Shooting Home Robber in the Back

[TexasRifleman]

As far as i know shooting someone who is running away is considered murder no matter where they are. And even if it isn't considered murder legally where you live, it's still murder. we cant just go arround shooting people who try to steal from us.

Sorry, that is not correct. ETA: The Texas statute is posted above this post.

 

[Kleanbore]

Background: I live in the state of Florida. Florida has the Castle Doctrine for homes. I interpret the law to mean that anyone who forcefully and without authorization enters your dwelling has forfeited their life, for whatever reason.

In the course of working directly with attorneys over more than two decades, I've learned that it is extremely unwise for a lay person to try to interpret any law on the basis of dictionary definitions without a founding in legal concepts and theory, without knowledge of the legal context in which said law operates, without an appreciation of case law, and without knowing the legal terms of art.

Shorter version: do not interpret any law to mean anything and then rely on that interpretation unless you have the benefit of a legal eduction, access to the relevant case law, and some experience in the practice.

What the law (Florida Statutes, Section 776.013) says is that 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...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...".

The intent, I think, is to relieve from that person the obligation to produce other evidence to show that there was reason to have held the aforementioned reasonable fear if an intruder had unlawfully and forcibly entered an occupied dwelling. Without that provision, a court might require a shooter to provide evidence that an assailant had the ability, opportunity, and intent of causing great harm, even though he had just broken trough the door of an occupied domicile. That's what led to the enactment of a castle law where I live.

Now suppose that there is other evidence that, notwithstanding the fact of entry, the occupant no longer had reason to hold said fear? Do you know the intent of the legislators on that? Do you know the legal theory? Have courts ever been faced with that determination?

Well, if they have not, I recommend strongly against becoming the first test case.

I don't think this is a legal matter if he's sill in the house, but more of a moral issue.

I wouldn't want to wager on that.

I wouldn't bet a nickel on it, much less my record, my fortune, and my personal freedom.

Would you shoot him?

Absolutely not!

Now, you might get by with shooting someone who is on the way out of your house, and you might not. If you do and others follow suit, you might expect to see the law amended. The obvious intent of the law was to remove an unreasonable burden of proof of self defense from the occupant of a residence that has been breached, not to legalize the administration, by individual citizens, of justice to thieves in a proportion that exceeds that which would be applied in the course of due process.

 

[Jim K]

The question legally would be whether the threat is over. If the BG is running out the door, the threat would seem to be over, and there is little justification for shooting (you won't know if he is going to harm someone else later or if he is already a multiple offender).

If he turned his back to shoot at your wife, you would be entirely justified in shooting him in the back or anywhere else.

Jim

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

Many many questions in life are difficult. Conversely, this one is a no-brainer.

You NEVER shoot in the back, because a subject not looking at you cannot threaten you. Only exceptions might be:

1. In Texas, after dark, to protect a person fleeing with your property (as I understand it, that is legal there).

2. The fleeing person has strapped dynamite to you, and is fleeing with the remote control detonator to set it off once he gets 'X' distance from you, or some other farfetched scenario in which a person *not looking at you* can actually threaten your safety.

3. He is threatening another person whom you are legally justified in defending (varies state to state as to what relationship is required, whether a spouse or close kin vs. the general public).

4. He is about to commit another new felony - in some states, you can use deadly force to prevent the commission of a felony. If the felony has already been committed, however, you're not justified is using deadly just to catch the perp.

Castle doctrine and Make My day laws ain't got nuttin to do with shootin in the back. You still have to be threatened, at least subjectively (under make my day), and objectively (under castle doctrine), and a person who is not facing you cannot threaten you, either objectively or subjectively. No amount of castle doctrine can save you from a conviction if you shoot someone in the back.

I interpret the law to mean that anyone who forcefully and without authorization enters your dwelling has forfeited their life, for whatever reason.

As noted, you interpreted that law completely incorrectly.

And I didn't even *touch on* morality - just legality.

 

[c5_nc]

Its certainly more likely to go to trail if you shoot in back but to don't think its cut and dry depending on what actually happens and your description of events:

Robbery at nightime- You may not be able to see good enough to tell if they are facing toward or away from you.

Someone else in the path- My front door is right by the staircase (kids rooms are upstairs), are the leaving or heading to the staircase. Maybe they head to a back door and I have a rifle that I keep by the back doorway, are the heading to get the gun or leaving?

 

[hso]

From the florida stautes, there is already the presumption of deadly force by the intruder, even as be escapes, or atleast that's my interpretation.

You had better talk to a FL criminal attorney about that interpretation. Any time someone is fleeing and their back is to you and they're not approaching a family member you're no longer considered subject to deadly force.

A recent case illustrates where shooting someone that is fleeing CAN be justified. Grandparents responded to the threat that someone had broken into the home of their minor grandchild while the child was present. The intruder fled the home, but towards the grandmother sitting in the car outside the home. The grandfather shot the fleeing individual claiming that he was in fear for the grandmother's safety. He was not charged. Had he not had the reasonable argument that he was in fear for the life of another he could have been charged because the intruder was fleeing and presumed to no longer be a threat.

Your broad interpretation of the castle doctrine is common, but incorrect. A fleeing intruder is no longer automatically presumed to represent a threat as someone who was not fleeing would.

 

[TexasRifleman]

In Texas, after dark, to protect a person fleeing with your property (as I understand it, that is legal there).

It's more complicated than that.

The nighttime provision only applies to theft and criminal mischief.

In Texas deadly force is allowed to stop the commission of criminal mischief in the nighttime, and theft during the nighttime. Not fleeing with the property, but the actual commission of the theft itself. Note it's theft, not burglary.

Shooting to stop fleeing with the property is different. The nighttime only applies to property gained by theft. If it was robbery or burglary the nighttime provision does not apply.

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

and a person who is not facing you cannot threaten you

Fleeing and moving for better position are not the same thing.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

ok, wait, got it - thanks.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Thank you for the clarification TRM!

Well, I almost hate to do it.

Since Texas is the only state with these kinds of laws it worries me that others read this stuff and think that their state may have similar.

I almost hate to bring up the Texas law sometimes because it's so unusual.

If you don't live in Texas DO NOT read that stuff above, it could get you sent to prison anywhere else

 

[maskedman504]

TexasRifleman-

Would you like to give analysis of the Joe Horn shooting in Texas?

Thanks in advance.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Would you like to give analysis of the Joe Horn shooting in Texas?

That was covered pretty well here before but basically since the deadly force provision only requires darkness for "theft", and these guys had broken into a house (making that burglary) he argued that deadly force was OK since it was unlikely the property could have been recovered any other way, which meets the law here.

That was one of his arguments.

Also, it came out that when he yelled at the 2 guys they came towards him, and he shot in self defense.

I am not sure which story mattered since the Grand Jury testimony is closed.

But, whatever story it was the Grand Jury believed it and he was no billed. My personal feeling is that it was the self defense argument, not the property recovery argument. If you read the Wikipedia article on this, and other stuff, you see lots of references to the protecting property statute. And, he was probably legally justified under that but his attorneys also presented the self defense argument from what I understand.

This case had one of the "shot in the back" things as well, which shows that shooting in the back does NOT always result in a crime.

Also, a cop saw the whole shooting, so that changes things a lot too. They didn't just have Mr Horns version of the story since there was an LE witness.

He heard Horn order the men to stop and instead they turned toward him. Both of them were killed on Mr Horns property, not the place next door or a street.

So, I think this one went to self defense.

 

[ScareyH22A]

If you shot him in the back like you described, heading out the door, you did it in anger and not because of anything else. It's very easy to prosecute someone for shooting in anger. And it's very easy to see right through any bs you might come up with.

 

[Yoda]

From a Flordia resident and CCW holder...

NO!

Can I be any more plain?

IANAL... BUT, the law is intended to give you a presumptive defense if you have to shoot someone who has entered your house illegally. The law allows you to assume that someone who has entered your house illegally intends to commit a violent felony, and thus the use of deadly force is justified.

HOWEVER, this is NOT a license to kill!!! Once it is obvious that the intruder is not commiting a violent felony (ever hear of the drunk that came in the wrong door?), or that the person is no longer a threat (running away), then it seems clear to me that you have no LEGAL or MORAL justification for shooting him.

I had a friend in Virginia who was a genuine Army Ranger with combat experience. He came home one night and found a teenager in his house. The kid tried to climb out a window as my friend got his gun. He said he was ready to shoot the kid as he struggled to get through the window, then he decided that whatever the kid was up to, he wasn't ready to take his life for it. The day after it happened, after he had a whole night to think about it, he told me that he was happy with his decision. He said that he just wasn't ready to take the kid's life for whatever he had done in his house, and he sure wasn't ready to take a life over "stuff."

Now, if the kid had just raped my friend's wife or daughter, things would have been very different, and I'm sure he would then have been at peace with a decision to shoot.

You have to live with yourself. If you're the sort of guy who would shoot "just because you think you can," then you're not the sort of guy I want to live with.

- - - Yoda

=============

 

[psyopspec]

That being said would you shoot a home invader in the back as he is heading out the door (but still within the confines of the house) if he was only stealing [insert valuable MATERIAL possession here].

Heck no, and per the reasons laid out by ArmedBear, et al.

 

[KenWP]

Even if the guy had a weapon and was coming at you he's in the right up here. We are supposed to call the cops and hope they get there before hes done. We do not have the right to defend ourselves what so ever up here.

 

[springmom]

ArmedBear and hso have it nailed.

Let me add a slightly different point: it has indeed been said that our possessions represent life...that is, time, effort, sometimes distress, blood, sweat, tears.... But trying to equate shooting someone in the back because they're stealing my TV with shooting someone who's got a gun pointed at me is just goofy. My life is more than the sum of my possessions; it is certainly far more than any one or few of my possessions. My life, in the scenario given, is not in danger.

Now, had I walked into the living room and seen him standing in the middle of the room... that's a different kettle of fish. There's way too much possibility in that case that he's going to choose to make his escape *through me* either by my death or injury. THAT is what the castle law is intended to address. Not someone fleeing your house with your VCR.

And again, go back and read....and re-read....ArmedBear's comments. If you are going to carry a gun, or have one at home for home defense, you *must* be ready for the consequences of what follows if you use it. And those consequences will include you waking up in a cold sweat many nights for the rest of your life. I'm willing to take that for the defense of my life. Not for the defense of my electronics.

Jan

 

[KBT1911]

If all it was was some dude trying to get my electronics and I didn't feel threatened I wouldn't shoot. I might chase and knock the crap (Think Buttstroke to the head, bayonet training style) out of him though, If I could catch him.

Otherwise, I'd just call the cops and then figure out where the hole in my home security was that allowed him to get in in the first place and fix it.

 

[TexasRifleman]

But trying to equate shooting someone in the back because they're stealing my TV with shooting someone who's got a gun pointed at me is just goofy. My life is more than the sum of my possessions; it is certainly far more than any one or few of my possessions. My life, in the scenario given, is not in danger.

That argument generally is true.

However, the Texas law on deadly force to protect property is in place precisely because property CAN be your life.

The example I have seen used most often is the case of a mechanic, repairman, etc who has his livelihood in his tools. If he has no tools he cannot work to feed his family, hence their lives may be in danger to some extent.

The other one cited as kind of the "original" case for this was someone out in the middle of nowhere and a criminal steals your water, food supply, transportation etc which could in a very real way put your life in danger.

So sometimes stuff is "just stuff" but there are very real cases where "stuff" represents life, or the sustaining of life.

Take for example the case of copper wiring theft. If your neighbor is on a ventilator and you see someone stealing the copper wiring off of his house, would you shoot over "just stuff"? It represents much more than just copper wiring, that electricity may be keeping your neighbor alive.

Sure these are extreme examples, but they absolutely can come up.

That is why Texas has this law and I am glad I live in a state that recognizes that there are time when "stuff" is MUCH more than just "stuff".

 

[shootistpd27]

If hes in my house, and hes not welcome, he is a dead man. I would shoot him in the back, front, side, bottom, top, or while rolling. If he is running out the door with my stuff I would shoot him then drag him back in and shoot him again. The castle law is not that he forfeits his life being unwelcome in your home. It simply means that you have no duty to retreat. Make sure you practice your statement by saying that you shot him because you were in fear for your life and not just because you can. It will save you some grief. All the liberal nay sayers who say that they wouldnt shoot an intruder in the back are weak and wrong. My house is my house. If you make the mistake of thinking that you can come in and do as you please, you misread the rulebook and the penalty is death.

 

[SWDoc]

OP, to answer your question: no. I would not shoot him given the scenario you presented. GENERALLY speaking, when he is running away, the threat is decreasing, not becoming more urgent.

COULD there be a situation where you would be justified in shooting them in the back? Certainly. Two that immediately occur to me are the intruder turining to grab a weapon, or him turning his back on you to run into a room containing your children.

Steve

 

[hso]

With all due respect to Texas and Texans, the laws in Texas are unique on defending property and not applicable to the rest of the country (and especially not to the OP question in FL).

The OP misunderstands the defense to prosecution the FL "castle doctrine" provides him. In the situation he describes he would have no defense to prosecution because shooting a fleeing intruder as they left the house would be considered an unjustifiable shooting. If he were charged he would also have no defense to civil liability. He could be bankrupted by the legal expenses attempting to stay out of prison and then ruined by the civil suite.

 

[Boris Barowski]

what he's carrying is probably less valuable than the lawyer you'll need to pay to explain this tricky situation in court.

 

[mcdonl]

OP, to answer your question: no. I would not shoot him given the scenario you presented. GENERALLY speaking, when he is running away, the threat is decreasing, not becoming more urgent.

I am not sure how I would react. If the BG is retreating, heading towards the door, how long to you wait to be sure he is leaving, and not seeking cover AND concealment at an exterior door frame. Too long and your wrong.... your dead.

If the threat is present, and the BG has not LEFT your immediate threat area... 21' with a knife... who knows with a gun, you are always at the threat of serious bodily harm, no matter the direction your assailent is facing.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Short answer: No. Expanded answer: No.

 

[Desert Panther]

question

I am no softie; I also think horse thieves should be hung (lethal injection and all being too kind for them). Least you think horse thieves are no longer a problem, I can tell you a story that happened to an acquaintance just a few years ago...

not trying to hijack this thread, but I'd like to hear about this