Can my wife use my weapon to kill

The answer is . . . . . DEPENDS. I'd urge you to have a local attorney explain how the law would view your specific circumstance.

That said:

FL is not CT, so the laws on use of deadly force are different. The laws may also vary with respect to what is considered a deadly threat. Firearm ownership laws also differ between states.

Words DO mean things, most especially if one has used deadly force against another human being. Things will likely not go well if one exclaims to responding officers that they "aimed to kill the bozo because they were on my porch". One needs to articulate exactly what one did and why - not what the outcome of your actions may be.

Very generally, one needs to be able to say that they used deadly force while in fear for their life because of the specific deadly threat posed by an attacker and a perception that the deadly attack could not be stopped without resort to deadly force. Which is a long winded way of saying to responding officers "shot to stop the naked man rushing at my screen door with upraised butcher knife screaming that he was going to kill me then rape my kids and dog. Is he all better yet?"
 
maine04619 said:
No she can not use your firearm. Only you can kill someone with your weapon. Although if you can train your put bull to shoot then by law a dog is allowed to shoot a intruder. Women in Florida are not allowed to defend a home with anything except a cast iron frying pan and even then it must be larger the 8" in diameter but must not exceed 14" in diameter. The only other option is the driveway clause IF and this is not easy if she could get the guy in the driveway she is allowed to BACK over him with the family car remember though ONLY reverse if she goes over him in a forward gear your gonna be in for a long court battle. Hope this helps..
Click to expand...


We know dogs can be trained to shoot, but has anyone tried parakeets or parrots? A bad guy might suspect the dog could be a threat, but probably not the bird.
 
maine04619 said:
No she can not use your firearm. Only you can kill someone with your weapon. Although if you can train your put bull to shoot then by law a dog is allowed to shoot a intruder. Women in Florida are not allowed to defend a home with anything except a cast iron frying pan and even then it must be larger the 8" in diameter but must not exceed 14" in diameter. The only other option is the driveway clause IF and this is not easy if she could get the guy in the driveway she is allowed to BACK over him with the family car remember though ONLY reverse if she goes over him in a forward gear your gonna be in for a long court battle. Hope this helps..
Click to expand...

Oh. Em. Gee. I completely scanned over this. LOLing.
 
localgirl said:
Um...I can't see where you live, but chances are you don't need a permit to own a weapon...cuz, you know...it's America. So it doesn't matter if it's "your" weapon or your third cousin's.

Treo called this one early, and maybe right?
Click to expand...

Easy there Localgirl, his wife could be his third cousin.
 
Someone breaks into your house at night, do you use whatever gun is available? That's a tough decision to make.
 
wolf_fire said:
If she's protecting herself from a life threatening situation, she's fine unless your state has a "duty to flee" clause in your legislation like PA used to have before it signed Castle Doctrine. I just noticed you said your are from FL. As long as FL doesn't get rid of their Stand your Ground laws, she's fine.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong but, Duty to Flee law does not apply to in your own home. Plus she has the duty to protect the 2 year old as he cannot be expected to flee. Where would you flee to? If your out on the streets and you encounter a situation that escalates to a threat to you then you are obglated to flee if it is possible. You cannot be expected to flee and leave someone else whom you were with who is unable to flee or fend for them selves like an elderly person or a child. Anyways I live in Wisconsin and here we do not have stand your ground so this is how I understand the duty to flee law.
 
escapedthematrix said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but, Duty to Flee law does not apply to in your own home. Plus she has the duty to protect the 2 year old as he cannot be expected to flee. Where would you flee to? If your out on the streets and you encounter a situation that escalates to a threat to you then you are obglated to flee if it is possible. You cannot be expected to flee and leave someone else whom you were with who is unable to flee or fend for them selves like an elderly person or a child. Anyways I live in Wisconsin and here we do not have stand your ground so this is how I understand the duty to flee law.
Click to expand...

The way the laws in PA read before Castle Doctrine was enacted was that if there was a reasonable means of retreat, (there was no exclusionary clause in the law for being in one's home), then one needed to take it. With that said, no judge in PA ever came down on the victim, but that's how our law was written. This is why we felt as Pennsylvanians that the Castle Doctrine needed to be written for our state in order to protect the victim. We considered it a victory knowing that at some point, some sleazy lawyer could have actually made a case against a victim defending his/her own home. Your point about a 2-yr not being able to flee. You are most likely correct that a good lawyer would have easily been able to defend that, but the point is we shouldn't need to be in a position to have to defend that. In addition, according to our old laws, I could just as easily see a sleazy lawyer saying the mother could have picked him up and holed themselves in a locked basement until the "real help" arrived. We had a bad law that fortunately was interrupted well by our judges. It is now corrected thankfully.
 
Florida Rules

Title XLVI

CHAPTER 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

Short version - YES she can (Underlined is for emphasis)
)
 
why on earth would my wife want to use my weapon ???

she has 3 of her own ... all of which she shoots extremely well, and shoots them all at least once a week to maintain her proficiency.

sent from ...
 
FWIW the OP registered, posted this thread, responded one time and went bye-bye.

If y'all wanna chase zombie trolls go right ahead.
 
Thanks for the info I really appreciate it

GHF said:
Title XLVI

CHAPTER 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

Short version - YES she can (Underlined is for emphasis)
)
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 537 (members: 0, guests: 537)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
49,524
Messages
610,665
Members
74,995
Latest member
Solve4X

Share this page

Back
Top