The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

TheKlawMan · December 28, 2011, 06:37 PM

Aguila Blanca,

I want to make sure I understand you and that you believe that a homeowner should bear no criminal of civil liability for the shooting an innocent bystander, including their death, regardless of how reckless the homeowner may be and whether or not their resort to deadly force was in fact and indisputably unreasonable and you so believe BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT FLORIDA LAW SAYS. I know of no test case, but it is far from clear that is what Florida law says. A slug or shot striking an innocent is not clearly force used against the intruder abd that ambiguity should open the statute to interpretation to give effect to the meaning of the Florida lawmakers.

December 28, 2011, 06:37 PM	#29
TheKlawMan Junior member Join Date: June 23, 2009 Location: Orange County, CA Posts: 2,149	Aguila Blanca, I want to make sure I understand you and that you believe that a homeowner should bear no criminal of civil liability for the shooting an innocent bystander, including their death, regardless of how reckless the homeowner may be and whether or not their resort to deadly force was in fact and indisputably unreasonable and you so believe BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT FLORIDA LAW SAYS. I know of no test case, but it is far from clear that is what Florida law says. A slug or shot striking an innocent is not clearly force used against the intruder abd that ambiguity should open the statute to interpretation to give effect to the meaning of the Florida lawmakers. Last edited by TheKlawMan; December 28, 2011 at 07:38 PM.