Florida Man Stands His Ground

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**feeder**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
stanman wrote:
There's instances where people break into a house specifically to target the children. Kidnappings, rapes and murders have all happened to kids by intruders while the parents were home or sleeping.

Sure. “Hey, I'll break into a random house so that I can murder a child”. Makes sense.

Well, it's not like that never happens. I mean, statistically never, sure, but actually never? No. It does, very very rarely, happen.

If I lived in an area where I felt I needed a gun in case a Bad Guy (tm) might break in and murder me or my family, I'd fething leave. I don't need that kind of stress in my life.

**Vaktathi**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
stanman wrote:
There's instances where people break into a house specifically to target the children. Kidnappings, rapes and murders have all happened to kids by intruders while the parents were home or sleeping.

Sure. “Hey, I'll break into a random house so that I can murder a child”. Makes sense.

Again, you're assuming people doing these things are thinking rationally or that its always random, neither of which are necessarily true. While not common, such events do happen.

Hell, I remember this one, happened about 5 miles from me when I was in high school, a couple of pals of mine lived on the same street.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Danielle_van_Dam

**CptJake**

Vaktathi wrote:
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
stanman wrote:
There's instances where people break into a house specifically to target the children. Kidnappings, rapes and murders have all happened to kids by intruders while the parents were home or sleeping.

Sure. “Hey, I'll break into a random house so that I can murder a child”. Makes sense.
Again, you're assuming people doing these things are thinking rationally or that its always random, neither of which are necessarily true. While not common, such events do happen.

Hell, I remember this one, happened about 5 miles from me when I was in high school, a couple of pals of mine lived on the same street.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Danielle_van_Dam

He is also (wrongly) assuming someone targeting kids breaks into a 'random' house. Typically they do some type of surveillance and target a specific house after casing several.

**A Town Called Malus**

CptJake wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
stanman wrote:
There's instances where people break into a house specifically to target the children. Kidnappings, rapes and murders have all happened to kids by intruders while the parents were home or sleeping.

Sure. “Hey, I'll break into a random house so that I can murder a child”. Makes sense.
Again, you're assuming people doing these things are thinking rationally or that its always random, neither of which are necessarily true. While not common, such events do happen.

Hell, I remember this one, happened about 5 miles from me when I was in high school, a couple of pals of mine lived on the same street.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Danielle_van_Dam

He is also (wrongly) assuming someone targeting kids breaks into a 'random' house. Typically they do some type of surveillance and target a specific house after casing several.

In which case you would do a better job of protecting your house by maintaining decent home security such as multiple locks on your door, sturdy windows which securely latch leaving little room for a crowbar, motion sensor lights etc.

**whembly**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
CptJake wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
stanman wrote:
There's instances where people break into a house specifically to target the children. Kidnappings, rapes and murders have all happened to kids by intruders while the parents were home or sleeping.

Sure. “Hey, I'll break into a random house so that I can murder a child”. Makes sense.
Again, you're assuming people doing these things are thinking rationally or that its always random, neither of which are necessarily true. While not common, such events do happen.

Hell, I remember this one, happened about 5 miles from me when I was in high school, a couple of pals of mine lived on the same street.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Danielle_van_Dam

He is also (wrongly) assuming someone targeting kids breaks into a 'random' house. Typically they do some type of surveillance and target a specific house after casing several.

In which case you would do a better job of protecting your house by maintaining decent home security such as multiple locks on your door, sturdy windows which securely latch leaving little room for a crowbar, motion sensor lights etc.

Those don't stop the determined....

To be fair, the best home defense are dogs.

There were numerous investigations that robbers and violent criminals just don't want to bother with doggehs.

**CptJake**

I do maintain VERY good home security.

Locked gates prevent vehicles approaching within about 300 meters (and you've already trespassed to get to those gates), 5 dogs in the house, 4 of which are decent sized (one is a little rat dog), and have a 100m lane with BIG dirt berm backstop I use for target practice, and I shoot often.

But that is beside your point. Not everyone can afford the measures you suggest, and even when in place, they don't always work. Nothing always works.

My point, which your suggestion does not address, is that those who are looking to target kids do not break into random houses to do so. Any mitigating security measures may have the would be gak bag target someone else, but there will always be a someone else.

And of course those security measures tend to give other types of gak bag reason to move to an easier target as well, which is always a good thing. But again, there IS always an easier target. In other cases there are folks who for a variety of reasons will attempt to overcome existing security measures.

**Frazzled**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
CptJake wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
stanman wrote:
There's instances where people break into a house specifically to target the children. Kidnappings, rapes and murders have all happened to kids by intruders while the parents were home or sleeping.

Sure. “Hey, I'll break into a random house so that I can murder a child”. Makes sense.
Again, you're assuming people doing these things are thinking rationally or that its always random, neither of which are necessarily true. While not common, such events do happen.

Hell, I remember this one, happened about 5 miles from me when I was in high school, a couple of pals of mine lived on the same street.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Danielle_van_Dam

He is also (wrongly) assuming someone targeting kids breaks into a 'random' house. Typically they do some type of surveillance and target a specific house after casing several.

In which case you would do a better job of protecting your house by maintaining decent home security such as multiple locks on your door, sturdy windows which securely latch leaving little room for a crowbar, motion sensor lights etc.

Also want to know how long it takes to kick open a door with multiple locks? Less time than it took to read this sentence.
hey if she wouldn't have worn that short skirt eh?

**CptJake**

Yeah, even with a steel frame, unless it is installed with intent to withstand breaching efforts, kicking/ramming the door and frame inward is generally not too hard, regardless of number of locks. Most folks don't bother with steel frames anyways as they get expensive fast. Most 'good' deadbolts if kicked right will smash the strike plate/sleeve right out of the wood frame.

**A Town Called Malus**

whembly wrote:

Those don't stop the determined....

To be fair, the best home defense are dogs. There were numerous investigations that robbers and violent criminals just don't want to bother with doggehs.

Someone who is scouting out multiple properties isn't going to take on a house which is any more difficult to them than it needs to be.

Also, someone trying to kick in a door, lit up by a light is going to draw a lot of attention. That is something which someone who is determined to get into one specific house will do, not someone who is trying to carry out an opportunistic attack/robbery.

**Ouze**

At least for myself, I am going to assume that anyone I catch in my house during a burglary is an immediate mortal threat and will respond accordingly. I will certainly give them the opportunity to surrender and lay down face down on the floor, but they would be doing so at a very flinchy 3 pounds of trigger pressure. I don't consider myself to in any way be a rambo type person, and don't expect such a thing would ever happen, and I hope it never does. My house was burgled once already so statistically I think I am in the clear now

Spoiler:

but I think lethal force during an interrupted home invasion is pretty reasonable. Of course, I'm much more worried about a fire, which is why I have a fire extinguisher in 2 places in my home, and have smoke detectors up.

Anyway, to interrupt this tangent with an actual update on the OP (sorry), the judge in the case has rejected SYG.

**CptJake**

Back to the original topic:

The Judge ruled the ex-cop must stand trial, SYG will not prevent that.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-florida-theater-shooting-20170310-story.html

damn, I was beat to the punch.

**Prestor Jon**

whembly wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
CptJake wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
stanman wrote:
There's instances where people break into a house specifically to target the children. Kidnappings, rapes and murders have all happened to kids by intruders while the parents were home or sleeping.

Sure. “Hey, I'll break into a random house so that I can murder a child”. Makes sense.
Again, you're assuming people doing these things are thinking rationally or that its always random, neither of which are necessarily true. While not common, such events do happen.

Hell, I remember this one, happened about 5 miles from me when I was in high school, a couple of pals of mine lived on the same street.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Danielle_van_Dam

He is also (wrongly) assuming someone targeting kids breaks into a 'random' house. Typically they do some type of surveillance and target a specific house after casing several.

In which case you would do a better job of protecting your house by maintaining decent home security such as multiple locks on your door, sturdy windows which securely latch leaving little room for a crowbar, motion sensor lights etc.

Those don't stop the determined....

To be fair, the best home defense are dogs. There were numerous investigations that robbers and violent criminals just don't want to bother with doggehs.

It's also a lot cheaper to get a good dog and a gun then it is to try to transform your home into an unassailable fortress. We had a house in our neighborhood get broken into last year and the homeowners had a security system and taken basic precautions but the thieves broke into the car in the driveway and used the garage door opener to open the garage door and walked right into the house. The residents weren't home so thankfully nobody got hurt.

**Ouze**

I do also have a dog, which I presume will deter any burglar who doesn't know my dog would be delighted with anyone who robbed my house stopping to pat her once in a while mid-robbery.

**Prestor Jon**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
whembly wrote:

Those don't stop the determined....

To be fair, the best home defense are dogs. There were numerous investigations that robbers and violent criminals just don't want to bother with doggehs.

Someone who is scouting out multiple properties isn't going to take on a house which is any more difficult to them than it needs to be.

Also, someone trying to kick in a door, lit up by a light is going to draw a lot of attention. That is something which someone who is determined to get into one specific house will do, not someone who is trying to carry out an opportunistic attack/robbery.

Depends on the neighborhood. There's a whole lot of craziness that could happen on the front porch of the house down the street from me or elsewhere in the neighborhood in the middle of the night that likely wouldn't wake up the neighbors. Kicking a door doesn't make that much noise and porch lights likely won't be noticed b sleeping neighbors. There's a lot of shady stuff that can happen during the day too as many people are away at work. For the past few summers my wife has had to call the county sheriff to complain about people using their tree trimming/yardwork "business" as an excuse to trawl through neighborhoods and walk around people's houses in a suspicious manner.

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
I do also have a dog, which I presume will deter any burglar who doesn't know my dog would be delighted with anyone who robbed my house stopping to pat her once in a while mid-robbery.

Heh... I've heard stories that some burglars are ballsy enough to bring ground beef to bribe the pups...

Moral of the story, if the burglar is determined, almost nothing will stop 'em.

**Prestor Jon**

Ouze wrote:
I do also have a dog, which I presume will deter any burglar who doesn't know my dog would be delighted with anyone who robbed my house stopping to pat her once in a while mid-robbery.

Yeah I don't have a lot of confidence in either of our dogs attacking a burglar, although he Vizsla might, but I know they'll bark enough to wake me up and that's good enough.

**Frazzled**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
whembly wrote:

Those don't stop the determined....

To be fair, the best home defense are dogs. There were numerous investigations that robbers and violent criminals just don't want to bother with doggehs.

Someone who is scouting out multiple properties isn't going to take on a house which is any more difficult to them than it needs to be.

Also, someone trying to kick in a door, lit up by a light is going to draw a lot of attention. That is something which someone who is determined to get into one specific house will do, not someone who is trying to carry out an opportunistic attack/robbery.

Why do you blame the victim?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

CptJake wrote:
Back to the original topic:

The Judge ruled the ex-cop must stand trial, SYG will not prevent that.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-florida-theater-shooting-20170310-story.html

damn, I was beat to the punch.

Excellent, although he can still argue self defense I believe.

**A Town Called Malus**

Frazzled wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
whembly wrote:

Those don't stop the determined....

To be fair, the best home defense are dogs. There were numerous investigations that robbers and violent criminals just don't want to bother with doggehs.

Someone who is scouting out multiple properties isn't going to take on a house which is any more difficult to them than it needs to be.

Also, someone trying to kick in a door, lit up by a light is going to draw a lot of attention. That is something which someone who is determined to get into one specific house will do, not someone who is trying to carry out an opportunistic attack/robbery.

Why do you blame the victim?

I'm not blaming any victim any more than anyone saying that a gun can keep you safe.

**Frazzled**

Moral of the story, if the burglar is determined, almost nothing will stop 'em.

Well OOO buckshot has been known to do so if applied properly.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
whembly wrote:

Those don't stop the determined....

To be fair, the best home defense are dogs. There were numerous investigations that robbers and violent criminals just don't want to bother with doggehs.

Someone who is scouting out multiple properties isn't going to take on a house which is any more difficult to them than it needs to be.

Also, someone trying to kick in a door, lit up by a light is going to draw a lot of attention. That is something which someone who is determined to get into one specific house will do, not someone who is trying to carry out an opportunistic attack/robbery.

Why do you blame the victim?

I'm not blaming any victim any more than anyone saying that a gun can keep you safe.

We're not. You keep you safe. A firearm is just a tool.

**CptJake**

Frazzled wrote:

CptJake wrote:
Back to the original topic:

The Judge ruled the ex-cop must stand trial, SYG will not prevent that.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-florida-theater-shooting-20170310-story.html

damn, I was beat to the punch.

Excellent, although he can still argue self defense I believe.

He can, but at least there is a trial...

**Frazzled**

CptJake wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

CptJake wrote:
Back to the original topic:

The Judge ruled the ex-cop must stand trial, SYG will not prevent that.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-florida-theater-shooting-20170310-story.html

damn, I was beat to the punch.

Excellent, although he can still argue self defense I believe.

He can, but at least there is a trial...

Yea Florida has that weird SYG prehearing thing. I don't quite understand it well. I know Z didn't use it.

**Prestor Jon**

Frazzled wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

CptJake wrote:
Back to the original topic:

The Judge ruled the ex-cop must stand trial, SYG will not prevent that.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-florida-theater-shooting-20170310-story.html

damn, I was beat to the punch.

Excellent, although he can still argue self defense I believe.

SYG was never going to prevent the ex cop from going to trial. He probably will try to argue self defense but I think it will be difficult to find eyewitnesses and other evidence that would support the perception of the guy who was texting being an imminent threat of bodily harm based on some popcorn.

The justifications for use of force will also not apply where the evidence establishes that the defendant initially provoked violence against him- or herself. To claim self-defense in such a scenario, Section 776.041 requires the defendant to demonstrate that he or she used every reasonable means short of deadly force to extricate him- or herself from the situation, and that the degree of force used by the other person (the initial non-aggressor) led the defendant to reasonably believe that he or she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. Alternatively, a defendant who is an initial aggressor may claim self-defense if: (1) in good faith, he or she withdrew from physical contact, (2) clearly indicated to the other person that he or she desired to withdraw and terminate the use of force, and (3) despite the communication and withdrawal, the other person continued or resumed the use of force. See Section 776.041(2)(b), Florida Statutes.

In a highly publicized move, the Florida Legislature enacted in 2005 what has been popularly known as the “Stand Your Ground” law. This law, as codified in Sections 776.012, and 776.013, Florida Statutes, provides that a person is justified in the use of deadly force and has no duty to retreat if either:

(1) the person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself, or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) the person acts under and according to the circumstances set forth in Section 776.013 (pertaining to the use of force in the context of a home or vehicle invasion).

Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law does not create a new type of affirmative defense. The principle that a person may use deadly force in self-defense if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm has been the law in Florida for well over a century. See Lovett v. State, 30 Fla. 142, 163-164 (Fla. 1892). Rather than creating a new defense, “Stand Your Ground” broadens the scope of a self-defense claim by establishing a general “no duty to retreat” rule.

Prior to the enactment of the statute, a person could not use deadly force in self-defense without first using every reasonable means within his or her power to avoid the danger, including retreat. See Weiand v. State, 732 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 1999); State v. Bobbitt, 415 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 1982). As stated in earlier appellate court decisions, a combatant had to “retreat to the wall” before using deadly force. See Hunter v. State, 687 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). This former “duty to retreat” derived from the common law, rather than from statute.

If abolishing the common law duty of retreat for cases involving the use of deadly force was not enough, “Stand Your Ground” goes one step further in cases involving home or vehicle invasions. Section 776.013, Florida Statutes, provides that, when an intruder unlawfully enters, attempts to enter, or refuses to leave a dwelling, residence, or vehicle owned or lawfully occupied by another person, the owner or occupant is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm so as to justify the use of deadly force. The intruder is furthermore presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

http://www.husseinandwebber.com/case-work/criminal-defense-articles/floridas-stand-ground-law/

**redleger**

Good, let there be a trial, and let him be an example of how and when deadly force should be applied. He literally sounds like someone who was just waiting on a reason to see what bullets do to a body. Hope he got a good look, because shivs are nastier, and so is butt rape.

**KTG17**

Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:
Near me, and I'll try to find a link, a homeowner caught a guy in his house, and the burglar ran from him down the hallway, towards his kids room. Homeowner dropped him in the hallway with 2 to the back, and it was considered self defense by the police. On one hand, I completely agree with this decision, because the bad guy could have taken the kid hostage, or worse if he got desperate. Someone got too close to my kid's rooms while breaking in, I'd slot the guy and sleep like a kitten about it. Logically though, the guy's back was turned, and he was trying to flee. He didn't know it was a kids bedroom at the end of the hall. Food for thought.

Well, I put the blame on the guy breaking into the house.

Honestly, its 2017. We know breaking into houses is wrong. We also know it can be dangerous with the number of weapons in homes. If you make the decision to break into someone's home, you are risking death, pure and simple.

And I will agree, any movement to a kids bedroom would get a clip emptied on him. I just can't see how anyone can consider the burgler's actions, and feel justified in defending him.

Don't break into houses, and you wont get shot. If everyone followed this, there would be far less break-ins.

**AndrewC**

I would add one thing. if the burglar was in a hallway of the house and the homeowner is standing at one end pointing a pistol at him, I would reasonably assume that he's trying to get away from the pistol, not looking for a kids bedroom.

While the statement that the burglar shouldn't be there is 100% true, I, if a juror, would need convincing that such a shooting was necessary.

But then Bane has only provided a synopsis I can only draw a conclusion from what is available.

Cheers

Andrew

**KTG17**

If I was a juror, and I was judging a man who killed a burglar who was in this man's house, while his kids were there, I wouldnt need to hear another word. The burglar got what he deserved.

I dont understand how this is even debatable. No wonder there are so many break-ins. These people are empowered to do it.

I have no sympathy for a guy getting shot while breaking into another person's home. Add kids to that scenario, and I am baffled there is even a discussion.

**Spetulhu**

Frazzled wrote:
Also want to know how long it takes to kick open a door with multiple locks? Less time than it took to read this sentence.

In the US maybe, what with doors usually opening into the house for some reason (law requiring it so rescue personnel and police can get in quickly was it?). Anyone kicking my front door isn't going to get anything except a broken foot.

As a bonus there's no way a burglar can claim he wandered in by accident or the door just fell off it's hinges as he walked past. :-)

**AndrewC**

KTG17 wrote:
If I was a juror, and I was judging a man who killed a burglar who was in this man's house, while his kids were there, I wouldnt need to hear another word. The burglar got what he deserved.

I dont understand how this is even debatable. No wonder there are so many break-ins. These people are empowered to do it.

I have no sympathy for a guy getting shot while breaking into another person's home. Add kids to that scenario, and I am baffled there is even a discussion.

I think there is a discussion because he was shot in the back. Look at it this way, somebody jumps you in an alley, you pull a gun and the mugger turns and flees and you put two in his back. Is that self defense, manslaughter or murder?

**KTG17**

You have far greater leeway defending your home than you actually have defending yourself on the street. As a matter of fact, if you shoot someone on your front lawn, drag his body into your house.

Honestly, you have the right and moral obligation to defend your family. A stranger in the hallway heading towards yourk kids room? Don't think about it a second longer.

The blame is on the burglar.

The world is just filled with too many crazy people to hope that everyone has the best intentions. The fact that he is even in your home tells you he doesn't. Don't even risk it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Especially if you have the possibility of choosing prison, or a dead child. I think every parent here is going to choose the same answer.

**Ouze**

Prestor Jon wrote:
SYG was never going to prevent the ex cop from going to trial. He probably will try to argue self defense but I think it will be difficult to find eyewitnesses and other evidence that would support the perception of the guy who was texting being an imminent threat of bodily harm based on some popcorn.

If anything, I think his attempt to pull SYG might have hurt him. His best argument was that the victim threw his phone (which is a pretty weak justification in my book but I digress), and now you have witness testimony saying it didn't happen, and a judge saying on the record the shiny object that the enhanced video shows is likely the a reflection off the defendant's shoe.