Debating the law: a "man's home is his castle."

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Is this true, the part about “in fear for their safety in no longer required?”

From my reading of the Florida law, it appears that it creates a legal presumption that if someone unlawfully and forcibly enters your home, that is enough to establish a fear of death or serious bodily injury on the part of the homeowner. It doesn't remove that requirement from Florida's self-defense law, it just says that they will assume you had a valid reason to fear death or serious bodily injury if someone breaks in.

 

[ka50]

As long as someone shows the intent and ability to harm you, you're free to use whatever force is required to stop the threat.

And about friggin' time, too!

Define intent.

I've had people try to start ???? with me, threatning me with superior numbers and even following me briefly. I don't think shooting them simply because they are making threats is responsible use of firearm. When they are attempting or taking deliberate steps to fulfill the threat, things do change. I don't think simple fistfight with two guys in same weight category justifies shooting. If it's 2v1, things change though. Threat, by itself, is only warning, not an actual immideate danger that justifies shooting.

 

[ceetee]

Define intent.

...

When they are attempting or taking deliberate steps to fulfill the threat, things do change. I don't think simple fistfight with two guys in same weight category justifies shooting. If it's 2v1, things change though. Threat, by itself, is only warning, not an actual immideate danger that justifies shooting.

IANAL, but the way I read it, if you can convince the police investigators and the prosecutors that you were in danger, that's about it. If you have witnesses, yay. If you have corroborating evidence, all the better. (But it's not necessary.) I'm guessing that most of the time, these incidents won't be happening in a vacuum. There will be circumstantial evidence one way or the other to help tell the story.

In other words, if a known felon shows up on your porch at 0-dark-thirty wearing gloves and a ski mask, and he don't have any skis, you can assume that he ain't going skiing...

 

[Smoke]

Originally Posted by Jeeper
What kind of complete idiot is this home owner?

Who in the hell shoots throught their door and doesnt go check afterwards?

Who in the hells shoots through the door unless they know what is behind it?

This moron deserves to go to jail. His neighbor across the street could have been sitting on his porch and got hit.(Even at 2am) This guy deserves procsecution!

Perhaps a frail older retiree, maybe female, who has no formal training in firearms. One who is in fear for her life due to the decline in her neighborhood and hearing someone trying to break in at 2:00am.

Maybe she has no neighbor across the street.

Story does not give enough detail to pass judgement.

This "Moron" might just desreve a medal for saving her own life and ridding society of a habitual deviant.

Smoke

 

[biketrapeze]

I appreciate the castle doctrine. The fact that a person is inside your house w/o your permission is already tresspassing. Thus, this can be a prima facie evidence of ill motive or intent to do something nasty. Nonethless, this presumption is rebuttable.

 

[Jeeper]

Perhaps a frail older retiree, maybe female, who has no formal training in firearms. One who is in fear for her life due to the decline in her neighborhood and hearing someone trying to break in at 2:00am.

Maybe she has no neighbor across the street.

Story does not give enough detail to pass judgement.

This "Moron" might just desreve a medal for saving her own life and ridding society of a habitual deviant.

Smoke

I will agree that there is not enough facts presented to completely decide.

When does being frail or untrained mean that you dont have to follow the law? If they have a gun then being frail doesnt really matter.

I really cant imagine a situation where you would ever be justified in shooting through a door when you dont know what is on the other side. Much less not going to check on it after you shot. It could have been a cop investigating a prowler or a drunk neighbor going to the wrong front door. If you arent sure there is a threat then you dont shoot.

 

[k_dawg]

Is this true, the part about “in fear for their safety in no longer required?”

Sounds reasonable.

Yes/No. Under Florida law, someone who has illegally entered your premise is legally presumed to have intent to harm.

So, you do not need to prove that you were in fear of your life. By statute, you already were.

 

[NCP24]

Anyone here know if NC has a "castle" law?

The way I understand it NC has a "castle/stand your ground law”. Although, I believe you still have to establish an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death along with the use of reasonable force.

From my reading of the Florida law, it appears that it creates a legal presumption that if someone unlawfully and forcibly enters your home, that is enough to establish a fear of death or serious bodily injury on the part of the homeowner. It doesn't remove that requirement from Florida's self-defense law, it just says that they will assume you had a valid reason to fear death or serious bodily injury if someone breaks in.

Sounds good.

Yes/No. Under Florida law, someone who has illegally entered your premise is legally presumed to have intent to harm.

So, you do not need to prove that you were in fear of your life. By statute, you already were.

I agree, what reasonable person wouldn’t be in fear of harm.

 

[GunnySkox]

Annoying bit of diction, "home, car, or EVEN boat intruders," as though a boat is any less my property than my house or my car, and one with even fewer avenues of retreat or maneuver. Gah, I frickin' hate journalists.

~GnSx

 

[Tokugawa]

Hunter Rose, I would love to hear about your house design. I am amazed at the shabby insecure shacks we call houses in this country.

 

[Strings]

Tokugawa (and others): I don't have the drawings anymore. Besides, it was a "lotto house": you can make ANYTHING impregnable with enough money spent on it. Steel reinforced concrete walls, Lexan (roughly 1") instead of glass in any windows, etc. It called for the majority of the house to be underground, with steel shutters for the doors and windows (all of which would be recessed). Flex sensors in the Lexan would trigger the shutters, and so on...

Like I said: a "lotto house". Take some graph paper and go nuts. Watch History Channel's "Secret Passages" while doodling. You'll end up with something just as good (and just as expensive)...

 

[DunedinDragon]

Although there's not enough known from the story to determine it, clearly the homeowner at least "thought" there was a burglary going on. Given this happened in the "gun lovin'" south, I doubt the homeowner will face charges, but the issue with firing through the door can be alikened to the fatal shooting of the japanese exchange student that was going to a halloween party and stopped to ask directions.

Although the homeowner "thought" it was a burglary, and as it turns out, probably was, it could also just as easily have been a neighbor trying to retrieve his dog from the homeowner's porch. If the DA decides he wants to send a message about this into the community, IMO he'd have precedent to press charges. Castle Doctrine is about "knowing" you are being burglarized, not just "thinking" or "presuming" you are being burglarized. That's why shooting through a door is NEVER a good idea.

 

[Janitor]

I really cant imagine a situation where you would ever be justified in shooting through a door when you dont know what is on the other side.

+1

Where are all the "four rules" boosters on this thread??? Are accidents ok if they turn out allright?

I'm kind of startled that nobody has made a larger deal of this. The guy shot through a door, unable to see any target, "trying to scare" the intruder! Just the other day, there was a thread here on THR (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=168825) that, in part, talked about how things might look in civil court if the other side could prove that you hadn't intended to actually kill the perp, but shot him/her dead by accident.

Call the shooter a hero, and a symbol for all that's good in the world all you like. Fact is that the way things are worded in that news article, this is a death caused by an accidental shooting. That it was somebody who probably deserved a good shooting is the only bright spot in this story.

To pull the trigger and rely on a series of accidents for your results seems at least a *bit* iffy, responsibility wise.
-

 

[jsalcedo]

I really cant imagine a situation where you would ever be justified in shooting through a door when you dont know what is on the other side.

In the last two years I can remember off the top of my head about 5 instances where the homeowner shot through a door.

In most of these instances the bad guy was:

Trying to kick the door in.

Had broken a pane of glass on the door

Had tried to get in the house by other means

Yelling cursing making threats while trying to force the door open

Was a known bad guy by the homeowner (abusive ex boyfriend etc...)

When faced with these scenarios would you still let the person get inside your house first before shooting?

 

[Janitor]

In the last two years I can remember off the top of my head about 5 instances where the homeowner shot through a door.

In most of these instances the bad guy was:

Trying to kick the door in.

Had broken a pane of glass on the door

Had tried to get in the house by other means

Yelling cursing making threats while trying to force the door open

Was a known bad guy by the homeowner (abusive ex boyfriend etc...)

When faced with these scenarios would you still let the person get inside your house first before shooting?

But none of that was going on. At least - none cited in the news article.

And yes - I can see value (other than simply trying to be responsible as to what I'm shooting at) to letting the perp get the door open.

If nothing else, read the news story on this thread. The shooter didn't know he got the 'perp'. What if he had simply scared the guy into trying a more quiet method of entry on a different door or window? No way of knowing if you can't see your target.

The operative words in what you quoted:

"when you dont know what is on the other side."

What about when you open the door after shooting at all the yelling, and find it was the (wannabe) perp yelling at the LEO that was coming up behind him, and you just blew the cop away?
-

 

[Jeeper]

In the last two years I can remember off the top of my head about 5 instances where the homeowner shot through a door.

In most of these instances the bad guy was:

Trying to kick the door in.

Had broken a pane of glass on the door

Had tried to get in the house by other means

Yelling cursing making threats while trying to force the door open

Was a known bad guy by the homeowner (abusive ex boyfriend etc...)

When faced with these scenarios would you still let the person get inside your house first before shooting?

Probably most if not all of them I would let the door get opened first. Mainly because "shooting at the door" is stupid. THe door is not the target. How do I know where the person is standing. I have neighbors that I dont want to kill by just shooting in the general direction of the perp. IMHO you need to actually see the target before you shoot.

 

[johnster999]

The homeowner has not been charged.
The burglar was clearly a burglar.
It's clear the homeowner believed (correctly) that there was a dangerous man trying to break down his/her door a 2am. Not a guy with car trouble or the girls scouts selling cookies.
The burglar was a convicted felon career criminal with a long record.
No one got shot but the burglar.
And, most importantly; the homeowner is being demonized by a criminal's momma and secondguessed online instead of being mourned by his/her loved ones.

That all sounds pretty good to me.

999

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Castle Doctrine is about "knowing" you are being burglarized, not just "thinking" or "presuming" you are being burglarized. That's why shooting through a door is NEVER a good idea.

While I might, if I had more facts, agree that shooting through a closed door is not a good idea (although I can visualize circumstances under which it might be a good idea ... such a case was posted here about a week ago), please explain exactly where in Florida's or any other state's Castle law it requires that the homeowner "know" he is being burglarized.

 

[antarti]

The new law expanded the self-defense laws in Florida and made it easier to lawfully shoot dead home, car or even boat intruders.

LOL! Anybody over 20 (and most under 15) in this state know exactly how much cement it takes to keep a body in a 55-gal drum (preferred, or a crab-trap which is usually handy) underwater forever. That's like a daily event here, ask any of the larger coastal PDs who deal with drug importation.

The idea of local law enforcement going after someone criminally, even before this law, who was successfully defending their boat from boarders is laughable, even in the 1% chance they were actually summoned to the scene afterward.

I've had friends shot with rock salt for pulling up crabtraps (when we were young, early teens), the water cops didn't bother looking twice at the crabbers for shooting a 13 year old, they chased him down until he got to some unnavigable water way upriver ... no question about whose "side" they were on.

please explain exactly where in Florida's or any other state's Castle law it requires that the homeowner "know" he is being burglarized.

Fine question. As if the intruder would tell you the truth if asked... Shoot through doors, cinderblocks, whatever it takes, just put the trash out so the next resident and the taxpayers don't have to deal with them. Then either call police or find a crabtrap to fill.

 

[jbear6]

I think he should have waited until the perp entered his house, and then there would be little doubt as to his intentions (unless the homeowner just ordered a pizza).

Jbear6.

 

[V4Vendetta]

"IMHO you need to actually see the target before you shoot."

Sounds right to me.