FL: "Castle doctrine" does not justify shooting trespasser

[seamusTX]

Land O'Lakes, Florida (Tampa area), Saturday, a homeowner heard someone rattle his doorknob around 5 a.m. He told the person to leave without opening the door. A few minutes later, the doorknob rattled again.

The homeowner armed himself with a Smith & Wesson semiautomatic handgun and went outside.

The trespasser was a man in his 20s who appeared intoxicated. He asked the homeowner for a light for a cigarette. The homeowner told the man to leave. The man advanced on the homeowner, who shot him. The man was taken to the hospital with non-life-threatening injuries.

The homeowner was arrested and charged with aggravated battery with a deadly weapon.

The trespasser has a history of charges for intoxication and violent offenses, though apparently no adult criminal convictions.

http://blogs.tampabay.com/newtampa/2009 ... s-man.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

- Jim

[joe817]

I think this is a prime example of not being absolutely, positively sure of when the use of deadly force is justified....or reacting prematurely.

[Medino]

If you told him to leave then that is all he can do but call the cops in this situation. Just leave him outside it did not sound like he was there to make trouble. The most you could do is show your gun and hope he gets the message if he still does not leave. It does not say he was destroying any property but he is still an idiot for not knocking and acting suspicious at 5am. Both sides acted stupidly.

[lrb111]

The guy tried to unlawfuly enter the house twice, then refused to leave. All this in the dark.
Would probably be different in Texas.
I figure we got half the info in the story. It may yet prove to be a justified shoot.

[seamusTX]

You are correct that the guy unlawfully tried to enter the house, but deadly force was not immediately necessary to stop him. The homeowner lost the Castle Doctrine immunity when he went outside.

I think the homeowner would be in just as much trouble in Texas.

- Jim

[Keith B]

You are correct that the guy unlawfully tried to enter the house, but deadly force was not immediately necessary to stop him. The homeowner lost the Castle Doctrine immunity when he went outside.

I think the homeowner would be in just as much trouble in Texas.

- Jim

Stay in your house, dial 911, and if he comes through the door before the cops get to him, he's toast.

[Bart]

Stay in your house, dial 911, and if he comes through the door before the cops get to him, he's toast.

Good advice.

[Drewthetexan]

I think the guy could have been charged with criminal mischief had the home owner otherwise called the police. Does 5 am still count as nighttime?

[seamusTX]

Criminal mischief is damaging property or a few other actions under Texas law (opening gates of livestock pastures, for instance). The details of these things are different in every state.

This guy was trespassing and probably intoxicated. Attempting to enter a house by turning the doorknob is technically attempted burglary, but I have never heard of someone being prosecuted for that alone.

- Jim

[WarHawk-AVG]

Gonna have to be more to the story...

http://www.rc123.com/texas_castle_doctrine.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Castle Doctrine says you don't have to retreat...going OUT is an escalation of force!

Hopefully it will all wash out in the trial

[seamusTX]

I think you have every right to move around on your own property (even if it's not tactically the best move). It is not the same as advancing toward an assailant in a public place.

The problem here is that the trespasser was not trying to use unlawful deadly force and was no longer trying to enter the house.

- Jim

[thankGod]

You are correct that the guy unlawfully tried to enter the house, but deadly force was not immediately necessary to stop him. The homeowner lost the Castle Doctrine immunity when he went outside.

I think the homeowner would be in just as much trouble in Texas.

- Jim

I think you have every right to move around on your own property (even if it's not tactically the best move). It is not the same as advancing toward an assailant in a public place.

The problem here is that the trespasser was not trying to use unlawful deadly force and was no longer trying to enter the house.

- Jim

Speaking only of Texas, I thought the Castle Doctrine pertained to not only your property, but also your neighbors.

[seamusTX]

Speaking only of Texas, I thought the Castle Doctrine pertained to not only your property, but also your neighbors.

I don't know what you mean by that.

The Texas version of "Castle Doctrine" specifically states "... the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;..."

"The actor" here means the person who is defending himself.

This was the bill passed in 2007. All of the justifications for use of deadly force that were previously in effect still apply.

- Jim

[C-dub]

I agree that the shooter should have stayed inside. However, he didn't and the drunk came at the man on his property in the dark after being told to leave. How could the man have known whether or not the drunk had a weapon or know what his intentions were? If he felt threatened then wasn't he justified?

I'm just saying.

[seamusTX]

Feeling threatened is not a justification for the use of deadly force. I feel threatened by yo-yos who are talking on cell phones while driving, but I can't legally shoot them.

If the homeowner had returned to his house and the trespasser tried to get in, the homeowner would have been golden. Now his future is in the hands of a grand jury.

- Jim