Tenants will not allow access to make repair

[Doug Kanter]

Please do post the results. Missing this would be like missing an episode of "The Sopranos". :)

[Norminn]

clipped

I haven't followed this entire thread, but now you are at the point of intrigue. Very curious situation - have you tried calling the police? If so, what was the response? I asked a retired cop, out of curiosity. He said it depends on wording in lease. Assuming the lease allows specific conditions for access, and advance notice, then if the landlord shows up with copy of lease, copy of written notice, proof of receipt, then police could enforce the landlord's access and protect him. There are lots of scenarios, of course, but proceeding without clear legal authority can be dangerous. That brings to mind the new gun law in Florida that allows shooting somebody if y'all are in danger. How that plays out is a tad scary.

[Doug Kanter]

Gun law: It'll primarily be of use when an intruder enters a home. This brings Florida in line with other states, and the "castle concept" which dates back hundreds of years.

[Norminn]

clipped

As I understand it, there is a lot more to it. Quote from Wash. Post:

"Florida law already lets residents defend themselves against attackers if they can prove they could not have escaped. The new law would allow them to use deadly force even if they could have fled and says that prosecutors must automatically presume that would-be victims feared for their lives if attacked."

[Doug Kanter]

I like it, but I wonder if juries will see things the same way. I mean, if you could've driven away from an apparently unarmed carjacker, but instead, you shot him, you may be on shaky ground (although you were probably right in shooting him). Shaky ground because odds are that you put bystanders in danger by using a gun outside of your own home. And, if the person really was unarmed...uh oh.

The NRA urged Floridians to contact their lawmakers about this. Their main concern was that the way the law was written before, it *almost* required someone in their own home to try and flee from an intruder, instead of simply picking up a gun and ending the situation. That's just plain silly, and this new law eliminates the problem.

[Colbyt]

Please do post back the results of the thread that won't die. You may want to email a copy to MM as he seems to run about 3 weeks behind.

Colbyt

[mm]

I'm not sure how this would be different from other states. I never finished law school, but I did finish the first year, and Criminal Law was a first year course (the most interesting one.). Check elsewhere for details (If I were good at this, I'd be a lawyer now.) but even in cases of self-defense, people are expected to retreat if possible rather than use lethal force (especially I guess when the attackers aren't using lethal force yet.) *except* when one is in his own home. Like Doug says, this has been the law for 100's of years. With its origin in England.

I've never heard this but maybe? Florida had aspects of Spanish law in its system (like the state of and maybe the parishes and cities of Louisiana have a lot of French law in their system) and maybe Spanish law is different on this. Or maybe there is some other reason that Florida was different.

Like I say, there has for centuries been a difference between inside one's home and everywhere else.

It's hard to say what one means and it's hard to write laws that say what one intends in all situations. There is a series of Uniform Codes that are suggested for states to adopt so that, at least in areas where the state legistlatures of different states want the same thing, they can adopt the same language and make life a little simpler. As of 1970, the only one that was really possible was the Uniform Commercial Code, 90% or more of which had been adopted by all

50 states iirc. The UCC governs trade. I'm not sure there is a unifrom criminal code, but it's certain the whole thing would not be adopted because the various states have such different views.

Still, aiui, no state has tried to change the law in this particular situation from what it was 230 years ago. Based on your wording I suspect Florida made some sort of mistake with the previous law.

Off-topic, but a lot of the laws that some people complain about as if they are new and bad have been the law in this country (the USA) for

100 or 200 years.

Like the law against trap guns. I think lethal traps for unoccupied-at-the-moment property has been illegal for hundreds of years, no matter how upsetting it is to come home and find that one has been robbed. Yet when a burglar is shot by a trap gun and sues the homeowner and wins, everyone is outraged. (Well I'm annoyed too, but I don't blame liberals because it's not a new law.)

All in all, I wouldn't try to break into the tenant's home when they are threre, because they will claim they thought the landlord was a burglar and that he never said who he was. Really. if they are on trial for murder, or even assault with a deadly weapon, of course they will claim this.

Remove NOPSAM to email me. Please let me know if you have posted also.

[Norminn]

mm wrote: clipped

That is the "big deal" about the new Florida law. It's a "Gunfight at OK Corral" kind of thing. You haven't read about the billboards warning tourists?

"The "Castle Doctrine" simply says that if a criminal breaks into your home, your occupied vehicle or your place of business, you may presume he is there to do bodily harm and you may use any force against him.

It also removes the ?duty to retreat? if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be."

from......

The NRA article goes on to claim that the law has been on the side of the criminal, but with this law it is on the side of law-abiding victim. I beg to differ, but this law is on the side of the gun owner, including dirty cops and criminals who have had the good luck not to have been caught yet.

[Doug Kanter]

Everyone's view on this will differ: I see more of a safety problem than a legal problem with the new law, if, as you say, it appears to encourage gunfights in front of supermarkets (to use an extreme example). Just as there are people too stupid to operate a car (or a toaster), there are gun owners who are not competent to use their guns safely in public, and perhaps not at a gun range, either. I know two such people. I'm envisioning an elderly person with shaky hands, pulling a gun in a parking lot....and there goes someone's child, 50 feet behind the intended target.

[trader4]

Sounds like an excellent law to me. And those arguing the concept that the "home is your castle" already applies, don't know what they are talking about. In many state, NJ, NY, CA, being prime examples, under current law, if your home is invaded by an armed robber, you have the obligation to retreat if possible, rather than respond with deadly force. People have been prosecuted for defending their homes from armed attackers. If some career criminal invades someones home, and the homeowner shoots them, the homeowner shouldn't be second guessed and put in the position of having to prove they couldn;t have escaped.

[Doug Kanter]

Interesting. I wasn't aware that this was the deal in NY. Do you have a link for something I can read about this?

[Norminn]

I think prosecution might have been likely when the perp was shot in the back outside the residence :o)

[SteveB]

"Doug Kanter" wrote

Just as

One of the stupidest things I ever saw anyone do involved a gun. Police were called to my neighborhood because a man had a pellet pistol that looked like a large caliber revolver. The man was a little off, and carried it around in a backpack.

The police arrived, and confronted the man, who was standing in front of a big oleander bush. The two officers drew weapons, one a shotgun the other a

9mm Glock. They were positioned in the vee of the opened doors of the cruiser.

My friend Kenny, And I use the term "friend" loosely, goes around the building to get a closer look at what is going on. This puts him in a straight line made from the officers to the man, then through the bush to Kenny.

I asked him later what he was thinking, and he said the bush would have protected him.

Kenny and I don't talk a lot any more.

So, you have people so stupid that they will actually get into the fray just to get a better view................ Steve

[Norminn]

clipped

Kenny's probably a retired cop. After a while, they think the badge is made of kryptonite :o)

[Doug Kanter]

Must be something about people named Kenny. I knew a guy who thought it was fun to peep at neighbor ladies when they were dressing/undressing. He used a high power magnifying device. You're probably thinking binoculars, right? No. He used a rifle scope, attached to his rifle. One of the neighbors caught him and called the cops. But, for some reason, all they could do was yell at him. (I would've thought that was considered "brandishing"). The rifle was empty and had a cable lock through it, but even so....you don't do that.

A couple of months later, he decided he wanted a pistol permit. You need signatures from 3 people who consider you to be of good moral character blah blah blah. The idiot went to 3 neighbors, including the husband of the woman he had aimed his rifle at. :-) Naturally, the husband told him to stuff it, then called the police and informed them that the same guy who did the rifle thing was now looking for a handgun. Kenny got his 3rd signature elsewhere, but was turned down for his permit. As far as I know, he never tried again.