Those of you who actually are rumored to have read my blog have (on occasion) emailed to make sure I am alive, and ask why I haven't posted anything for a while. In order to answer that question, and more, First: I am alive. I looked in the mirror -- and whoever the hell was in there waved back. I'm sure it was me. Second: I rarely write unless I have something important to say, which is even more rare. and Third: I guess I haven't had anything important to say for quite some time. However, I actually got an interesting question by email -- that is also actually worth sharing. And so . . . for those of you hungry for my arguable "words of wisdom" -- your prayers have been answered -- or perhaps, alternatively -- greatest fears have been confirmed: I write again!
The email question: "Great book, I learned a lot! The one thing that puzzles me it what is a threat of "Non-deadly force". The only thing I can think of is "stop or I will have to use pepper spray." But what if I do not have pepper spray, what is one to say that is "non-deadly" threat?". (thanks to David for sending it)
The Answer: The whole thing royally screwed up by the 2014 Legislature is stupid -- but to explain: a threat of non-deadly force is just a threat -- it doesn't need something to back it up in reality. So -- where non-deadly force would be justified -- you should be able to "threaten" (although not necessarily use) any non-deadly force that would be legally justified -- which should include: pepper spray, tasers, stun guns, or whatever else fits. It doesn't matter it's a bluff. It doesn't matter that you don't have the actual weapon. If it qualifies as a "threat" -- it's still a threat, weapon or not. Whether a threat of non-deadly force, even in a non-deadly force situation, is a great idea -- is another thing. Whether it will escalate the situation is always an open question. Whether the responding cop thinks it's justified -- who the hell knows. The law is still quite imperfect, and immunity is a joke, unless the Florida Supreme Court changes some current interpretations. Of course, and on the other hand, if any type burglary is about to go down -- a "threat" (not the "use") of deadly force is lawful -- thus display of a firearm would be lawful if your apprehension was reasonable. Use would probably not be permitted unless it escalated to something lots more serious.
Hope that helps. If not -- read the last two chapters again. It may just stimulate those long unused brain cells. All my best.
jon gutmacher
p.s: By the way -- the free internet book update will come out in mid to late July. Not much new unless you are fleeing from a hurricane. In that case, you can now bring your gun -- but it must be concealed -- even without a CWL. More on that in July.
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar