Fla's new no-retreat law works just fine..


PDA






DunedinDragon
November 22, 2005, 05:18 AM
It seems the new controversial "no-retreat" law that went into effect in Florida last month has seen it's first test and passed with flying colors.

Evidently this poor guy, who has some mental problems, who was being harassed and teased by his neighbors, had been complaining to the police who had done nothing about it. From what I gathered on the TV news, the police have decided not to charge Devries as he was well within his rights under the new "no retreat" law given the fact that it was determined his neighbors were standing on his doorstep, pounding on his door, and holding Tiki lamps at that time of the shooting.

When the shooting first occurred, the three assailants told the police they were out in the street when Devries just opened fire on them. Thankfully, the forensics proved otherwise.

My advice to Mr Devries, get a bigger caliber gun...



Shooting of three ends in surrender; [NORTH PINELLAS Edition]
JACOB H. FRIES, SHANNON TAN. St. Petersburg Times. St. Petersburg, Fla.: Nov 19, 2005. pg. 1.B
Abstract (Document Summary)
Those wounded - Samantha Frances Sipka, 16; Jason Thomas Biaso, 19; and Mark Eric Hoover, 46 - sustained injuries that weren't considered life-threatening. Sipka was in stable condition and Hoover in fair condition at Bayfront Medical Center in St. Petersburg, authorities said. Biaso, who was shot in the shoulder, was treated and released.

Physical evidence uncovered at the scene, however, indicated they had been on Devries' doorstep - not the street - when Devries fired, [Marianne Pasha] said. Detectives also learned there had been a fourth person present, Miles Bailey Jr., 23, further supporting Devries' account of the shooting.

The elder Devries, who visited his son after he was taken into custody, said his son had felt the need to defend himself Friday morning. The neighbors had been banging on the door and windows and Devries thought they were trying to get inside, his father said.

Full Text (996 words)
Copyright Times Publishing Co. Nov 19, 2005
Jeffrey Devries had long complained the neighbors were out to get him.

He told police he had been the victim of various crimes, from battery to burglary. Officers had gone to his Beverly Circle home eight times this year.

So when he saw four people on his porch carrying tiki torches about 2 a.m. Friday, he feared they were trying to break in, Pinellas sheriff's detectives said.

He fired six shots through the front door of his home at 1818 Beverly Circle, wounding three of the people, said sheriff's spokeswoman Marianne Pasha.

As squad cars and ambulances raced to the scene, Devries, a retired University of South Florida campus police sergeant, barricaded himself inside, triggering a standoff with authorities that would last more than seven hours.

Those wounded - Samantha Frances Sipka, 16; Jason Thomas Biaso, 19; and Mark Eric Hoover, 46 - sustained injuries that weren't considered life-threatening. Sipka was in stable condition and Hoover in fair condition at Bayfront Medical Center in St. Petersburg, authorities said. Biaso, who was shot in the shoulder, was treated and released.

The three of them initially told investigators they had been walking in the street, carrying the torches, when all of a sudden, shots rang out and they were hit, Pasha said.

Physical evidence uncovered at the scene, however, indicated they had been on Devries' doorstep - not the street - when Devries fired, Pasha said. Detectives also learned there had been a fourth person present, Miles Bailey Jr., 23, further supporting Devries' account of the shooting.

Confronted with the discrepancies, one of the four admitted they had been at the door at the time of the shooting, reading signs Devries had posted on the door, said Pasha. She declined to identify the person.

Sipka and Hoover declined to comment through a hospital spokesman. Biaso also declined to answer questions. Efforts to reach Bailey were unsuccessful.

No charges had been filed late Friday.

"There are various levels of conflicts in their statements," Pasha said, "so there's still more work for the investigators to do."

The first 911 call came at 1:51 a.m.

"I heard the gunshots - boom, boom, boom!" said neighbor Ken List, 50. "Then screaming, like the people were trying to run."

Jennifer Lechner, 46, another neighbor, went outside and ducked behind a bush to take a look. She heard screams from Sipka, who was shot in the jaw and thigh.

She saw Hoover, who was shot in the arm, yelling from the street at responding officers, "We're here. We're here. The gunman's next door."

Both Clearwater police and Pinellas County sheriff's deputies responded because the street lies on the city-county line. The sheriff's SWAT team eventually replaced Clearwater's team and resumed attempts to communicate with Devries, Bordner said.

List, through his window, saw camouflaged deputies approach Devries' house, then retreat, again and again for hours in the darkness.

"They were very methodical," he said. "For a while, I thought they were going to storm the back of the house."

Finally, after hours talking with negotiators over the phone, Devries surrendered at 9:30 a.m. As he walked out his door, he ignored some of the deputies' commands. He was struck with a Taser and shot with a rubber bullet, Bordner said.

Devries, who wore blue sweat pants and a T-shirt, was then handcuffed and taken to a hospital for evaluation.

"He looked very docile," List recalled. "He just looked worn down."

In recent weeks, Devries had called 911 and e-mailed police with increasing frequency, claiming that he had been the victim of various crimes, Clearwater police spokesman Wayne Shelor said. Officers responded to his house but found nothing to substantiate his claims.

In April, he told police someone was using "transponders" to harass him at home, reports show. Last month, he said neighbors had developed a way to send voices through his electrical wiring. Among the voices he heard inside his house, he told officers, was that of fiction writer Stephen King.

Jeffrey Devries worked as a police officer at USF's St. Petersburg campus from 1988 to 1998 when he retired as a sergeant, a university spokeswoman said. His father said his son left the job when he developed thyroid cancer.

"That really devastated him," said Stanley Devries, 73.

The elder Devries, who visited his son after he was taken into custody, said his son had felt the need to defend himself Friday morning. The neighbors had been banging on the door and windows and Devries thought they were trying to get inside, his father said.

"They were obviously making a lot of noise and were very threatening," he said.

Stanley Devries said police didn't take his son's complaints seriously and seemed to think his son was making things up.

"They don't have a caring attitude," he said of Clearwater police.

Stanley Devries said people in the neighborhood had harassed his son before. About two months ago, his son was outside testing his new video camera when two neighbors came in front of him, a third behind him, and knocked him onto the asphalt, Stanley Devries said.

Neighbors said Hoover, Sipka and Bailey had moved next door to Devries in April, though no one was aware of any tensions between the two homes.

After the shooting Friday, Beverly Circle was blocked off from traffic as detectives examined Devries' door and front yard. Bleary- eyed residents who had been awake since 2 a.m. recounted the strange episode.

"It was something out of a movie," List said, "but it was so real."

Times researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this report.

If you enjoyed reading about "Fla's new no-retreat law works just fine.." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Wiley
November 22, 2005, 06:18 AM
Well, even the mentaly unstable have a right to be secure in thier persons and property.

I would hope he sues them for a new front door.

feedthehogs
November 22, 2005, 07:36 AM
Not exactly a text book case for testing the law.

Anybody who claims to hear Stephen King over the wires in their home is seriously unstable and needs help.
Not the best case for gun ownership.

Henry Bowman
November 22, 2005, 09:43 AM
So when he saw four people on his porch carrying tiki torches about 2 a.m. Friday, he feared they were trying to break in, Pinellas sheriff's detectives said.What? No pitchforks?

Firethorn
November 22, 2005, 10:06 AM
Not exactly a text book case for testing the law.

Anybody who claims to hear Stephen King over the wires in their home is seriously unstable and needs help.
Not the best case for gun ownership.

Besides the mental issues, Florida didn't require retreat from the home even before the new law.

I could see a new law pushing for a little more power to 'assist' those with mental issues. It is a tough call though. I'm certainly not qualified to write the legislation. I can probably critique it, but I don't have the basis to even start.

AnthonyRSS
November 22, 2005, 10:34 AM
While he may be mentally unstable, his actions before/during the shooting seem justified. If somebody was at my door at 2am holding torches, they may be shot. Thats probably what the sign said.

NineseveN
November 22, 2005, 10:52 AM
What drunken monkey wrote that garbage? I could hardly wade through it. Aside from that, not sure what I think of that shooting yet...

ceetee
November 22, 2005, 11:33 AM
In the FWIW Department:

Anybody who has played around a bit with CB radios knows how simple it is to turn the pots all the way up, causing the unit to put out way more energy than is legal. If you do, anything you brodcast gets picked up by any kind of wiring at all. We used to have our voices coming out of TV's, answering machines, AM/FM's, Cassettes, CD's.

If you're pushing enough wattage, (not that I would know personally... this is all illegal) you can talk through anything with a speaker. The speaker doesn't even have to be powered up. I can easily see the man's house talking to him. I've done it. (In theory, that is.)

Ukraine Train
November 22, 2005, 11:52 AM
A couple weeks ago we had CB traffic come through the TV and my roommate's stereo, it was kinda weird, but can obviously happen.

rick_reno
November 22, 2005, 12:02 PM
My advice to Mr Devries, get a bigger caliber gun...
or a thinner door.

A tinfoil hat would take care of those voices from the various SHTF threads here could help with the design.

He's lucky the wires are just talking to him. I was dating a woman years ago and her ex-husband (a lawyer - so fitting) thought that electrical devices were anal probing him. It was quite a show to watch him cross the kitchen, spinning wildly while covering his butt. He was nuttier than a fruitcake and had torn all the wiring out of his BMW, we had to have it towed away one day after calling him a cab. He never got locked up, he had enough old family money to avoid problems with the authorities.

LynnMassGuy
November 22, 2005, 12:32 PM
As far as I'm concerned that incident makes the law look stupid. That situation is just the scenario the gun grabbers were waitng for. A nutcase shoots a unarmed 16year old girl through his front door. Yeah, thats going to play out nicely. If this is what the law was for, don't expect it to be around too long. Piss poor use of a firearm in my opinion.

Regards
John

Sindawe
November 22, 2005, 12:44 PM
A nutcase shoots a unarmed 16year old girl through his front door.But the 16 y/o tralk was NOT unarmed. She had one of our species first weapons in hand. Fire. Along with the assistance of several adult males for what ever else may come.

Long string of harrasment, little apparent response by those charged to keep the peace.

Now they show on the door step in the middle of the night, banging on the doors and windows while bearing torches.

Are they just being a pain again, or do them mean to burn ya out this time?

What should he have done LynnMassGuy? Wait until his house is in flames?

In my view, this is a justified use of force against some wannabe goblins.

LynnMassGuy
November 22, 2005, 01:12 PM
What should he have done LynnMassGuy? Wait until his house is in flames?



No, of course not but somewhere between doing nothing and unloading through his front door there is a more resonable response. Is there any evidence that their intent was to burn the house down? Is there any evidence that they attempted to break in? Do you really think they were banging on his front door to tell him they were going to burn his house down. Wouldn't it have been a lot easier to just do it if that were their intention.

Look, I could care less about the bad guys but if we want to see this law put in effect in more places this isn't a good example of how it should be used.

So, they got shot for standing on his steps with a tiki torchs. I'm sorry but you can't convince me deadly force is a resonable response.

And...

Aren't you supposedto be sure of your target and whats behind it before firing? How do you accomplish that when firing through your front door? He's lucky he didn't kill a neighbor.

Sorry folks, ra-ra all you want about it, this was an iresponsible use of a firearm by a mental incompetent all day long and a handful more will insure the castle law is not in place any where else.

Regards
John

Spot77
November 22, 2005, 01:33 PM
I hope I raise my daughter better than to be bothering old people at 2:00 am when she's a teenager.:scrutiny:

Riktoven
November 22, 2005, 01:37 PM
My next door neighbor used to have this massive 3 story CB tower on the side of his house. We were always hearing faint, and somtimes not so faint coms traffic comming through every quality speaker in the house. Called the FCC, who are the laziest most unhelpfull a holes since CB guy, and they did nothing. I somtimes thought killing this guy in his sleep was the only way to 'make the voices stop', so I can relate to the schizo gunman :-)

LAR-15
November 22, 2005, 01:39 PM
Good shoot.

What are they doing at 2 AM at his door?

:confused:

AnthonyRSS
November 22, 2005, 01:40 PM
Do you shoot somebody who has a gun pointed at you, or do you wait until you know if they are going to shoot you or not?

LynnMassGuy
November 22, 2005, 01:46 PM
I hope I raise my daughter better than to be bothering old people at 2:00 am when she's a teenager.:scrutiny:
I hear ya' but regrettably, 16 year olds do crazy stuff, not just the ones who were raised poorly. How old is the old burning bag of poo on the front steps trick. I think my grandfathers generation came up with that one.

Take tiki torch out of the equation and add burning bag of poo in the front steps.

Still a shooting offense? Maybe it is. To me it ain't.

Regards
John

LynnMassGuy
November 22, 2005, 01:54 PM
Do you shoot somebody who has a gun pointed at you, or do you wait until you know if they are going to shoot you or not?
Who had a gun? A tiki torch a gun is not.

Henry Bowman
November 22, 2005, 01:55 PM
Take tiki torch out of the equation and add burning bag of poo in the front steps.But that was not this equation. There were a whole bunch of people, with torches, on his porch. Were they sitting there singing Kumbya, or were they pounding on the door -- while holding torches -- maybe tormenting him with taunts or threats. Granted the last part is speculation. But even if the only factors are large group and torches and 2:00 am, that is either recklessly moronic behavior or reasonably perceptable as a threat.

NineseveN
November 22, 2005, 02:02 PM
A porch is private property, is it not? At 2AM, uninvited, with torches, banging on the door...hmmm...


Then the fact that they lied and said they were on the sidewalk when they got shot tells me something about their motive...it doesn't sound like it was good.

LynnMassGuy
November 22, 2005, 02:03 PM
But that was not this equation. There were a whole bunch of people, with torches, on his porch. Were they sitting there singing Kumbya, or were they pounding on the door -- while holding torches -- maybe tormenting him with taunts or threats. Granted the last part is speculation. But even if the only factors are large group and torches and 2:00 am, that is either recklessly moronic behavior or reasonably perceptable as a threat.

Yup. Absolutely, but a threat deserving of deadly force? He could have killed all of them had he been a better shot or used a more powerful weapon for essentially standing on his steps and being dingbats. Some sort of retaliation was certaninly in order and the adults certainly should have known better. It's way to sketchy. I mean come on, this guy thought people were putting voices in his apartment.

Let's not forget this line....

"In recent weeks, Devries had called 911 and e-mailed police with increasing frequency, claiming that he had been the victim of various crimes, Clearwater police spokesman Wayne Shelor said. Officers responded to his house but found nothing to substantiate his claims."

LynnMassGuy
November 22, 2005, 02:18 PM
http://news.tbo.com/news/MGBSZX5U8GE.html
"Devries reportedly told police he fired six shots through his door when he heard someone pounding on it. Police previously received a call that Devries' home had been burglarized, authorities said."
http://www.tampabays10.com/news/news.aspx?storyid=21477
""Mr. Devries said he saw the four on his front porch and said they were pounding on his door," detectives said. "Concerned and afraid they were trying to enter his house, he shot six rounds through the front door.""
http://www.tampatrib.com/FloridaMetro/MGBSM0TL6GE.html
"It did jibe with the account of Devries, who said he fired through his front door six times when he heard someone pounding on it, Pasha said."

Firing through your door because someone is pounding on it? There are legit reasons to pound on a door at 2AM. Not many, but there are. Granted this wasn't one but it could have been.

Regards
John

NineseveN
November 22, 2005, 03:24 PM
Firing through your door because someone is pounding on it? There are legit reasons to pound on a door at 2AM. Not many, but there are. Granted this wasn't one but it could have been.

Regards
John


And there are legit reasons to fire through a door, not many, but there are. Granted, you feel this wasn't one of them, but it could have been.

bogie
November 22, 2005, 03:30 PM
I've got an idea... It's just going to involve planting a whole buncha speakers, and a few books on tape...

LynnMassGuy
November 22, 2005, 03:32 PM
And there are legit reasons to fire through a door, not many, but there are.

Are there? A closed door that you can't see through?

P-35/53
November 22, 2005, 04:30 PM
The guy might have mental problems but torches on the front porch at 2:am isounds like they were egging him on. As for voices in his house- when I was a boy my Grandfather lived two doors down the street and had a very powerful CB radio. He was blind and would stay up all night on it. When he would transmit we could hear his voice faintly thru our tv even if it was off.

Sindawe
November 22, 2005, 04:35 PM
A porch is private property, is it not? At 2AM, uninvited, with torches, banging on the door...hmmm... Works that way here in Colorado. IIRC, the first test of our "Make My Day" law involved a slaying that took place on a fellows porch. He was exonerated.Yup. Absolutely, but a threat deserving of deadly force? Yep. Absolutely. Torches have long been used to fire a building. In my book, if its a choice of shooting through a door at goblins holding torches, or burning to death in my home, the goblins will loose everytime.

LynnMassGuy
November 22, 2005, 04:54 PM
What evidence is there that he was at risk of burning to death in his home? The shooters own words attest to the fact that he shot because he heard banging on his door not because he feared his house would be burned down.

Hey, I love the law. I wish we had it here. We need it here but I think the way that situation was handled is at the extreme end if the spectrum and enough examples like that could be what the gun grabbers need as ammunition to repeal it.

Was a good shooting by law. Sure but don't we need to be better than that and not operate on the fringe of what we're allowed to do. Just because you can shot doesn't mean you should shoot.

I just don't buy that if their intention was to burn his house down they would have done it at his front door with tiki torches yelling in a fashion that would alert the whole neighborhood.

Maybe it was. Who knows? Maybe it's a whole neighborhood of mental patients.

Regards
John

Radagast
November 22, 2005, 05:10 PM
Looks like the peasants hit the wrong place. They wanted the castle up the road that's constantly being struck by lightning. Harrassing Igor on his night off had predictable consequences. I wonder where they hid the pitchforks before the police arrived?

Coronach
November 22, 2005, 05:18 PM
What it looks like, as usual, is we don't have enough information.

People, if you're prepared to exonerate or convict this guy based upon that news blurb alone, I sincerely hope you mention this conversation during vior dire at your next jury duty.

:scrutiny:

Mike

Kodiaz
November 22, 2005, 05:20 PM
I'm Lynnmass please don't move to Fl. I'm sure you would be much happier if that poor guy was beaten to death or had his house burned down. When you go to someone's house late at night to beat on their door you deserve what you get too bad that guy didn't have a 12 ga full of buckshot. I'm sure that guy begged those people to leave him alone and they probably laughed at him. If they knew anything about civility they wouldn't be in the hospital.

+4 to that guy

Go Jeb!

Coronach
November 22, 2005, 05:25 PM
More specifically, I can think of plenty of reasons why this would be a good shoot. I can also think of plenty of reasons why it would not. The propriety of it will depend upon exactly what the shooter and the victims specifically say happened, and the physical evidence. We have access to none of that at this time.

Also, I'll be very curious as to an examination of the shooter's mental condition at the time of the shoot.

Mike

LynnMassGuy
November 22, 2005, 05:36 PM
I'm Lynnmass please don't move to Fl. I'm sure you would be much happier if that poor guy was beaten to death or had his house burned down. When you go to someone's house late at night to beat on their door you deserve what you get too bad that guy didn't have a 12 ga full of buckshot. I'm sure that guy begged those people to leave him alone and they probably laughed at him. If they knew anything about civility they wouldn't be in the hospital.

+4 to that guy

Go Jeb!
Man, you just ain't reading what I'm posting.

Tom Servo
November 22, 2005, 06:16 PM
Anybody who claims to hear Stephen King over the wires in their home is seriously unstable and needs help.
Heck, Stephen King's nothing. I just get Spalding Grey :)

Ganging up on someone's porch at 2:00AM, wielding torches? Yeah, that's asking for it. I don't know that I'd shoot through the door (rule #4 and all), but I'd be within my rights taking some sort of action. If this scenario doesn't seem so threatening, ask a black person.

I'm not baiting or waving any fish here, but an angry mob is an angry mob, especially when all this follows a campaign of harrassment. The south has a particularly scary history of this involving guys in white hoods.

A local officer told me about it this afternoon, and as far as he saw it, in Georgia, the guy was in the right. He might have received a slap-on-the-wrist citation for unlawful discharge, but no criminal charges.

cbsbyte
November 22, 2005, 07:28 PM
I was apalled that Mr. Devries was not proscuted for his actions. If the information is accurate in the story, I came to the conclusion that this case does not support the new Castle law in FL, in truth it is a mark against it. Do you believe any rational person would read this article and come to the conclusion Mr. Devries acted in a correct way. I doubt it, except for people on this board. Mr Devries does have a right to self defence, but this was not a rational response to the situation. This guy had no right to shoot through his door at some idiots with Tiki torches at 2 am. He could have done a number of other actions to scare off the idiots at his door without shooting them. Personally, this guy should be locked up in a hosiptal if he is hearing voices.

Hawkmoon
November 22, 2005, 07:40 PM
Not exactly a text book case for testing the law.

Anybody who claims to hear Stephen King over the wires in their home is seriously unstable and needs help.
Not the best case for gun ownership.
Not a case at all. He was within his home, repelling what he thought was an attempted break-in. That would have been legal in FL before the new law went into effect.

Hawkmoon
November 22, 2005, 07:51 PM
I was apalled that Mr. Devries was not proscuted for his actions. If the information is accurate in the story, I came to the conclusion that this case does not support the new Castle law in FL,
Once again: The new law in Florida is not, repeat NOT, a "Castle" law. Florida already had the castle doctine in place. The new Florida law is a "No need to retreat" law that applies outside of the castle.
Do you believe any rational person would read this article and come to the conclusion Mr. Devries acted in a correct way. I doubt it, except for people on this board. Mr Devries does have a right to self defence, but this was not a rational response to the situation. This guy had no right to shoot through his door at some idiots with Tiki torches at 2 am. He could have done a number of other actions to scare off the idiots at his door without shooting them. Personally, this guy should be locked up in a hosiptal if he is hearing voices.
Please explain for those of us less tactically astute than yourself what some of these other things are that one person can do to "scare off" multiple goblins who are pounding on the door at 2:00 a.m. waving torches.

Aside from that, you seem to miss the point that the law does not demand a rational response in times of crisis. The test is what is called a "reasonable man" test. It asks simply, "What would a reasonable man do when confronted with the same situation?" The law also asks what was the actor's belief at the moment. It has been discussed here previously that the law does not demand that a person actually be in grave danger in order for him/her to have the right to engage in self-defense. All the law demands is that the person believe him/herself to be in grave danger.

I would say that this person believed himself to be in danger and, believing that, acted as would any reasonable person who believed goblins were breaking into his house.

feedthehogs
November 22, 2005, 08:37 PM
I would hope that those of you who would shoot thru the door if some one were pounding on it at 2am never have a fire and your neighbor is pounding on the door to get everyone out.

Or a neighbor just got home and saw your car window smashed out and is trying to let you know.

What ever happened to all you who preach, "know your target and what is behind it" ?

Your shooting blindly.

Where do you think those bullets will go?
Maybe into a bad guy?
What about someone driving by in a car?
What about into the house or building across the street?
What about innocent kids walking down the sidewalk?

They were outside the door, he was protected inside his home. As soon as he determined a threat, call the cops and fire dept, retreat back beyond the door with cover and if someone did break down the door, drop them in their tracks when you have a clear target while waiting for the po po to show up.

If he had been out on the street, it would have been a totaly different set of circumstances and action needed.

oldschool
November 22, 2005, 09:21 PM
Here in Kentucky attempting Arson can, and probably will, get you shot with no legal ill coming to the shooter. Lets see; 1) there is a group of unknown and decidedly unfriendly people at your door at o-dark-thirty 2) complete with fire and who knows what other weapons and 3) the police have been non-responsive recently. To me that means a “reasonable person” would be in fear for their life and an acquittal if it comes up in front of a jury that I’m on.
I have been in a similar situation to where Mr. Devries was and it was in Florida when it happened. And in that case, as in this case, it was debatable which side of the door the mental defects resided. In both cases I think the bigger mental illness(es) resided on the outside of the structure. In my case the only thing that kept me from unloading a double 12 into the miscreant lighting incendiaries on my front pouch and banging on my front door at 3am was that I only had a shot at a fleeing target. Had they stood their ground they would have stopped polluting the gene pool.
If you are going to do something stupid, like pretending you are going to lynch somebody in the wee hours of the morning, don’t act surprised when they demonstrate their objections. It’s been said before “stupid should hurt!” They should be thankful that they are only getting holes patched not pushing up daises.

Kodiaz
November 22, 2005, 09:29 PM
Some doors have windows in them. I watched my aunt's car being pushed sideways during Wilma from here little window at the top of her door. So he may have seen the tops of the torches.

gunsmith
November 22, 2005, 10:12 PM
I'm not sure that they were going to burn his house down but even in CA arson is a shootable offense.

The article says they were reading something he had on his door, probably some kind of nutty rant .

I've seen alot of this kind of stuff in my life, people feel it is ok to tease crazy people.
From what I see, those people were making his allready miserable life even worse and they got a reaction ,not the one they were looking for but a reaction none the less.

Crazy people shouldn't have guns and idiots shouldn't tease crazy people who have guns.

I'm glad he isn't going to jail but I don't want crazy people to own guns & I doubt this is an over amplified CB problem

GT
November 22, 2005, 11:25 PM
they won't be doing it again :evil:

secamp32
November 22, 2005, 11:37 PM
and sometimes we could hear the station on the toaster oven. It often came thru unpowered speakers as well.

LynnMassGuy
November 22, 2005, 11:48 PM
No doubt it's a "good" shooting. I just think it puts the "Castle Doctrine" and gun owners in a bad light. Not to us. We get it already. To the middle of the road, not sure how they feel about guns folks. That is all I'm saying. It makes a crappy headline. It doesn't help us.

Hawkmoon
November 23, 2005, 12:20 AM
No doubt it's a "good" shooting. I just think it puts the "Castle Doctrine" and gun owners in a bad light. Not to us. We get it already. To the middle of the road, not sure how they feel about guns folks. That is all I'm saying. It makes a crappy headline. It doesn't help us.
In that case, why not help correct the widespread (even here, where people should know the difference) misapprehension that the new Florida law is a "Castle Doctrine" law? Why not remind "the media" at every opportunity that virtually every state has a "Castle Doctine" law on the books, and has had for many years.

The media love catchy phrases and sound bites. "Castle Doctrine" sounds so ... legal, ya know? They latch right onto that. Hold their feet to the fire and make them discuss it as a "no duty to retreat from a perceived threat in a public place where you have a legal right to be" and their eyes will glaze while their synapses short circuit. Too many syllables -- they can't handle it.

torpid
November 23, 2005, 12:25 AM
I would hope that those of you who would shoot thru the door if some one were pounding on it at 2am never have a fire and your neighbor is pounding on the door to get everyone out.

And if the neighbor is the one bringing the fire?

:confused:

Justin
November 23, 2005, 12:45 AM
What part of "Hey gang! Let's go invade the crazy neighbor's property and antagonize him at 2:00AM!" is a good idea?

Don't wanna get shot?

Then don't go invading the crazy guy's property in order to harass him.

Seriously.

One would have to be severely lacking in common sense to do something so stupid.

Good shoot?

Questionable.

Lesson learned? Hue betcha.

MrMex
November 23, 2005, 02:49 AM
He forgot one thing, OPEN THE DOOR FIRST!! duh..:neener:

Honestly though, torches on someones porch that has previously recorded compliants of harrasment. No question!

feedthehogs
November 23, 2005, 06:13 AM
Here's an up date:

News Stories
Clearwater man allegedly shoots three neighbors
Link: Clearwater shooting suspect surrenders after stand-off with police

dave Bohman

Clearwater, Florida - Joy Brieske says Jeffrey Devries was a neighborhood nuisance. But she didn’t consider him dangerous.

Joy Brieske, Neighbor of Shooting Suspect:
“I really thought he was harmless… Just a goofball.”

Investigators say Jeffrey Devries shot three people next door to his home -- neighbors who were smoking outside early Friday morning.

Sixteen-year-old Samantha Frances Sipka was hospitalized after she was shot twice, once in the jaw and once in the thigh.

Nineteen-year-old Jason Thomas Biaso was shot once in the shoulder.

Mark Hoover, the children’s parents, was shot once in the arm.

Police say Devries was holed up inside his home for more than six hours before surrendering.

Joy Brieske and her family had to evacuate their home.

Joy Brieske, Neighbor of Shooting Suspect:
“It’s pretty scary.”

Devries’ behavior has been described as bizarre and paranoid by neighbors and cops alike.

10 News has obtained e-mails Devries sent to Clearwater Police in the last month, claiming his neighbors were out to harm him.

On October 23, he writes:
“I was attacked, robbed in the street by a probable celebrity, Stephen King…”

His last e-mail was November 9th:
“I have been receiving threats from…persons with the medical field pretending to have some authority, etc. which is a scam.”

Joy Brieske says she recently saw him videotaping neighbors and talking to an imaginary friend.

Joy Brieske, Neighbor of Shooting Suspect:
“And then he just turned around, and walked away and said, 'Wait until Norman sees this.' ... We don’t know who Norman is.”

Clearwater Police and Pinellas County Deputies spent most of the day investigating the scene, as Beverly Circle remained closed to traffic into Friday night.

Joy Bieske says the neighborhood will be better off if Devries is tried and convicted of the shootings, and never returns.


Dave Bohman, Tampa Bay's 10 News


Shooting Of 3 People Leads To Standoff, Arrest

By STEPHEN THOMPSON , The Tampa Tribune
Tampa Bay Online
CLEARWATER - -- Last month, Jeffrey Devries was growing obsessed over an incident during which someone struck him on his next-door neighbors' property at 2 a.m. one day in September.

Patrol Officer William Smith III stopped by Devries' house to explain that the incident was under review and to see how the former University of South Florida police sergeant was doing.

Not well, replied Devries, 44.

Specifically, he was hearing voices, according to a Clearwater police report. He was convinced they were being sent to him by his neighbors through his home's electrical wiring.

Early Friday, the tension between the two households -- Devries' home, at 1818 Beverly Circle, and his neighbors' residence, at 1820 Beverly Circle -- reached a crisis.

At 1:53 a.m., authorities received a report that Devries had shot three people who were living or visiting next door. They were Mark Hoover, 45, Samantha Sipka, 16, and Jason Biaso, 19, of Safety Harbor.

Authorities also received a report about the same time that the Devries household had just been burglarized.

By the time the three wounded people were rushed to Bayfront Medical Center -- none of them with life-threatening injuries -- Devries had holed up in his home, prompting a standoff that would last 7 1/2 hours. After talking to a hostage negotiator on his telephone, he surrendered at 9:30 a.m., Pinellas sheriff's Sgt. Jim Bordner said.

Devries came out with his T-shirt hanging over his waistband, making it impossible for the SWAT team to determine whether a handgun had been stuck there, Bordner said. Devries wouldn't comply with orders so team members could approach him safely, so they used a rubber bullet and a Taser to subdue him, Bordner said.

Initially the three shooting victims said they were in the street in front of 1820 Beverly Circle holding tiki torches when bullets started flying, sheriff's spokeswoman Marianne Pasha said.

When homicide investigators started looking at the forensic evidence after the standoff, however, it didn't jibe with the victims' rendition, Pasha said.

It did jibe with the account of Devries, who said he fired through his front door six times when he heard someone pounding on it, Pasha said.

Bullet holes were found in the door, and four rounds have been accounted for -- the ones that struck the three victims, Pasha said.

Sipka was shot in the jaw and thigh, Bordner said. She remained at Bayfront Friday, but her condition was not released. Hoover, who was shot in the arm, was in fair condition, a hospital spokeswoman said. Biaso, who was shot in the shoulder, was treated but not admitted.

Hoover declined to be interviewed through a hospital spokeswoman. A woman answering the telephone at the Biaso residence in Safety Harbor said no one would comment.

A fourth person, Miles Bailey, 23, who lives at 1820 Beverly Circle, also was with the trio, Pasha said.

One of the four, when told of the physical evidence, said they were at Devries' front door reading his no-trespassing and no-soliciting signs, Pasha said.

Ken List, a neighbor who lives across a pond from the two properties, said that after the shots rang out he heard "screaming, like they were running away from the gunfire."

No one had been charged late Friday.

Devries has told Clearwater police that he is under the care of a psychiatrist and taking Zoloft and antipsychotic medications. His father, Stanley Devries, an orthodontist in Largo, told police last month his son has been diagnosed with thyroid cancer, a police report states.

Devries was hired as a patrol officer at the University of South Florida in 1988 and retired in September 1998 as a sergeant, USF police spokesman Mike Klingebiel said.

Also in 1998, Devries' then-wife, Yvette M. Covelli-Devries, stopped living with him. The two filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 1999, and she filed for divorce the year after that, federal and county court records show.

This year, Clearwater police have been to Devries' house roughly eight times, police spokesman Wayne Shelor said.

Devries has alleged that people have tampered with his telephone line, his mail and the power lines outside his house and that they were using microwaves to put voices in his head.

When he told Smith in October about the voices he was hearing, he said one of them told him his neighbors were going to burglarize his home.


Shooting suspect surrenders after standoff with police

The Associated Press

CLEARWATER, Fla. A man surrendered to SWAT team officers Friday morning, seven hours after he shot three people outside a neighbor's home and then barricaded himself inside his own house, authorities said.

Jeffrey Devries, 44, who was described by police as having previous mental illness issues, was taken into custody at about 9:30 a.m. without incident, authorities said.

None of the victims had life-threatening injuries. They were identified as Samantha Sipka, 16; Mark Hoover, 45; and Jason Biaso, 19. Sipka and Hoover were in stable condition at Bayfront Medical Center, authorities said. Biaso was treated and released.

Hoover was identified as the fiance of Sipka's mother. The shooting occurred at about 1:50 a.m. at the home where Hoover and Sipka live. The three victims were smoking cigarettes outside the house when the shooting started.

SWAT teams from the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office and Clearwater Police Department responded, and a hostage negotiator began talking to Devries.

Roads in the area were closed and some homes were evacuated during the standoff, authorities said

Triple-shooting leads to standoff in Clearwater
an ABC Action News report 11/18/05 - updated 4:27 p.m.



CLEARWATER - A man suspected of opening fire on three neighbors was finally taken into custody this morning after holding police at bay from inside his home for hours.

Police responded to Beverly Circle just before 2 a.m. after reports of a shooting. Investigators say Jeffrey Devries shot three people in front of a neighboring house, then retreated into his home down the street.

One 16-year-old shooting victim was flown by helicopter to Bayfront Medical Center. Devries' next-door neighbor, Samantha Sipka, was said to be in stable condition with gunshot wounds to the jaw and thigh.

Two other victims, 46-year-old Mark Hoover and 19-year-old Jason Biaso, were taken by ambulance to the hospital and said to be stable. Biasco had been treated and released by late morning.

Because the scene was on the border of Clearwater city limits and unincorporated Pinellas County, teams from both the Clearwater Police Department and Pinellas County Sheriff's Office responded to the home.

As if the sound of gunshots wasn't a rude enough awakening, Devries' neighbors then had to be evacuated in the middle of the night.



All three shooting victims were hospitalized.
"The next thing I know, all the cops were coming and everything else. So I knew something big was going down," James Yager recalled. "First they said we had a choice. We can evacuate, but they wanted to let us know that they had snipers in our yard and a guy across the street that shot three people."

Police negotiators spoke with Devries and eventually were able to convince him to surrender. But as he was coming outside, he apparently had a change of heart. Deputies said they had to use rubber bullets and a taser to subdue him before taking him into custody.

It was not Devries' first run-in with the law. Police said they'd been in contact with him before when he complained his neighbors were harassing him.

"Sometimes you wonder whether or not he has a firm grasp on reality, but we have tried to work with him," police spokesman Wayne Shelor explained. "We've been accommodating and sincerely respectful of his claims."

Friday evening, Devries remained at Morton Plant Hospital for observation. He had not been charged, though officials said charges were pending.


Seems the story is a changin quite a bit.

mindpilot
November 23, 2005, 06:17 AM
:what: :what: :what: :what: :what: :what: :what:

DunedinDragon
November 23, 2005, 07:14 AM
The reason I see this as an interesting test of the new law is because the shooter is unstable. As with most new laws, it takes a while to work out all the kinks the lawmakers didn't think of when they wrote it, and see how it gets interpreted in unusual and different circumstances. And I would submit this is about as different and unusual as it gets.

The new law centers on whether it's reasonable for the person to believe he was in grave danger. In this case, the shooter appears to be clinically paranoid, but the issue is NOT whether HE was reasonable, but rather if his actions would be considered reasonable by most people being placed into that situation. Under the old law he would have been compelled to at least TRY to escape or avoid the problem. The fact that he confronted the problem without retreat will truly test the reasonableness of shooting in this type of situation, solely on it's own merits, and not flavored by the guys obvious mental problems.

The first item of interest will be whether or not the police and the DA feel they can prove he was unreasonble in his actions. Under the new law the burden of proof is on the police to show his actions were unreasonble by most standards before he can even be charged. The second item of interest will be, if they do decide to prosecute, how will the judges and/or juries interpret the "reasonableness" factor.

For those of us that DON'T hear voices and live in Florida this will give us a VERY good lesson on how the new law is going to be interpreted without having to incur the legal costs of hiring a good lawyer to defend us.

Hawkmoon
November 23, 2005, 11:53 AM
The reason I see this as an interesting test of the new law is because the shooter is unstable. As with most new laws, it takes a while to work out all the kinks the lawmakers didn't think of when they wrote it, and see how it gets interpreted in unusual and different circumstances. And I would submit this is about as different and unusual as it gets.

The new law centers on whether it's reasonable for the person to believe he was in grave danger. In this case, the shooter appears to be clinically paranoid, but the issue is NOT whether HE was reasonable, but rather if his actions would be considered reasonable by most people being placed into that situation. Under the old law he would have been compelled to at least TRY to escape or avoid the problem. The fact that he confronted the problem without retreat will truly test the reasonableness of shooting in this type of situation, solely on it's own merits, and not flavored by the guys obvious mental problems.
I believe you are mistaken. I do not see this as a test of the new law at all, because Devries was inside his own home. Floida's old law already allowed people to defend their homes with no duty to retreat. You are incorrect in saying the old law would have compelled him to retreat. Retreat OUT of your own house? Very few states would require that, and Florida wasn't one of them.

Secondly, the new law only removed the duty to retreat. It did not center on the issue of whether or not a person believes himself to be in danger. I'm pretty sure that's in other parts of Florida law, and the new law simply establishes that WHEN a person feels he is in grave danger in a public place, he/she no longer must try to retreat before being allowed to use deadly force in self defense.

LynnMassGuy
November 23, 2005, 12:00 PM
I believe you are mistaken. I do not see this as a test of the new law at all, because Devries was inside his own home.

Indeed, he was inside his house BUT the "bad guys" (maybe so maybe no) were not inside his house.

MarshallDodge
November 23, 2005, 01:26 PM
With the details I have seen I personally would not have shot.
Devries is very unstable and who knows what was going through his mind but if walking up to a front door at 2 AM and knocking on it is grounds for getting shot I have a problem with that. I would have told them to go away and called the police. If they came through the front door then they would have been shot.

In the case of the Colorado incident mentioned earlier, the shooter had been shooting at the neighbors barking dog with his pellet gun. When the neighbor got mad, grabbed a 2X4, and went over to the guys house and began smashing the glass in the front door the guy blasted him with a 12 gauge and killed him.

The law may protect from jail you but you will probably be poor from the lawsuit.

Coronach
November 23, 2005, 02:36 PM
Seems the story is a changin quite a bit.No. Really? :scrutiny:

Who- I ask- who could have predicted this?

Hint:What it looks like, as usual, is we don't have enough information...More specifically, I can think of plenty of reasons why this would be a good shoot. I can also think of plenty of reasons why it would not. The propriety of it will depend upon exactly what the shooter and the victims specifically say happened, and the physical evidence. We have access to none of that at this time.

Also, I'll be very curious as to an examination of the shooter's mental condition at the time of the shoot. ;)

OK. Snark aside, this was a case-in-point about newsblurbs being of little use in determining the propriety of a shoot. We had several posters chanting "Good shoot!" and "bad shoot!" a few hours ago, but I think most rational people will consider a news report pretty flimsy for the purposes of determining if a shoot is justified.

Mike

If you enjoyed reading about "Fla's new no-retreat law works just fine.." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!