Third "test" of Castle Doctrin --- - Page 2

Third "Test" of Castle Doctrin ---

This is a discussion on Third "Test" of Castle Doctrin --- within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Originally Posted by netmechanic I'd be sitting in the La-Z-Boy squared up to the door eatin popcorn with my pistol ready and waiting for the ...

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 29 of 29

Thread: Third "test" of Castle Doctrin ---

  1. #16
    VIP Member Array peacefuljeffrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    south Florida
    Posts
    3,168
    Quote Originally Posted by netmechanic View Post
    I'd be sitting in the La-Z-Boy squared up to the door eatin popcorn with my pistol ready and waiting for the fool to try it the second time.

    I have absolutely ZERO personal objection to the idea of doing this; I ask from a legal standpoint...
    ...what would the law say about someone who obviously knew someone was possibly going to try breaking in, prepared himself, notified no one (did not call the police about possible prowler) and then shot the man dead when he did make his attempt?

    Is there anything they can get you for, like lying in wait or something? Does that kind of charge apply to someone who was legally sitting in his house, legally holding his legally owned handgun? I should hope not, but I dare say someone will probably object to the notion that you kept quiet about the first attempt, did not call the cops, and sat and waited (hoped?) for the second attempt to be made.

    Me personally? I applaud the idea of eliminating the kind of scum who would attempt such a violation of a person's peace in their home. Good riddance.


  2. #17
    Member Array General Geoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Allentown, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    354
    I don't believe they could get you on any charges for something like that.
    Discretion is the better part of valour; and a virtue beyond reproach.
    Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association

  3. #18
    Member Array tj1231's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    190
    I agree. I don't know that you are under any legal obligation to call the police if you're in your own home.

  4. #19
    Senior Member Array .45acp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    570
    Quote Originally Posted by retsupt99 View Post
    sounds to me like the gun worked just fine...


    ret
    + 1 on that
    PC has become the term for Political Cowardice.

  5. #20
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    27,379
    ... he returned to the home and "begun charging at the woman". By this time the woman had"retrieved a gun". "Fearing for her safety the woman shot him dead".
    Being the second instance of the same guy attacking the same lady at her home, she had advance knowledge of his thinking, apparent intent. That goes a long, long way ... Castle Doctrine or not. The fact that he was on a spree merely seals his fate. Hard for anyone to justify his actions; hard to condemn hers. Can't imagine her being hauled up to take the fall for ridding her home of a violent attacker.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  6. #21
    Member Array Hobbes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Centralia, VA
    Posts
    384
    ETA: Oops misread

    Good for her!

  7. #22
    Distinguished Member Array RSSZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,843
    Just picked up on this thread again. Sorry for the delay in response.

    The vic was in her late 60's. She was never even asked to go downtown.The perp was a major POS with a fairly long rap sheet.(drugs,assault,etc.) Some of the perps family members had been making threats to the vic. LEO's got in the middle of it and the threats have stopped.

    Haven't heard anything else 'bout the case in a month or so. If so,will post.-------

  8. #23
    Ron
    Ron is offline
    Distinguished Member Array Ron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    West Linn, Oregon
    Posts
    1,628
    Quote Originally Posted by RSSZ View Post
    The following is a condensed version of the newspaper article. >>.

    A woman shot and killed a intruder after he tried to break into her home for the second time.

    The woman was alone in her home when a man entered her backyard and tried to break into her home,startling the woman. The man then left the home and attempted to steal several empty vechs. He then tried to carjack a vech that was passing by on the street.

    When the carjacking didn't work he returned to the home and "begun charging at the woman". By this time the woman had"retrieved a gun". "Fearing for her safety the woman shot him dead".

    This will be the third "test" in my area of the state (Escambia County)since the "stand your ground" law took effect on Oct.1st of last year.

    The lady was not arrested. The investigation is still pending. --------
    I don't understand why there is even an issue as to whether this was a justified shooting under Florida's Castle Law. The BG had not only invaded her home, but was apparently attacking her while still there. Under that kind of scenario isn't there a legal presumption that she was in fear for her life and is thus immune from both criminal prosecution and a suit seeking damages? What am I missing here?

    Ron

  9. #24
    Distinguished Member Array RSSZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,843
    Ron, to answer your question......I don't know what you are missing.

    The lady(homeowner) was questioned at the scene directly after the incident. She was not taken into custody. She was not arrested. She was (IMO) presumed innocent at the scene, by the LEO's, due to the abundance of physical evidence. She was also not considered a flight risk before the DA did his thing.

    In all shootings,no matter how "obvious" the DA has to do a full investigation.(especially during these times of "blood in the streets" and the "shootouts at the OK corral")

    IMO the lady was privately told not to sweat it. And to please don't leave town until the "official" findings were "officially" made public. That was it,FENITO -------
    Last edited by RSSZ; November 21st, 2006 at 03:06 PM.

  10. #25
    Ron
    Ron is offline
    Distinguished Member Array Ron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    West Linn, Oregon
    Posts
    1,628
    Quote Originally Posted by RSSZ View Post
    Ron, to answer your question......I don't know what you are missing.

    The lady(homeowner) was questioned at the scene directly after the incident. She was not taken into custody. She was not arrested. She was (IMO) presumed innocent at the scene, by the LEO's, due to the abundance of physical evidence. She was also not considered a flight risk before the DA did his thing.

    In all shootings,no matter how "obvious" the DA has to do a full investigation.(especially during these times of "blood in the streets" and the "shootouts at the OK corral")

    IMO the lady was privately told not to sweat it. And to please don't leave town until the "official" findings were "officially" made public. That was it,FENITO -------
    Thanks, RSSZ. That helps my sense of potential outrage at the thought that the lady was in trouble, which, under these facts, would have made the castle doctrine, in my opinion, meaningless.

    Ron

    Ron

  11. #26
    Member Array katmandoo122's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    326
    Doesn't sound like a test of the Castle Doctrine law at all...unless the facts are untrue, this would be a righteous shoot in any state and maybe even in France (though not England!).

    A better test would be someone on a country road that had an opportunity to get away but chose not to (the no duty to retreat portion of the law).

    I guess it might be a test of the "can't sue if ruled self defence" portion, but that's a quick test.

    Peacefuljeff: Laying in wait would require pre-meditation. If you did something to encourage a B&E, you could be liable. If you were prparing in case someone came back, can't see how you would be liable.

  12. #27
    Ron
    Ron is offline
    Distinguished Member Array Ron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    West Linn, Oregon
    Posts
    1,628
    Quote Originally Posted by katmandoo122 View Post
    Doesn't sound like a test of the Castle Doctrine law at all...unless the facts are untrue, this would be a righteous shoot in any state and maybe even in France (though not England!).

    A better test would be someone on a country road that had an opportunity to get away but chose not to (the no duty to retreat portion of the law).

    I guess it might be a test of the "can't sue if ruled self defence" portion, but that's a quick test.

    Peacefuljeff: Laying in wait would require pre-meditation. If you did something to encourage a B&E, you could be liable. If you were prparing in case someone came back, can't see how you would be liable.
    I agree that it is clearly a rightous shoot, but it still falls under Florida's "Castle Doctrine." It has three parts: home invasion, attempted car jacking while an occupant, and no duty to retreat if you are someplace you have a lawful right to be, and you are in fear for your life or of serious personal injury. In the home invasion and car jacking, my understanding is that there is a presumption you were in fear of your life. Lastly, it immunizes you from criminal prosecution or civil suit for damages if the use of deadly force was lawful. If this is incorrect, please let me know. Thanks.

    Ron
    Last edited by Ron; November 22nd, 2006 at 12:22 PM.

  13. #28
    Member Array katmandoo122's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron View Post
    ...Lastly, it immunizes you from criminal prosecution or civil suit for damages if the use of deadly force was lawful. If this is incorrect, please let me know. Thanks.

    Ron
    I haven't looked up the statute lately, but I believe it would be more accurate to say that it immunizes from civil suits if the use of force was determined to be justified(and thereby lawful). Whether the use of force was justified is still determined by the PA (for the purposes of determining whether to indict/charge) and by the jury (for determining guilt or innocence).

  14. #29
    Ron
    Ron is offline
    Distinguished Member Array Ron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    West Linn, Oregon
    Posts
    1,628
    Quote Originally Posted by katmandoo122 View Post
    I haven't looked up the statute lately, but I believe it would be more accurate to say that it immunizes from civil suits if the use of force was determined to be justified(and thereby lawful). Whether the use of force was justified is still determined by the PA (for the purposes of determining whether to indict/charge) and by the jury (for determining guilt or innocence).
    My understanding is that the Florida version creates a legal presumption that the use of force was justified and therefore lawful in a home invasion or occupied attempted car jacking.

    Ron

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. *test* "Short Barrel" 135gr+P Gold Dot Water/Denim
    By Joshua M. Smith in forum Defensive Ammunition & Ballistics
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: October 21st, 2007, 03:02 PM
  2. Castle Doctorine & Deadly Force or "Please Don't Shoot Me On Duty!"
    By Mark Garrity in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 73
    Last Post: August 9th, 2006, 07:53 AM
  3. Michigan passes "Castle Doctorine"
    By glockman31 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: June 8th, 2006, 07:29 AM
  4. Alabama "Castle Doctrine" Law Signed
    By dr_cmg in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: April 4th, 2006, 08:58 PM
  5. Georgia House Passes "Castle doctrine" Statute!
    By Rock and Glock in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: March 25th, 2006, 04:18 PM

Search tags for this page

castle doctrin

Click on a term to search for related topics.