Yellow Bullet Forums banner

So the dude up the street shot a guy who broke in his house....

14K views 242 replies 35 participants last post by  BC3xx0 
#1 ·
First off I don't know the people involved, just the crap I got from the news and gossip but it did happen just up the street from me.

Saturday night at midnight, a shithead walked through this guys unlocked front door. He and his wife were sleeping (don't know if on the couch, in their chairs, or bedroom) and started beating them with a chair! Somehow the homeowner got a gun and shot the shithead and himself during the struggle (non life threatening). The shithead made it out the door and died on the front yard.

The shithead was a neighbor that has been suspected in several unsuccessful burglaries and just recently moved back on the street. The shitheads wife is saying that he's mentally ill and was probably just going to their house for help! Other neighbors are saying he was drunk and went to the wrong house. Either way, he wasn't invited in and their was obviously a struggle and the homeowner felt threatened in his own house and did what he had to do.

It got me thinking though. What if a drunkguy/mentally unstable/burglar came in my house undetected while I slept and started beating the shit out of me with something? Would I be able to get to my gun? I keep my gun in the closet, with the magazine next to it, same with the shotgun. Sure, I lock my doors so it wouldn't be as quiet as what happened to this guy but what if I had the fan on and didn't hear it or some shit.

My problem lies with my kids. I have a 3 year old and a 4 month old. I can't have guns accessible. He doesn't play or come into our room unsupervised, but I can't trust him enough to keep a gun in a drawer or next to the bed. I can't even trust him to tell me he has to poop!! I've thought about one of the holsters that slip into the mattress and just put the gun away when we wake up, but sometimes he gets up in the night and comes in our room.

The only thing that comes to my mind is fortification!! What kind of things are you guys with kids doing for access to your weapons?
 
See less See more
#157 ·
http://www.pinellascountyfloridacriminallawyerblog.com/2009/08/floridas-castle-doctrine-justi.html something to read on florida. also if i'm correct " it say's on youre property" not the perp running down the street away from you. Am i correct or not?

If someone runs up on a pedestrian, stabs them to death, grabs their wallet, and takes off running...and you gun them down...you're a hero.

If someone snatches a purse and bolts and you gun them down you're going to jail on Murder II charges.

Understand?
 
#156 · (Edited)
Florida Statute 776.013
The Preamble to the newly enacted statute states as follows:
"WHEREAS, the Legislature finds that it is proper for law-abiding people to protect themselves, their families, and others from intruders and attackers without fear of prosecution or civil action for acting in defense of themselves and others, and
"WHEREAS, the castle doctrine is a common-law doctrine of ancient origins which declares that a person's home is his or her castle, and
"WHEREAS, Section 8 of Article I of the State Constitution guarantees the right of the people to bear arms in defense of themselves, and
"WHEREAS, the persons residing in or visiting this state have a right to expect to remain unmolested within their homes or vehicles, and
"WHEREAS, no person or victim of crime should be required to surrender his or her personal safety to a criminal, nor should a person or victim be required to needlessly retreat in the face of intrusion or attack, NOW, THEREFORE, "Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:"
776.013. Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if: (a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and (b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if: (a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or (b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or (c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or (d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. (4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence. (5) As used in this section, the term: (a) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night. (b) "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest. (c) "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.



the florida stautes. it does not say "ANYWHERE" that you may shoot a fleeing felon. if its not in there, you will have to "prove" that while he was running away, that he was a danger to you. The key word is "commission" of a felony. running away they are not in the "commission" of harming you.
 
#161 ·
the florida stautes. it does not say "ANYWHERE" that you may shoot a fleeing felon. if its not in there, you will have to "prove" that while he was running away, that he was a danger to you. The key word is "commission" of a felony. running away they are not in the "commission" of harming you.
A point I've tried to make several times here. While I believe all fleeing criminals should be legal to shoot in the back I've always believed this is the way the court would see it.
 
#166 ·
BC3
Your right, I inferred what he was trying to say. You are knit picking his exact wording like some kind of lawyer would do. You knew what he meant.

I don't need to retake anything. I know my rights as a Texas citizen. And yes, I do believe that if an individual forcefully enters my house, I am allowed to shoot him. PERIOD. End of story. I have been there, done that before.

And yes, I used your exact words........... "forcefully enters my door". Doesn't make two shits if he sees the gun and tries to retreat.... he forcefully entered my home to commit a crime. No police in Texas are going to give you any grief... and even if they did, I'll take my chances in court. I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6. Or even worse, see one of my children carried by 6.
 
#167 ·
Texas has probably the most generous laws on the books but even then, you have to use some common sense!!

I don't think ANYONE would blast a little girl that's running away in the back.....Unless it was obvious she grabbed some irreplaceable jewelry or some other family heirloom. Folks around these parts tend to get a little crazy about those kinds of things!!

But in that case......by Texas law, it would be justified....NOT POPULAR, but legal.

BUT....again, I don't know anyone who would....Maybe a couple warning shots into the ground.
 
#168 · (Edited)
I like how someone from Kentucky knows more about Florida law than I do.

Nobody is going to shoot the girl because nobody is that sick. However if the girl was in my house and got in without my permission, she is already presumed to be there with the intent to cause me harm. Thats the premise of the castle doctrine. Someone could be bolting for the door and if they're shot in the back while in the house the homeowner is in the right.
 
#172 · (Edited)
I like how someone from Kentucky knows more about Florida law than I do.

Nobody is going to shoot the girl because nobody is that sick. However if the girl was in my house and got in without my permission, she is already presumed to be there with the intent to cause me harm. Thats the premise of the castle doctrine. Someone could be bolting for the door and if they're shot in the back while in the house the homeowner is in the right.
True, and had you said that in your original post, you wouldn't look ignorant!!
 
#174 ·
I'll add one more little tid-bit...In my neighborhood there's a BAD problem with Methamphetamine. (crystal, ice, crank, call it whatever you want.) and yes, there's been plenty EARLY teenage girls walking the streets with the classic signs of it's abuse....Sometimes, you have to look beyond the facts of just age, race and gender.
Burglaries are a big problem out here. Just about every house except mine my Mom's and a couple others have seen the problem first hand.

I still believe it's the fact that there's a couple bad dogs that run the yards of each of those FEW non-victims that stopped the possible would-be burglars.....and the fact that there's been a couple justified shootings in the area already.:smt102 Even the druggies seem to want to find easier victims.
 
#199 ·
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html. did some checking on the "shooting a perp, while they are running away" scenario. in florida, you cannot use "DEADLY" force after the commission of the crime(IE, they are running away). you can be charged and convicted of manslaughter. please read "what if I see a crime being committed" straight from the horses mouth.
But if they still have your property in their hands, and are fleeing, they are still in the act of committing the crime, right?
 
#197 · (Edited)
also, keep in mind, that each and every situation is different and has its own set of circumstances. and please remember, we are talking about, " after, the crime has been committed". not you walking up "while someone is in the "ACT of committing" the crime. just some info, for people. also this is not while you are in your dwelling car etc... etc..
 
#200 · (Edited)
Once again. It does say at night, but I beleive the Joe Horn case was during the daytime? And I'll say it again, I'm not going to shoot someone running away with my TV, unless they are still in my house.

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to prevent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means; or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. (Nighttime is defined as the period 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise.)"
 
#206 ·
The Castle Doctrine says "At night"....The property laws in Texas DON'T.

SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY


Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.



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.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.



Sec. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

I believe this also covered the Joe Horn case.....All because of a simple comment or question his neighbors said before they left of "Can you keep an eye on the place for us while we're gone?"....
Notice the law notes Burglary and theft during the night a two completely different circumstances......So it DOESN'T have to be at night!!!
 
#201 ·
#204 ·
1st gen, i was referring to a scenario as follows. "you are walking down the street, and see a individual hit somebody over the head with a metal pipe. as you run toward him, he drops the pipe and takes off running away from the scene. you cannot dispatch him from this earth. although that is what they deserve. if you did shoot him while he was running away, it would be"after the fact" the crime was already committed. you could be charged with manslaughter. if lets say, somebody ran onto your'e property, and swiped a hupcap from you're car then saw you and started to run away down the street" you cannot shoot them while they run(presumably) away from you. that would not constitute, "great bodily danger/threat of immediate harm or death" to you're person. as a result you would probably see the inside of a prison, as a guest of the state of florida. Now if that person started to charge at you with let's say a knife, gun, chain weapon(something that would cause great bodily harm/death) the scenario is now imho, justifiable.
 
#207 ·
1st gen, i was referring to a scenario as follows. "you are walking down the street, and see a individual hit somebody over the head with a metal pipe. as you run toward him, he drops the pipe and takes off running away from the scene. you cannot dispatch him from this earth. although that is what they deserve. if you did shoot him while he was running away, it would be"after the fact" the crime was already committed. you could be charged with manslaughter. if lets say, somebody ran onto your'e property, and swiped a hupcap from you're car then saw you and started to run away down the street" you cannot shoot them while they run(presumably) away from you. that would not constitute, "great bodily danger/threat of immediate harm or death" to you're person. as a result you would probably see the inside of a prison, as a guest of the state of florida. Now if that person started to charge at you with let's say a knife, gun, chain weapon(something that would cause great bodily harm/death) the scenario is now imho, justifiable.

A man runs up to a group of people, stabs two of them. You come up, draw, and he takes off, knife still in hand, right towards another group of people a short distance off. Now tell me, do you have reason to believe this psychopath intends to continue his crime? Would you say he presents an imenant threat and danger to those around him still?

This is just my take on the law and applicable use.
 
#208 ·
also, the right to conceal and carry a deadly weapon is not a licence to use it. you, just like law enforcement, will"BE HELD TO A HIGHER STANDARD" . i pray no one has to use one. however, if you have to, you better have you're shit together and be" in the right", because you will be"JUDGED" fi ya get my drift
 
#210 ·
Not only will you be judged, but you will go before a grand jury, and face the possibility of indictment.

You may get away criminally but civilly you are going to have to answer some questions.

However I am sure my life is worth going before a grand jury. Been in front of one before, so no biggie to go again.
 
#212 ·
good point vip, but thats exactly what the court will decide for you. there is never a clear cut scenario. any reasonable person would assume he might, but then again,"do you really know?". thats what will be argued in a court of law, the what ifs, how do you know he was going to do that? the council from both side will argue/ pick apart/ place doubt. etc... etc.... all I am saying is, that person, will have to be prepared to defend his/her actions. sometimes the law is not fair nor just.
 
#216 ·
good point vip, but thats exactly what the court will decide for you. there is never a clear cut scenario. any reasonable person would assume he might, but then again,"do you really know?". thats what will be argued in a court of law, the what ifs, how do you know he was going to do that? the council from both side will argue/ pick apart/ place doubt. etc... etc.... all I am saying is, that person, will have to be prepared to defend his/her actions. sometimes the law is not fair nor just.
If you truly did what you think you had to, and it ended up with killing someone, I would fal lunder the "rather be judged by 12 than carried by six" rule. You are definitly right, it will be scrutinized. First by a Grand Jury.
 
#235 ·
And who said I don't allow spirited debate in here.

The number one thing, is use your head, if you have to apply good marksmanship, for some have a lawyer on retainer, be ready to get grilled by investigator's, be ready for a grand jury, hopefully you get No Billed, and get on with your life.

I recommend a lot of folks read the shooting thread sticky about dealing with law enforcement in the aftermath.
 
#236 ·
And who said I don't allow spirited debate in here.

The number one thing, is use your head, if you have to apply good marksmanship, for some have a lawyer on retainer, be ready to get grilled by investigator's, be ready for a grand jury, hopefully you get No Billed, and get on with your life.

I recommend a lot of folks read the shooting thread sticky about dealing with law enforcement in the aftermath.
NO NO NO NO NO..... If the dead guy is in the house, nobody has the right to question it!!! It's in the castle doctrine!!!

/sarcasm.

That sticky is a good read.
 
#240 ·
That thread really sounds like we're talking to an anti-gunner at this point; hes regurgitating the exact same lines of thinking as they do. I think its about run its course.
 
#241 ·
Yep, I've done all I can do.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top