burglaries decreased significantly in Houston, but non in Dallas, over a 20-month catamenia.[49] A 2022 report found that the adoption of Oklahoma's stand-your-footing law was associated with a decrease in residential burglaries, just likewise that the police force had "the unintended consequence of increasing the number of non-residential burglaries."[l]

Florida's stand-your-ground law went into upshot on October 1, 2005. Florida state representative Dennis Baxley, an writer of the police force, said that the violent crime charge per unit has dropped since the enactment of the law, though he said there may be many reasons for the change. Others take argued that the law may lead to an increase in criminal offence.[51] Violent crime data for 1995 – 2022 has been published past the Florida Section of Law Enforcement.[52]

Canada [edit]

In Canada, there is no duty to retreat under the constabulary. Canada'southward laws regarding self-defence are similar in nature to those of England, as they centre effectually the acts committed, and whether or not those acts are considered reasonable in the circumstances. Generally where retreat is available in the circumstances, the decision to stand your ground is more likely to be unreasonable. The sections of the Canadian criminal code that deal with self-defense or defence of property are sections 34 and 35,[53] respectively. These sections were updated in 2022 to clarify the code, and to assist legal professionals employ the law in accordance with the values Canadians hold to be acceptable.

Defence force — employ or threat of strength

34 (1) A person is non guilty of an offence if

(a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of strength is being made against them or another person; (b) the human action that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that employ or threat of force; and (c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances. [omitted (2)]

No defence

(3) Subsection (ane) does not apply if the force is used or threatened by some other person for the purpose of doing something that they are required or authorized by police to do in the assistants or enforcement of the constabulary, unless the person who commits the act that constitutes the offence believes on reasonable grounds that the other person is interim unlawfully.

R.Due south., 1985, c. C-46, s. 34; 1992, c. ane, s. sixty(F); 2012, c. 9, s. two.

34

[omitted (1)]

Factors (2) In determining whether the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances, the courtroom shall consider the relevant circumstances of the person, the other parties and the act, including, but not limited to, the post-obit factors:

(a) the nature of the force or threat; (b) the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other ways available to respond to the potential employ of force; (c) the person'due south role in the incident; (d) whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon; (e) the size, age, gender and physical capabilities of the parties to the incident; (f) the nature, duration and history of any relationship between the parties to the incident, including whatever prior utilise or threat of strength and the nature of that force or threat; (f.i) any history of interaction or communication betwixt the parties to the incident; (g) the nature and proportionality of the person'south response to the utilize or threat of force; and (h) whether the act committed was in response to a apply or threat of force that the person knew was lawful. [omitted (3)]

R.Due south., 1985, c. C-46, s. 34; 1992, c. i, s. lx(F); 2012, c. 9, s. two.

Defence force — holding

35 (ane) A person is not guilty of an offence if

(a) they either believe on reasonable grounds that they are in peaceable possession of holding or are interim under the dominance of, or lawfully assisting, a person whom they believe on reasonable grounds is in peaceable possession of property; (b) they believe on reasonable grounds that another person (i) is most to enter, is entering or has entered the belongings without beingness entitled by law to practise so, (ii) is well-nigh to take the property, is doing and so or has just done so, or (iii) is most to damage or destroy the property, or make it inoperative, or is doing so; (c) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of (i) preventing the other person from entering the property, or removing that person from the property, or (ii) preventing the other person from taking, damaging or destroying the property or from making it inoperative, or retaking the holding from that person; and (d) the human activity committed is reasonable in the circumstances.

No defence (two) Subsection (ane) does not utilize if the person who believes on reasonable grounds that they are, or who is believed on reasonable grounds to be, in peaceable possession of the holding does not take a merits of right to it and the other person is entitled to its possession by law.

No defence (3) Subsection (i) does not apply if the other person is doing something that they are required or authorized by police to do in the administration or enforcement of the law, unless the person who commits the human action that constitutes the offence believes on reasonable grounds that the other person is acting unlawfully. R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 35; 2012, c. nine, due south. ii.

A great deal of instance law has emerged from dissimilar provincial superior courts regarding the interpretation of the elements of cocky-defence per ss. 34-35 of the Criminal Lawmaking. In Ontario, jurors are not permitted "...to consider whether an accused could have retreated from his or her own home in the face of an assault (or threatened attack) past an assailant in assessing the elements of cocky-defence."[54] In British Columbia, the leading case police of which predates the 2022 ss. 34-35 amendments, courts will permit juries to consider bachelor lines of retreat in deciding whether an accused had no other option than to defend himself. However, the option of retreat is non considered a categorical exclusion from self-defence.[55]

Alberta [edit]

The province of Alberta is unique among Canadian jurisdictions in affording civil amnesty to occupiers who employ force, including lethal force, in defense of homes and other premises. In 2019, the Alberta legislature passed the Trespass Statutes (Protecting Law-Constant Property Owners) Amendment Act, 2019,[56] in response to rising rural criminal offence, public concern with police inaction and several high-contour self-defense shootings the previous yr.[57] [58] Specially influential was the case of Edouard Maurice, who wounded a trespasser and was served with a lawsuit after having criminal charges against him dropped.[59]

The new Deed amended the Occupiers Liability Deed, 2000 and added the following sections: 

                      (two)            Where a trespasser is not a criminal trespasser, an occupier is not liable to the trespasser for damages for death of or injury to the trespasser unless the death or injury results from the occupier'south wilful or reckless comport.        
                      (3)            Where a trespasser is a criminal trespasser, no action lies confronting the occupier for damages for death of or injury to the trespasser unless the death or injury is caused past carry of the occupier that        
          (a)    is wilful and grossly disproportionate in the circumstances, and        
          (b)    results in the occupier beingness bedevilled of an offence under the Criminal Code (Canada) that is prosecuted by indictment.        
                      (four)            For the purposes of subsections (ii) and (iii), a trespasser is a criminal trespasser if the occupier has reasonable grounds to believe that the trespasser is committing or is well-nigh to commit an offence under the Criminal Code (Canada).        
                      (v)            For the purposes of subsection (3), an occupier is accounted non to be convicted of an offence until the menses limited by constabulary for the first of an entreatment from the conviction has elapsed or the appeal taken from the conviction has concluded or been abased.

Czech Commonwealth [edit]

There is no explicit stand-your-ground or castle doctrine provision in the laws of the Czech republic; however, there is also no duty to retreat from an assail.[60] In gild for a defense to be judged every bit legitimate, information technology may not be "patently disproportionate to the style of the attack".[61]

England and Wales [edit]

The mutual law jurisdiction of England and Wales has a stand-your-footing law rooted in the common law defence of using reasonable force in self-defense force.

In English common police there is no duty to retreat before a person may utilise reasonable force confronting an attacker, nor need a person wait to exist attacked before using such forcefulness, just one who chooses not to retreat, when retreat would exist a safe and easy choice, might find it harder to justify his use of forcefulness equally 'reasonable'.[62]

Whatsoever strength used must be reasonable in the circumstances as the person honestly perceived them to be, after making assart for the fact that some caste of excess force might even so be reasonable in the heat of the moment.[63]

In the habitation, the householder is protected past an additional piece of legislation in which is specified that force used against an intruder is not to exist regarded as reasonable if it is 'grossly disproportionate' (equally distinct from only 'disproportionate' force, which can yet be reasonable).

Germany [edit]

German law permits cocky-defense force against an unlawful attack.[64] If there is no other possibility for defense, information technology is generally allowed to utilise even mortiferous force without a duty to retreat.[65] However, in that location must not be an farthermost imbalance ("extremes Missverhältnis") betwixt the defended correct and the chosen method of defense.[66] In particular, in case firearms are used, a warning shot must be given when defending a solely material asset.[67] If the self-defense force was excessive, its perpetrator is non to be punished if they exceeded on account of confusion, fearfulness or terror.[68]

Ireland [edit]

Nether the terms of the Criminal Police force (Defense and the Dwelling) Human action 2011, property owners or residents are entitled to defend themselves with forcefulness, up to and including lethal force. Any individual who uses force against a trespasser is not guilty of an criminal offense if he or she honestly believes they were there to commit a criminal act and a threat to life. Nevertheless, there is a further provision which requires that the reaction to the intruder is such that another reasonable person in the aforementioned circumstances would probable employ information technology.[69] This provision acts as a safeguard against grossly asymmetric use of strength, while still allowing a person to utilize force in nearly all circumstances.

The law was introduced in response to DPP 5. Padraig Nally.

Poland [edit]

Stand up your footing constabulary applies to any kind of threat by an assaulter that endangers the victim's safety, wellness, or life. The victim has no obligation to retreat, as said in a statement by the Supreme Court of Poland on February iv, 1972: "The assaulted person is under no obligation either to escape or hibernate from the assailant in a locked room, nor to endure the assault restricting his freedom, but has the right to repel the assault with all available ways that are necessary to force the aggressor to refrain from standing his assault."[seventy]

In practice, according to the judgments of the Polish courts, the right to self-defense is very rarely used, and if beingness used is the basis for applying criminal charges. For these reasons, self-defence force is very rarely used as a basis for amortization in Polish courts.[ citation needed ]

Italy [edit]

In 2019, the Italian senate passed a "legitimate defence force" bill, protecting the right to self-defence for individual citizens of Italy.[71]

References [edit]

  1. ^ Florida Statutes Title XLVI Chapter 776
  2. ^ Randall, Mark; DeBoer, Hendrick (April 24, 2012). "The Castle Doctrine and Stand-Your-Basis Law".
  3. ^ a b "The Science of Gun Policy". Morral, Andrew R., Ramchand, Rajeev, Smart, Rosanna, Gresenz, Carole Roan, Cherney, Samantha, Nicosia, Nancy. 2018. CS1 maint: others (link)
  4. ^ a b Andrew R. Morral and Rosanna Smart. 'Stand Your Ground' Laws May Be Causing More Harm Than Skillful. Reprinted by RAND from the Orlando Sentinel of September 11, 2019.
  5. ^ Sostaric, Katarina. "For Black Iowans, Concerns and Questions Remain After 'Stand Your Ground' Law Takes Effect". www.iowapublicradio.org . Retrieved May 3, 2020.
  6. ^ "Senate Bill 175 | The Ohio Legislature". www.legislature.ohio.gov . Retrieved January 3, 2021.
  7. ^ Kovac, Marc. "Gun rights groups happy equally Gov. Mike DeWine signs 'stand up your ground' legislation into law". The Columbus Dispatch . Retrieved January iv, 2021.
  8. ^ "Lawriter - ORC - 2901.09 [Effective iv/6/2021] No duty to retreat in residence". codes.ohio.gov . Retrieved March 5, 2021.
  9. ^ Sanderson, Shane. "Wyoming Supreme Courtroom suggests new 'stand your ground' law could take broad implications". Casper Star-Tribune Online . Retrieved May 3, 2020.
  10. ^ a b c d Self Defense and "Stand Your Footing", National Briefing of State Legislatures (July 27, 2018).
  11. ^ ""Stand Your Ground" Laws | Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence". smartgunlaws.org . Retrieved Jan 12, 2017.
  12. ^ Penal Code §§ 197, 198.five, Legislative Counsel, Land of California, archived from the original on May 12, 2009, retrieved April 3, 2012
  13. ^ "CALCRIM No. 505. Justifiable Homicide". CaliforniaJuryInstructions.Cyberspace. January 2006. Retrieved April iii, 2012.
  14. ^ People v. Toler, 9 P.3d 341 Archived May 14, 2014, at annal.today (Colo. 2000)
  15. ^ Cassels v. People, 92 P.3d 951 Archived May xiv, 2014, at archive.today (Colo. 2004)
  16. ^ Vt. Crim. Jury Inst. CR07-111
  17. ^ "Virginia Concealed Carry Let Information". USA Carry . Retrieved September ten, 2013.
  18. ^ "WPIC 17.02 Lawful Force—Defense of Self, Others, Belongings". Westlaw. Retrieved September 13, 2021. the court should use the "no duty to retreat" education of WPIC 17.05 [...] which explains in more detail the relationship of the "necessary force" limitation and the "no duty to retreat" dominion.
  19. ^ "WPIC 17.05 Lawful Force—No Duty to Retreat". Westlaw. Retrieved September 13, 2021. [The law does non impose a duty to retreat.] [Notwithstanding the requirement that lawful force be "not more than is necessary," the law does not impose a duty to retreat. Retreat should not be considered by you as a "reasonably effective alternative."]
  20. ^ one Crim. Jury Inst. for DC Instr. 9.503
  21. ^ "Wisconsin Legislature: 939.48". docs.legis.wisconsin.gov . Retrieved February two, 2022.
  22. ^ a b "Florida 'Stand Your Ground' law could complicate Trayvon Martin teen shooting instance". MSNBC. March xx, 2012. Archived from the original on March 22, 2012. Retrieved March 21, 2012.
  23. ^ "Deaths Nearly Triple Since 'Stand up Your Basis' Enacted". CBS Miami. March 20, 2011. Retrieved March 23, 2012.
  24. ^ Goodnough, Abby. "Florida Expands Right to Use Deadly Forcefulness in Self-Defense force". The New York Times. nytimes.com . Retrieved March 23, 2012.
  25. ^ Goodman, Howard. "NRA's Behind-the-Scenes Campaign Encouraged 'Stand Your Ground' Adoption". Florida Centre for Investigative Reporting. fcir.org . Retrieved March 23, 2012.
  26. ^ Carmon, Irin (March twenty, 2014). "Tin Women Stand Their Ground? Depends On the Target". MSNBC.
  27. ^ "Trayvon Martin instance: Florida task strength told 'stand up your ground' police force confusing". TheGrio. Apr 6, 2012. Retrieved April 6, 2012.
  28. ^ Holder, Eric. "Remarks as Prepared for Delivery past Attorney Full general Eric Holder at the NAACP Annual Convention" (PDF) . Retrieved July 16, 2013.
  29. ^ Fair, Madison (2014). "Dare Defend: Continuing for Stand up Your Ground". Police and Psychology Review. 38 . Retrieved December 1, 2014.
  30. ^ "'Stand up Your Footing' Could Get Worse". The New York Times. March 9, 2017.
  31. ^ Fatal shooting reignites 'Stand Your Ground' law argue in Florida, FOX, Baronial 21, 2018
  32. ^ a b c "Florida's stand your footing law". Tampa Bay Times. Dec 23, 2013. Retrieved July 14, 2014.
  33. ^ a b Hundley, Kris; Martin, Susan Taylor; Humburg, Connie (June 1, 2012). "Florida 'stand your ground' police yields some shocking outcomes depending on how police force is applied". Tampa Bay Times . Retrieved May 16, 2014.
  34. ^ a b c Martin, Susan Taylor; Hundley, Kris; Humburg, Connie (June 2, 2012). "Race plays complex role in Florida's 'stand your ground' police". Tampa Bay Times . Retrieved July xiv, 2014.
  35. ^ a b c Jonsson, Patrik (August 6, 2013). "Racial bias and 'stand your ground' laws: what the data show". Christian Science Monitor . Retrieved May iii, 2014.
  36. ^ a b Roman, John Yard. "Race, Justifiable Homicide, and Stand up Your Ground Laws: Analysis of FBI Supplementary Homicide Report Information" (PDF). The Urban Institute. Retrieved June 29, 2014.
  37. ^ Flatow, Nicole. "5 Agonizing Facts About The State Of Stand Your Basis". ThinkProgress . Retrieved December 1, 2014.
  38. ^ "Is In that location Racial Bias in "Stand Your Basis" Laws?". FRONTLINE.
  39. ^ Ackermann, Nicole; Goodman, Tune S.; Gilbert, Keon; Arroyo-Johnson, Cassandra; Pagano, Marcello (October 2015). "Race, constabulary, and wellness: Examination of 'Stand Your Ground' and defendant convictions in Florida". Social Scientific discipline & Medicine. 142: 194–201. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.08.012. PMID 26313247.
  40. ^ McClellan, Chandler; Tekin, Erdal (2017). "Stand Your Basis Laws, Homicides, and Injuries". Journal of Man Resources. 52 (3): 621–653. doi:ten.3368/jhr.52.3.0613-5723R2. ISSN 0022-166X. S2CID 54826923.
  41. ^ Hoekstra, Mark; Cheng, Cheng (July 1, 2013). "Does Strengthening Cocky-Defense Law Deter Crime or Escalate Violence? Evidence from Expansions to Castle Doctrine". Journal of Human Resources. 48 (3): 821–854. doi:10.3368/jhr.48.iii.821. ISSN 0022-166X. S2CID 219211399.
  42. ^ Gius, Mark (September 2016). "The relationship between stand up-your-basis laws and crime: A state-level analysis". The Social Scientific discipline Journal. 53 (3): 329–338. doi:10.1016/j.soscij.2016.01.001. S2CID 147388713.
  43. ^ Humphreys, David Thousand.; Gasparrini, Antonio; Wiebe, Douglas J. (2017). "Evaluating the Impact of Florida's "Stand Your Ground" Self-defence Police force on Homicide and Suicide past Firearm" (PDF). JAMA Internal Medicine. 177 (1): 44–50. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.6811. PMID 27842169. S2CID 3740534.
  44. ^ "A study past the Journal of the American Medical Association suggests stand up-your-ground laws outcome in more fatal shootings". The Economist . Retrieved January 11, 2017.
  45. ^ "Misleading Journal of the American Medical Association inquiry near Florida'southward Stand Your Basis Constabulary – Crime Prevention Inquiry Eye". Crime Prevention Inquiry Center. November 28, 2016. Retrieved January 11, 2017.
  46. ^ Branca, Andrew. "What to Make of the New Study of Florida's 'Stand Your Ground' Police force". National Review . Retrieved November 18, 2016.
  47. ^ Mohney, Gillian (November fourteen, 2016). "Florida Homicide Charge per unit Increased Subsequently Passage of 'Stand Your Ground' Law, Study Finds". ABC News.
  48. ^ Jansen, Steven; Nugent-Borakove, 1000. Elaine. "Expansions to the Castle Doctrine: Implications for Policy and Practise" (PDF). National District Attorneys Association. Retrieved June 28, 2013. [ permanent dead link ]
  49. ^ Ren, L.; Zhang, Y.; Zhao, J. S. (December 27, 2012). "The Deterrent Effect of the Castle Doctrine Police force on Burglary in Texas: A Tale of Outcomes in Houston and Dallas". Criminal offense & Delinquency. 61 (8): 1127–1151. doi:x.1177/0011128712466886. S2CID 145522138.
  50. ^ Chamlin, Mitchell B.; Krajewski, Andrea Eastward. (December 29, 2015). "Use of Force and Abode Safety: An Impact Cess of Oklahoma's". Deviant Beliefs: 1–9. doi:10.1080/01639625.2015.1012027. S2CID 111264957.
  51. ^ "Criminal offense rates in Florida have dropped since 'stand up your ground,' says Dennis Baxley". @politifact . Retrieved December 6, 2016.
  52. ^ "Florida Department of Law Enforcement - Violent Criminal offence". world wide web.fdle.country.fl.us . Retrieved Dec half dozen, 2016.
  53. ^ "Criminal Lawmaking (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46)". Justice Laws Website. Department of Justice (Canada). July 1, 2019. Retrieved October ten, 2019.
  54. ^ "R v Cunha, 2022 (ONCA); R five Docherty 2022 (ONCA) & R 5 Forde, 2022 (ONCA) | The Criminal Law Notebook".
  55. ^ "R five Abdalla, 2006 (BCCA) & R five Richter 2022 (BCCA) | The Criminal Constabulary Notebook".
  56. ^ https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/laws/astat/sa-2019-c-23/latest/sa-2019-c-23.html
  57. ^ Dawson, Tyler (October 30, 2018). "'A divide-2d of fear': How Edouard Maurice became a symbol of the fight over rural criminal offence and self-defence | National Postal service". National Post.
  58. ^ "Alberta Plans Law to Shield People Using Force for Home Defence | TheGunBlog.ca".
  59. ^ Dawson, Tyler (October thirty, 2018). "'A dissever-second of fearfulness': How Edouard Maurice became a symbol of the fight over rural crime and self-defence | National Post". National Mail service.
  60. ^ Supreme Courtroom of the Czech Republic (October 24, 2001), Decision No. v Tz 189/2001 (in Czech), Brno
  61. ^ Novotný, Oto (2004). Trestní právo hmotné. Praha: ASPI.
  62. ^ Casciani, Dominic (October nine, 2012). "Q and A: Cocky defense and burglars". BBC News . Retrieved May iii, 2020.
  63. ^ "Self-Defense and the Prevention of Crime | The Crown Prosecution Service". www.cps.gov.uk . Retrieved May three, 2020.
  64. ^ "German Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch – StGB)". www.gesetze-im-internet.de.
  65. ^ Heinrich, Bernd (2005). Strafrecht - Allgemeiner Teil I (in German). Stuttgart: Kohlhammer Verlag. p. 110. ISBN3-17-018395-8.
  66. ^ Heinrich, Bernd (2005). Strafrecht - Allgemeiner Teil I. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. p. 123. ISBN3-17-018395-viii.
  67. ^ Heinrich, Bernd (2005). Strafrecht - Allgemeiner Teil I (in German language). Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. p. 126. ISBN3-17-018395-8.
  68. ^ "German Criminal Lawmaking (Strafgesetzbuch – StGB)". www.gesetze-im-internet.de.
  69. ^ Cullen, Paul (thirteen January 2012), "Law lets householders employ reasonable forcefulness"(13 January 2012). The Irish Times. www.irishtimes.com/news/law-lets-householders-utilise-reasonable-strength-i.443683. Retrieved January 31, 2021.
  70. ^ "Zakres obrony koniecznej". world wide web.militaria.pl (in Polish). Retrieved August 15, 2019.
  71. ^ "Italy Passes Gun Rights similar to USA's 2d Amendment". Retrieved May 23, 2021.

Farther reading [edit]

  • Palmer, Brian (July sixteen, 2013). "Do Other Countries Have 'Stand Your Ground' Laws? Or do they require you to slowly back away?". Slate. The Slate Group. Retrieved May 26, 2014.
  • Lithwick, Dahlia (Feb 25, 2014). "'Stand up Your Basis' Nation: America used to value the concept of retreat. Now we just shoot". Slate. The Slate Group. Retrieved May 26, 2014.
  • Calorie-free, Caroline (Feb 2017) Stand Your Ground: A History of America's Honey Thing with Lethal Cocky-Defense force. Boston, Buoy Printing.
  • Murphy, Justin (March 30, 2017) "Are Stand Your Ground Laws Racist and Sexist? A Statistical Analysis of Cases in Florida, 2005-2013." Social Science Quarterly.

rossonfordonce.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

0 Response to "Can You Shoot a Gun on Your Property in Florida"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel