15 States Expand Right to Shoot in Self-Defense

[lozina]

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: sao123
yea, but what are the 15 states? the article doesnt say.

apparently florida is one of them.

I'm going to take a WILD guess and say my state- New York- is not among them. :|

Hey don't worry, criminals, break into my house and take whatever you want it's not like I can try to defend myself or my property!

 

[amish]

Originally posted by: dug777
*shoots Amused for not providing peer-reviewed studies that prove guns can kill people*

guns don't kill people, dangerous minorities do

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: sao123
yea, but what are the 15 states? the article doesnt say.

apparently florida is one of them.

I'm going to take a WILD guess and say my state- New York- is not among them. :|

Hey don't worry, criminals, break into my house and take whatever you want it's not like I can try to defend myself or my property!

I'm suprised they're not trying to go against the grain and make laws even stricter.

 

[loic2003]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: loic2003

Originally posted by: FrankyJunior
Well, if you don't want to get dead, then stop breaking the law. Makes sense to me.

Now it would have to be when a crime was being commited against you (break-in, robbery, etc) not just an argument as thsoe aren't illegal so the guy with the garbage incident should go to jail.

Good point. So, if you accidentally wander onto someone's property when you're drunk and they shoot you in the face you'll be sound with that?

How do you "wander" onto someone's properly and attempt to break into their house?

How do you know that they aren't really paranoid, and some minor mistake made by drunk joe nobhead results in them unleashing the 12-bore at them? I dunno... some guy getting the house number wrong and bashing on the door, or a practical joke goes horribly wrong, or halloween or whatever... you get the idea.

Already in the above article there's an example of a case that's in the grey area of the law. There's going to be countless more...

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: kmr1212

Originally posted by: Amused
?I was in T-shirt and shorts,? Mr. Rosenbloom said, recalling the day he knocked on Mr. Allen?s door. Mr. Allen, a retired Virginia police officer, had lodged a complaint with the local authorities, taking Mr. Rosenbloom to task for putting out eight bags of garbage, though local ordinances allow only six.

?I was no threat,? Mr. Rosenbloom said. ?I had no weapon.?

The men exchanged heated words. ?He closed the door and then opened the door,? Mr. Rosenbloom said of Mr. Allen. ?He had a gun. I turned around to put my hands up. He didn?t even say a word, and he fired once into my stomach. I bent over, and he shot me in the chest.?

Mr. Allen should be shot in the face. 8 instead of 6??!! I live by people like this. :|

This is a PERFECT example of the bias in this article.

You have one side of the story here. With barely a blip about the other side of the story.

If that blip is correct, and Mr Rosenbloom did threaten Mr Allen and try to enter his house, the story is entirely different. What the argument started over is irrelevant. If Mr Allen felt endangered, he has every right to protect his home and self.

But with the bias of the article, you are led to NOT believe Mr Allen's version (even though police investigators DID believe it) and he's made out to be a criminal.

Now, ask yourself why you believe Rosenbloom over Allen based on this article. Even when the police investigators did not. Could it be the way the article is written?

Here:

http://www.tampabaylive.com/stories/2006/06/060606neighbor.shtml

Now we hear more of the other side of the story:

Kenneth Allen, the neighbor that fired the shot, says he came home last night, heard loud music coming from the house next door.

He says a few minutes later, that neighbor was banging on his door.

...

A former law enforcement officer, Allen says he complained to authorities before about loud music and code violations, but never had a face to face confrontation.

After exchanging words last night, he warned him to leave the property, telling him he had a weapon inside.

"He said are you going to shoot me? And I said leave, go home. He said well shoot me then. When he came across the threshhold, that's when I fired."

Rosenbloom was told to leave. He did not. He entered the house in a threatening manner without permission. He was warned that the home owner was armed and STILL violated his rights by not leaving his property and threatening him.

Mr Allen, a former cop, BTW, was within his rights.

Funny how the New York Times painted a completely different picture, isn't it?

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: loic2003

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: loic2003

Originally posted by: FrankyJunior
Well, if you don't want to get dead, then stop breaking the law. Makes sense to me.

Now it would have to be when a crime was being commited against you (break-in, robbery, etc) not just an argument as thsoe aren't illegal so the guy with the garbage incident should go to jail.

Good point. So, if you accidentally wander onto someone's property when you're drunk and they shoot you in the face you'll be sound with that?

How do you "wander" onto someone's properly and attempt to break into their house?

How do you know that they aren't really paranoid, and some minor mistake made by drunk joe nobhead results in them unleashing the 12-bore at them? I dunno... some guy getting the house number wrong and bashing on the door, or a practical joke goes horribly wrong, or halloween or whatever... you get the idea.

Already in the above article there's an example of a case that's in the grey area of the law. There's going to be countless more...

None of which are examples of "forced entry" as mentioned by the law.

If you're in my house, and I have no idea who you are, I have no idea wtf you are planning to do, I'm not going to give you the benefit of the doubt as a "practical joke".

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: loic2003


How do you know that they aren't really paranoid, and some minor mistake made by drunk joe nobhead results in them unleashing the 12-bore at them? I dunno... some guy getting the house number wrong and bashing on the door, or a practical joke goes horribly wrong, or halloween or whatever... you get the idea.

Already in the above article there's an example of a case that's in the grey area of the law. There's going to be countless more...

More information about the shooting:

http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=32821

http://www.tampabaylive.com/stories/2006/06/060606neighbor.shtml

fyi, the shooter is close to 60 years old, the "assailant" was 30 (looks like a big guy); I'm inclined to believe the senior citizen shoot in self defense. I.e., don't mess with old folks with guns...

My parents are getting to that age also. If anyone tries to start anything with them, I'm hoping they can defend themselves (they are armed)...

In any case, getting drunk and busting into a home is not a minor offense.. also beating up an innocent bystander or assaulting some girl BECAUSE you are drunk, does not give you an excuse to not get shoot at.

If a person cannot handle themselves well while drinking -- i.e., violent drunk, they should not be drinking in the first place; else have some friends over to take care of them.

-eleison


-------------------------

Shooting, or self-defense?

Clearwater, Florida - A man shot his next door neighbor Monday evening, the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office reported. Under Florida law, he may never be charged.

Investigators said the two had an ongoing argument over a messy yard and loud music. It came to a head when one neighbor shot the other outside his house.

Investigators say a few minutes after he arrived home, Kenneth Allen, 58, heard a banging at his front door. It was his neighbor, Jason Rosenbloom, 30. A verbal confrontation followed.

"During the exchange, Allen told Rosenbloom to leave his property," said Mac McMullen, spokesman for the Sheriff's Office.

"Allen then shut the front door. Allen told deputies he then went to a room and retrieved a 9mm semi-automatic handgun, returned to the front door and opened the door."

"Rosenbloom then came towards Allen in what Allen told deputies was a threatening manner," he said. "Allen then told deputies he fired two rounds at Rosenbloom as he began to enter his residence."

According to Allen, Rosenbloom fell to the ground after being shot, then got up and walked to his home. His wife called 911 to report the shooting.

Rosenbloom was taken to Bayfront Medical Center by air ambulance and was reported in stable condition.

Allen was not charged with the shooting, McMullen said. Investigators will file their report with the State Attorney's Office for review.

Under Florida law, a person cannot be charged with shooting another if he thought his life was in danger.

 

[Unheard]

Here's hoping TN is one of those 15. While I'm pretty sure we are, I need to follow up and make sure.

 

[Raduque]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Raduque
It's about time we started de-pvssifying the US. Everybody should be required to learn gun safety in school, and should be allowed to carry openly, within reason (IE: no [l]assault rifles[/l] or shotguns, etc). You respect a man, his family, and his property, and don't be a whiny b1tch, and you won't get shot.

what about the same lock and barrel, but with a nice walnut stock instead of a black composite one?

An AR is an AR, I don't care if you saw the barrel down, put pistol grips on and cut the stock off completely. I don't see a reason to carry one of those openly. A pistol with training and good man-stopper rounds is all you need.

 

[JS80]

It's the New York Times. You're surprised by this?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Raduque

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Raduque
It's about time we started de-pvssifying the US. Everybody should be required to learn gun safety in school, and should be allowed to carry openly, within reason (IE: no [l]assault rifles[/l] or shotguns, etc). You respect a man, his family, and his property, and don't be a whiny b1tch, and you won't get shot.

what about the same lock and barrel, but with a nice walnut stock instead of a black composite one?

An AR is an AR, I don't care if you saw the barrel down, put pistol grips on and cut the stock off completely. I don't see a reason to carry one of those openly. A pistol with training and good man-stopper rounds is all you need.

What about a .223 hunting rifle like the Ruger mini 14 Ranch Rifle?

 

[amddude]

Originally posted by: Raduque

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Raduque
It's about time we started de-pvssifying the US. Everybody should be required to learn gun safety in school, and should be allowed to carry openly, within reason (IE: no [l]assault rifles[/l] or shotguns, etc). You respect a man, his family, and his property, and don't be a whiny b1tch, and you won't get shot.

what about the same lock and barrel, but with a nice walnut stock instead of a black composite one?

An AR is an AR, I don't care if you saw the barrel down, put pistol grips on and cut the stock off completely. I don't see a reason to carry one of those openly. A pistol with training and good man-stopper rounds is all you need.

"pistol grip" is such a silly term. I do wonder though, what would happen to crime if citizens carried ar's around. That'd be pretty intimidating if you were up to no good.

 

[Dacalo]

Originally posted by: Raduque
It's about time we started de-pvssifying the US. Everybody should be required to learn gun safety in school, and should be allowed to carry openly, within reason (IE: no assault rifles or shotguns, etc). You respect a man, his family, and his property, and don't be a whiny b1tch, and you won't get shot.

In concept, this is a great idea to deter crime, but in the end, I am afraid this will end up hurting more innocent lives.

Originally posted by: loic2003


It's good that you have so much confidence in your fellow americans to make life-and-death decisions with clarity. Personally, I fear that dumbasses (and lets not forget that there's an overwhelmingly large volume of dumbasses in the US) will misinterperet the law or abuse it and yet more people will die through it.

Aye, because of the dumbasses.

 

[49erinnc]

Originally posted by: Thraxen
Did you even read the article? It's apparently not that cut and dry.

For starters, me saying "pretty cut and dry" was referring to my personal opinion that if you don't want to die, don't enter someone's home to begin with. I wasn't referring to the new rule. But in regards to the new rule, it now states:

"The Florida law, which served as a model for the others, gives people the right to use deadly force against intruders entering their homes. They no longer need to prove that they feared for their safety, only that the person they killed had intruded unlawfully and forcefully."

Sounds pretty cut and dry to me...

1. Enter my home without permission
2. You die
3. I am the victim
4. You become worm food
5. I'm back at work next day with no charges filed against me

 

[Garet Jax]

Originally posted by: Thraxen
Exactly. I'm all for being able to defend myself (hell, I own 5 guns) and think it's ridiculous that I should be worried about going to prison for shooting an intruder in my own home. BUT then I read about dumbasses like the guy that shot his neighbor over garbage. NWTF? I certainly wouldn't shoot my neighbor if s/he came over to talk to me, even if it was to yell and argue with me. Unless my neighbor tried to come in the house uninvited or the altercation actually came to blows, a gun should never even enter the picture. Then you have that guy in Florida that not only shot his neighbor for no reason, but the discussion was apparently over when he did... he actually closed the door and then re-opened it with a gun in hand and shot him... twice. And he might actually get off because of the new law? That is 100% inexcusable. Period.

I agree with everything you say. The problem is that language is inherently imprecise.

The law clearly says that you can shoot someone who invades your house. What happens if I put a tent on my lawn for my kids to camp. My house has now become my property. Can I now shoot someone who just places a foot on my land?

So can I shoot the neighbour who is coming over to discuss a problem they have with me, when my kids are playing in the front yard - how about the back.

I see this as a good first step, but as one that will allow murderers to stand behind the law for protection which is a bad thing.

 

[SSP]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: kmr1212

Originally posted by: Amused
?I was in T-shirt and shorts,? Mr. Rosenbloom said, recalling the day he knocked on Mr. Allen?s door. Mr. Allen, a retired Virginia police officer, had lodged a complaint with the local authorities, taking Mr. Rosenbloom to task for putting out eight bags of garbage, though local ordinances allow only six.

?I was no threat,? Mr. Rosenbloom said. ?I had no weapon.?

The men exchanged heated words. ?He closed the door and then opened the door,? Mr. Rosenbloom said of Mr. Allen. ?He had a gun. I turned around to put my hands up. He didn?t even say a word, and he fired once into my stomach. I bent over, and he shot me in the chest.?

Mr. Allen should be shot in the face. 8 instead of 6??!! I live by people like this. :|

This is a PERFECT example of the bias in this article.

You have one side of the story here. With barely a blip about the other side of the story.

If that blip is correct, and Mr Rosenbloom did threaten Mr Allen and try to enter his house, the story is entirely different. What the argument started over is irrelevant. If Mr Allen felt endangered, he has every right to protect his home and self.

But with the bias of the article, you are led to NOT believe Mr Allen's version (even though police investigators DID believe it) and he's made out to be a criminal.

Now, ask yourself why you believe Rosenbloom over Allen based on this article. Even when the police investigators did not. Could it be the way the article is written?

Here:

http://www.tampabaylive.com/stories/2006/06/060606neighbor.shtml

Now we hear more of the other side of the story:

Kenneth Allen, the neighbor that fired the shot, says he came home last night, heard loud music coming from the house next door.

He says a few minutes later, that neighbor was banging on his door.

...

A former law enforcement officer, Allen says he complained to authorities before about loud music and code violations, but never had a face to face confrontation.

After exchanging words last night, he warned him to leave the property, telling him he had a weapon inside.

"He said are you going to shoot me? And I said leave, go home. He said well shoot me then. When he came across the threshhold, that's when I fired."

Rosenbloom was told to leave. He did not. He entered the house in a threatening manner without permission. He was warned that the home owner was armed and STILL violated his rights by not leaving his property and threatening him.

Mr Allen, a former cop, BTW, was within his rights.

Funny how the New York Times painted a completely different picture, isn't it?

Well, aren't you doing the exact same thing you accuse the author of doing? You're assume the ex-cop is telling the truth and the neighbour is lying. We really don't know who did what.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: SSP

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: kmr1212

Originally posted by: Amused
?I was in T-shirt and shorts,? Mr. Rosenbloom said, recalling the day he knocked on Mr. Allen?s door. Mr. Allen, a retired Virginia police officer, had lodged a complaint with the local authorities, taking Mr. Rosenbloom to task for putting out eight bags of garbage, though local ordinances allow only six.

?I was no threat,? Mr. Rosenbloom said. ?I had no weapon.?

The men exchanged heated words. ?He closed the door and then opened the door,? Mr. Rosenbloom said of Mr. Allen. ?He had a gun. I turned around to put my hands up. He didn?t even say a word, and he fired once into my stomach. I bent over, and he shot me in the chest.?

Mr. Allen should be shot in the face. 8 instead of 6??!! I live by people like this. :|

This is a PERFECT example of the bias in this article.

You have one side of the story here. With barely a blip about the other side of the story.

If that blip is correct, and Mr Rosenbloom did threaten Mr Allen and try to enter his house, the story is entirely different. What the argument started over is irrelevant. If Mr Allen felt endangered, he has every right to protect his home and self.

But with the bias of the article, you are led to NOT believe Mr Allen's version (even though police investigators DID believe it) and he's made out to be a criminal.

Now, ask yourself why you believe Rosenbloom over Allen based on this article. Even when the police investigators did not. Could it be the way the article is written?

Here:

http://www.tampabaylive.com/stories/2006/06/060606neighbor.shtml

Now we hear more of the other side of the story:

Kenneth Allen, the neighbor that fired the shot, says he came home last night, heard loud music coming from the house next door.

He says a few minutes later, that neighbor was banging on his door.

...

A former law enforcement officer, Allen says he complained to authorities before about loud music and code violations, but never had a face to face confrontation.

After exchanging words last night, he warned him to leave the property, telling him he had a weapon inside.

"He said are you going to shoot me? And I said leave, go home. He said well shoot me then. When he came across the threshhold, that's when I fired."

Rosenbloom was told to leave. He did not. He entered the house in a threatening manner without permission. He was warned that the home owner was armed and STILL violated his rights by not leaving his property and threatening him.

Mr Allen, a former cop, BTW, was within his rights.

Funny how the New York Times painted a completely different picture, isn't it?

Well, aren't you doing the exact same thing you accuse the author of doing? You're assume the ex-cop is telling the truth and the neighbour is lying. We really don't know who did what.

Problem is, the law does not support the NYTimes version of events. It does support Mr. Allen's and the other news sources version of events.

 

[Thraxen]

Originally posted by: Amused
Rosenbloom was told to leave. He did not. He entered the house in a threatening manner without permission. He was warned that the home owner was armed and STILL violated his rights by not leaving his property and threatening him.

Mr Allen, a former cop, BTW, was within his rights.

Funny how the New York Times painted a completely different picture, isn't it?

My problem with the situation is the fact that he closed the door, fetched the gun, and then came back to continue the confrontation. Both accounts agree on this. If he truly felt his life was in danger he would have never re-opened the door. Why didn't he just lock the door and call the police? He had no reason at all to get a gun and escalate the situation.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: Amused
Rosenbloom was told to leave. He did not. He entered the house in a threatening manner without permission. He was warned that the home owner was armed and STILL violated his rights by not leaving his property and threatening him.

Mr Allen, a former cop, BTW, was within his rights.

Funny how the New York Times painted a completely different picture, isn't it?

My problem with the situation is the fact that he closed the door, fetched the gun, and then came back to continue the confrontation. Both accounts agree on this. If he truly felt his life was in danger he would have never re-opened the door. Why didn't he just lock the door and call the police? He had no reason at all to get a gun and escalate the situation.

Contrary to popular belief, the police are not there to protect you. They are there to clean up the mess after the sh!t hits the fan. On top of that, Allen is an ex-police officer.

In the time it took for Allen to call the police and them to arrive, his neighbor could've already broken down the door and assaulted Allen. I don't think Allen should have to hide in his room waiting for some looney to bust down his door. With hindsight, you can see what type of person his neighbor is if in fact he did charge a man and try to forcibly enter a residence with a gun pointed at him.

 

[Garet Jax]

Originally posted by: Thraxen
My problem with the situation is the fact that he closed the door, fetched the gun, and then came back to continue the confrontation. Both accounts agree on this. If he truly felt his life was in danger he would have never re-opened the door. Why didn't he just lock the door and call the police? He had no reason at all to get a gun and escalate the situation.

Another point I happen to agree with you on. The police officer should have closed his door and locked it. He should have retrieved his gun, moved his family to the basement, called 911 and then waited. If his neighbour did one thing that was remotely agressive, then by all means shoot away, but don't reopen the door and kill the man.

 

[Thraxen]

Originally posted by: BigJ
Contrary to popular belief, the police are not there to protect you. They are there to clean up the mess after the sh!t hits the fan. On top of that, Allen is an ex-police officer.

In the time it took for Allen to call the police and them to arrive, his neighbor could've already broken down the door and assaulted Allen. I don't think Allen should have to hide in his room waiting for some looney to bust down his door. With hindsight, you can see what type of person his neighbor is if in fact he did charge a man and try to forcibly enter a residence with a gun pointed at him.

Not there to protect... Protect and Serve? Ask any cop and most would advise against pulling a gun in most situations, and almost certainly in one that is an argument about garbage. What makes you think the neighbor was going to bust down the door? He obviously didn't try to stop him from closing the door the first time. I would do exactly what you said... I would call the police and if I truly felt threatened I would grab one of my guns and wait inside. It's just stupid to go back out and force the confrontaton. Stupid.

I would feel more threatened by someone that so readily pulls a gun than by an argumentative neighbor.

 

[Eeezee]

You're right, that article is heavily biased. It just goes to show what a pitiful state journalism is in today. Did anyone else catch the Barbara Walters bit about piracy downloads? It was disgusting how one-sided she presented the entire piece. Journalists are supposed to report news and facts, not opinions.

But I'm glad you can use a gun in self-defense in more states now. What's the purpose of owning a gun (besides collecting) if you can't use it for defense?

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: BigJ
Contrary to popular belief, the police are not there to protect you. They are there to clean up the mess after the sh!t hits the fan. On top of that, Allen is an ex-police officer.

In the time it took for Allen to call the police and them to arrive, his neighbor could've already broken down the door and assaulted Allen. I don't think Allen should have to hide in his room waiting for some looney to bust down his door. With hindsight, you can see what type of person his neighbor is if in fact he did charge a man and try to forcibly enter a residence with a gun pointed at him.

Not there to protect... Protect and Serve? Ask any cop and most would advise against pulling a gun in most situations, and almost certainly in one that is an argument about garbage. What makes you think the neighbor was going to bust down the door? He obviously didn't try to stop him from closing the door the first time. I would do exactly what you said... I would call the police and if I truly felt threatened I would grab one of my guns and wait inside. It's just stupid to go back out and force the confrontaton. Stupid.

I would feel more threatened by someone that so readily pulls a gun than by an argumentative neighbor.

The infamous slogan "To Protect and Serve" has mysteriously vanished from police cars and departments across the nation over the past decade. Gee, I wonder why? Maybe because the courts have ruled that the police have absolutely no obligation to protect any individual citizen. Want an example? Look up Warren v. District of Columbia.

As far as the circumstances surrounding opening the door again, we don't have an accurate report of what was going on, which is crucial to judge what amount of force if any is necessary. We don't know if he was trying to bang down the door, if he was yelling verbal threats on Allen's life, or anything else that would be a deciding factor on whether or not to confront the man.

Personally, based solely on the lack of information, I would've called the police and sat on my couch with my shotgun in my lap.

 

[Thraxen]

Originally posted by: BigJ
[The infamous slogan "To Protect and Serve" has mysteriously vanished from police cars and departments across the nation over the past decade. Gee, I wonder why? Maybe because the courts have ruled that the police have absolutely no obligation to protect any individual citizen. Want an example? Look up Warren v. District of Columbia.

So you are saying they wouldn't and shouldn't come in this siutation? Either way, it's a moot point. The guy was already trespassing. And, clearly, much of what cops do is still related to protecting.

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: Amused
Rosenbloom was told to leave. He did not. He entered the house in a threatening manner without permission. He was warned that the home owner was armed and STILL violated his rights by not leaving his property and threatening him.

Mr Allen, a former cop, BTW, was within his rights.

Funny how the New York Times painted a completely different picture, isn't it?

My problem with the situation is the fact that he closed the door, fetched the gun, and then came back to continue the confrontation. Both accounts agree on this. If he truly felt his life was in danger he would have never re-opened the door. Why didn't he just lock the door and call the police? He had no reason at all to get a gun and escalate the situation.

He told the guy to leave... he felt threaten.. he closed the door on the guy. he got his gun (I'm assuming, he came back to the door hoping that the guy was no longer there, ; after all he told the guy to leave and he closed the door on him..) However, the guys still there.... next thing, the guy tries to "lunge" or instigate some sort of aggressive movement.. the guy gets shot...

When someone tells you to fscking leave their property, leave... when someone tells you he is armed AND tells you to fscking leave... LEAVE. what more is there...

Remember the shooter is almost 60 years old. There was no way he could have protected himself without the gun. The guy he shot was 30 years old AND was still able to walk home after being shot TWICE.

Yea, the shooter could have called the police... but at the time, I'm not sure he thought it would have escalated as far as it did. Besides how many people are killed ever year because they called the police for help.... only to be murdered later by their boyfirends, hunsbands, etc... not to mention burned, scarred, stabbed, beatup..

Sometimes its better to be armed.. and have the situation resolved, right then and there. I'm sure Rosenbloom will now have second thoughts about messing with senior citizens.. When people tell other people to leave their property... why don't they just do it!!! Why are they so stupid.. If someone tells me they want me off their property, I walk away... when they tell me they have a gun.. I run away..

-Eleison