Teen shot under 'home as castle' law

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/16692636.htm

WELLINGTON - (AP) -- A 17-year-old boy was recovering Tuesday from a gunshot to the chest after he tried to break into the home of a classmate who had allegedly been spreading rumors about his girlfriend, authorities said.

Daniel Scott Merkel has been charged with burglary and criminal mischief and is in custody as he recovers at Delray Medical Center.

''I'm just happy he's alive,'' the boy's mother, Mary Merkel, said Monday.

Ricardo Collier III, 44, who shot Merkel early Sunday, has not been charged with a crime. Investigators said he was defending his home under Florida's Castle Doctrine law, which allows the use of deadly force if there is a ``reasonable fear of imminent peril.''

The kid was told to leave and that the police were called. He instead busted in. He was a 215 lb high school wrestler, that means big, in shape, no fat. Even under most self defense laws this would be a righteous shoot.

This has little to do with the change in FL laws as it seems this is a basic self defense shooting.

If he had shot thru the door while the kid was banging on it, then you would have something applicable under the new law.

Shot some kid on his porch that was playing pranks by knocking and running away. So screwed up.

in their homes, however they can.

Maybe this kid will think twice before doing something so utterly stupid and illegal next time - he's lucky to be alive.

THEY will rethink the wisdom of this sort of activity.

Breaking into someone's house is just so... wrong.

We had someone break in once when I was about 12, I was home with my mom and my little sister and someone cut the screen on my mom's bedroom windown and just climbed in.

Luckily no one got hurt, but if someone busted into my apartment, I'd be reaching for the nearest weapon in a heartbeat.

I honestly don't see why this is anything but local news.

...

...the door down and lunging for you. Interesting that Merkel lunged at the Sr. Collier- seems like he wanted a piece of anyone in that family, not just the son. You can't go around busting down doors and just attacking people and expect they won't defend themselves.

PB

And I would have done the same, under those circumstances.

and would have been legal in every state.

FWIW, a majority of states have Castle Doctrine provisions, and Florida has had theirs for decades. That provision of the law isn't new.

Don't break into someone's house, especially when they're in there. Duh!

I'd shoot him too.

Sorry, but I'm with the homeowners on this one.

Hunting rifle's not meant for use on human beings.

Of course that makes it a feared "high powered armor piercing rifle."

Only thing remarkable about this is that the guy was a big enough idiot to do this in Florida where it's known that everyone has guns.

Somewhere someone is saying the homeowner should have retreated out the back door since the criminal was unarmed. :eyes:

businesses as well.

Penalty for B/E in Colorado? No more face! Yay!

The laws concerning use of deadly force inside of one's home and one's business are the same here.

And a campsite or motor home is considered your home.

and that he falls over dead ON YOUR PROPERTY, or YOU will be the one prosecuted......

The "throwaway" weapons of choice for both police officers and ordinary citizens.

You mean like in California?
The laws concerning use of deadly force inside of one's home and one's business are the same here.

California law DOES NOT include the twin presumptions that are the entire POINT of the Florida law in this regard.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0052.htm

“CASTLE DOCTRINE” BILLS

We found 15 states that adopted a “castle doctrine” bill in the last two years. Some of these expanded the circumstances where force could be used in self-defense without a duty to retreat, some adopted provisions on criminal or civil immunity for legally using force in self-defense, and some contained all of these provisions. In general, the bills contained at least one of the following provisions.

... 3. Some states add a legal presumption about when a person is justified in using force against intruders. For example, Florida added a presumption that a person using force had a reasonable fear of death or serious injury to himself or another if
(a) the person against whom he used force was illegally and forcefully entering a dwelling or occupied vehicle, was in the process of doing so, or removed or was attempting to remove a person against his will and
(b) the person using force knew or had reason to believe this was occurring. ...

4. Some states, such as Florida, include a presumption that a person who illegally or forcefully enters or attempts to enter a dwelling or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with intent to commit an illegal act involving force or violence.

5. Many of the bills provide immunity from criminal prosecution for a person who legally uses force or deadly force. ...

Is this an accurate representation of California law? --

http://www.mail-archive.com/firearmsregprof@listserv.ucla.edu/msg00391.html

Taking California as a relevant sample jurisdiction, and quoting
from John Machtinger's excellent layman's introduction to the
relevant laws, _How to Own a Gun & Stay Out of Jail_, California,
2001.

First, the basic rule of self-defense, which is modified by the
castle doctrine afterwards:

"In order to use deadly force to defend yourself, you must have an
honest and reasonable belief that you are in imminent danger of
death or great bodily injury from an unlawful attack, and that your
acts are necessary to prevent the injury."

Machtinger points out that every element of this is important: the
belief must be actual (honest) and reasonable. You have to believe
that you are _at risk_, that there is _imminent_ danger, that the
attack is _unlawful_, and that the action you take is _necessary_.

(the author then goes on to mischaracterize the presumptions in the "castle doctrine" laws as rebuttable; it is obvious that they are quite the opposite)

As I understand it, California maintains the general common law rule that the person using force must have a reasonable belief that s/he is in imminent danger and a reasonable belief that s/he has not alternative but to use force.

That IS NOT the case in Florida and its copycat states. Surely we have all grasped this by now.

A shooting (or other use of force) in Florida would be PERFECTLY LEGAL even if the person who committed it did NOT have a reasonable belief that s/he was in imminent danger and did NOT have a reasonable belief that s/he had no alternative but to use force IF s/he believed that the person against whom the force was used was illegally or forcefully entering the dwelling.

That IS NOT the case in California.

I could shoot you in defense of my home and/or family. The biggest caveat is that the person must be inside the home. You simply can't shoot somebody who is simply on your front lawn, though. That's not self-defense.

A few years ago a man who was the host of a party went to trial for shooting an unruly crasher in his back yard. He was acquitted. Had the shooting occurred inside of the house it probably wouldn't have gone to trial.

and leave it. Fast. Dinner will be much more appetizing than the outpouring of right-wing paranoid hate in this thread.

For anyone who cares to actually know what Florida law (and the laws of various copycat US states) is, do a search of the Guns forum for "presumption".

The Florida law does NOT "allow the use of deadly force if there is a 'reasonable fear of imminent peril'." Well, of course it does, but that is by no means all it does.

The Florida law allows deadly force to be used against anyone whom a resident of a home has reason to believe entered by force, WHETHER OR NOT the person using the force has the slightest fear of anything at all, because the Florida law enacts a PRESUMPTION that the person who entered illegally intended to commit a violent felony, and a PRESUMPTION that the person who uses the force is in fear, and the person who uses the force MAY NOT be prosecuted for an assault or homicide, even if there is every reason to believe that the person who used that force was in NO fear whatsoever.

And it would be ever so nice if the dimwitted media would figure that out, and the charming denizens of the Gun dungeon would either figure it out or acknowledge that they have ... I can never figure out which is the problem.

A judge in Kentucky certainly did, when faced with the same long-on-ideology, short-on-intelligence dog's breakfast of legislation in his state:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=127275

A Fayette judge struggled to make sense of Kentucky's new "home intruder" law yesterday, calling the National Rifle Association-backed legislation confusing, vague and poorly written.

"I'm not quite sure that the drafters had even a marginal knowledge of criminal law or Kentucky law," Circuit Judge Sheila Isaac said. "It is absolutely silent on the court's role."

...


Prosecutors around the state have expressed concerns about the law, which they say is difficult to interpret and raises numerous questions.

...

"It is the worst legislation I have ever seen in 40 years," said Lawson, the principal drafter of Kentucky's penal code, which was adopted in 1975.

Now, on the specific case in question ... imagine the good old days, or civilized societies in the world today, where people didn't pull out firearms to settle every minor dispute. And if anyone here honestly -- honestly -- believes that this incident could not have been resolved without someone being shot, and entirely fortuitously not killed, well, I'm afraid I'll just laugh. Loud and long.

The 215 lb 6ft tall wrestler kicked down the door and lunged at the guy. If Collier hadn't shot Merkel, Merkel could have beat up or killed him or his kid.

We so seldom know them.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/politics/content/local_news/epaper/2007/02/13/s1a_wellshoot_0213.html

When Merkel arrived, the Colliers called 911.

According to the report, the elder Collier told the 6-foot, 215-pound high school wrestler to go away.

... Investigators said Collier then retrieved his gun from his bedroom. Merkel continued banging on the door.

That's where the stories differ. Merkel's attorney said the door just opened, and Collier shot the boy in the doorway. The sheriff's report said Merkel splintered the door's wood frame and door trim, then charged toward Collier, who fired.

A little more than 24 hours later, the Colliers' door showed several knuckle-sized indentations, but the frame appeared intact.

That last bit does seem to be a fact. And it does seem to be inconsistent with your characterization of events:

The 215 lb 6ft tall wrestler kicked down the door ...

Heck, I could speculate myself, and my speculation would even be consistent with that fact: the homeowner opened the door himself and shot the kid. Who knows, eh? The thing is, if he did, that he would not be able to shelter behind even the moronic law in question, so it wouldn't be too surprising if he wasn't saying so.

My goodness, look who was opposing the law when it was brought in:

State Rep. Susan Bucher, D-West Palm Beach, voted against the Castle Doctrine law, which was lobbied for by the National Rifle Association.

"I called it the 'shoot your neighbor' bill," Bucher said Monday. "This is exactly what we anticipated would happen - those of us that voted against the bill."

Noooo ... a Democrat??

It does seem that this case is not as clear-cut as it seems at first glance.

This part got my attention:

"Mike Edmondson, spokesman for the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office, said the law has been used as a defense - but so far, only unsuccessfully."

Such a mess...

to reason with home invaders. But in my home, you enter without invitation, particularly after sundown and I’ll let a 12 gauge do my talking.

Regards, Mugu

This guy is 6' and 215, and a wrestler. That is no joke. What are you gonnas do? You can't outrun him (he runs every day!). You can't out fight him (he wrestles people his size regularly). You aren't gonna talk him down (he isn't interested in talking. He could have called instead of KICKING YOUR DOOR IN AND CHARGING AT YOU!) What are you gonna do? Curl up in a ball on the floor and cry while hoping he doesn't kill you? I myself am 6' and 225 (with just a little tiny gut) weight lifting construction contractor. I wouldn't have taken any chances with him either. So, maybe you're 6'5" and 300 lbs of muscle. Or maybe you have 3 trained attack dobermans at the ready. Or maybe you're some super trained martial artist. Most average citizens are none of those. And they have a right to be safe in their own homes. Period. And if you think for one second that the new laws in Florida allow people to just "shoot at will" you are seriously mistaken. Everybody compares Florida to "the wild west" because of this law. Yeah, South Florida is kinda like the wild west, but not because of people defending themselves... It's the CRIMINALS that make it this way. That's why we need to be able to defend ourselves. You are more than welcome to lie down and take it. That is your choice. But not mine.

He could have called instead of KICKING YOUR DOOR IN AND CHARGING AT YOU!

Do see post 25.

Pictures of the door released by the Sheriff's Office show it was dented in several areas, that the doorframe gave way, splintering the door trim and dislodging the strike plate.

Sounds kicked in to me. BTW I live in south florida, and read the sun-sentinel, too.

:eyes:

If you sez so.



:eyes: indeed.

If the father OPENED the door, then it doesn't, and all the presumptions you wrote about are out of the question. If a case can be made that the father opened the door, then it should go to a jury to decide, no?

If a case can be made that the father opened the door, then it should go to a jury to decide, no?

The presumption of fear etc., whatever its effect, would not operate if the first presumption didn't operate: that the person against whom force was used had unlawfully entered with the intent of committing a violent offence.

If the person shot wasn't inside the home -- or was admitted by the resident opening the door -- then: no presumption of intent to commit a violent offence, hence no presumption of fear, hence no automatic determination of self-defence.

Where the person was when he was shot, and how he got there (and whether the person who shot him knew how he got there, which would not be in issue in this case), is a question of fact that would have to be determined before the presumption could be applied (or rejected). So yes, I'd say you're right: it would have to go to a jury to make that finding.

If the jury found that the person shot was inside the house, and that the resident had reasonable grounds to believe that the entry was unlawful/by force (I forget the exact wording), the jury would then be barred from proceeding any farther. The presumptions would operate like dominoes, and the jury could not make any finding as to whether the person shot intended to commit a violent offence or the resident had a reasonable fear of harm.

If the jury found that the person shot was inside the house, and that the resident had reasonable grounds to believe that the entry was unlawful/by force (I forget the exact wording), the jury would then be barred from proceeding any farther. The presumptions would operate like dominoes, and the jury could not make any finding as to whether the person shot intended to commit a violent offence or the resident had a reasonable fear of harm.


In this case, if the jury finds the door was forcefully opened, I'd say the law doesn't do any harm in ending the trial there. But I could probably dream up a scenario in which a case of cold-blooded murder would be barred from going further because it met the "breaking and entering" standard of the law. If/when that scenario actually happens, the law will probably be changed or repealed.

kid who broke the door down was the wronged party?

I'm a really nonviolent person, but if this had happened to me I would have done the same thing.

Of course, I have experienced violence firsthand, and fear it. I know how fragile my bones are compared to a large male. Perhaps you have not, so you do not have a healthy fear of pain and death.

This kid learned a valuable lesson today, and is lucky to be alive. Maybe his experience will teach a lesson to a few friends, too.

For the love of all the angels, I'm 3,000 kilometres away reading newspapers on line, which give me third-hand characterizations of an incident about which there are conflicting reports on numerous points.

Why on earth would I believe anything at all??

Why would I feel a *need* to believe anything at all??

Why would anyone on earth care what I believed, if I believed anything at all??

I'm a really nonviolent person, but if this had happened to me I would have done the same thing.

And the question remains: if WHAT happened to you? You might want to read some of the other posts in the thread.

Of course, I have experienced violence firsthand, and fear it. I know how fragile my bones are compared to a large male. Perhaps you have not, so you do not have a healthy fear of pain and death.

Hmm. Do you have a belief on that point that you'd like to share? Why not, eh?

This kid learned a valuable lesson today, and is lucky to be alive. Maybe his experience will teach a lesson to a few friends, too.

Yes, yes, let's just get rid of all the laws and shoot all the lawyers, and let people teach other people lessons when they think it's a good idea ...

When I was a kid, 8-9 years old, I broke into a couple of basements. I didn't steal anything I just liked looking in peoples basements.

I was afraid this sort of thing would happen.

doors down and lunging at them. There's a big difference.

Very true, but who says the rules wouldn't have apllied to me if the laws were the same then?

You might be interested in the detailed analysis of this law by a Harvard law student, posted and discussed here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=125237

which said exactly what I'd been saying about the ugly thing all along.

An excerpt (boldface emphasis mine):

The decision of the Florida Court of Appeals in Quaggin v. State highlights the effect of this presumption. In Quaggin, the defendant lived in a structure surrounded by “piles of junk” and several abandoned trailers. Two children found several comic books and Pez dispensers in one of these trailers and began searching for the owner so they could ask permission to take what they had found. They found another structure they thought was abandoned and entered through an unlocked sliding glass door. The owner of the dwelling jumped up and asked what they were doing there. Before the children could answer, the owner fired at close range and killed one of the boys. The Florida Court of Appeals held that the defendant had to believe that a forcible felony was being committed in order to claim selfdefense. The court further held that the necessity of using deadly force in response must be reasonable, i.e., the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of deadly force.

(i.e., that's the old law)

The new bill eliminates these requirements. The defendant’s use of force is now justified because of a conclusive presumption that the children posed a threat that was sufficient to create a reasonable fear of death or imminent bodily harm. This could be true even if the children had not forcibly entered the dwelling, as was the case here. Florida Statute § 776.013(B), a new section created by the bill, extends the presumption to a “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.” This drastically changes Florida law, which previously required a reasonable belief and factual grounds that the use of deadly force was necessary. In Quaggin, for example, a previous burglary in the defendant’s home or even a mistaken belief that he locked the sliding glass door would now give the defendant reason to believe that these intruders had unlawfully and forcibly entered his dwelling.

In your case, you had admittedly broken in, so yes, under this law, you could have been killed and the killer could not have been prosecuted.

... the shooter is likely in for a surprise.


"Mike Edmondson, spokesman for the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office, said the law has been used as a defense - but so far, only unsuccessfully."

Pictures of the door released by the Sheriff's Office show it was dented in several areas, that the doorframe gave way, splintering the door trim and dislodging the strike plate.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/palmbeach/sfl-pshooting16feb16,0,4054354.story?coll=sfla-news-palm
3rd paragraph from bottom.

they cite pictures the sheriff's office released of this splintering, but don't share them.

"Pictures of the door released by the Sheriff's Office show it was dented in several areas, that the door frame gave way, splintering the door trim and dislodging the strike plate."

In this earlier article it says that 24 hours after the incident, there was no apparent damage to the door or frame.

"The sheriff's report said Merkel splintered the door's wood frame and door trim, then charged toward Collier, who fired."
Different wording, but means the same to me.

"A little more than 24 hours later, the Colliers' door showed several knuckle-sized indentations, but the frame appeared intact."

after the incident.

What the reporter saw more than 24 hours later was probably the same door in a repaired door frame.
Would you let more than 24 hours elapse without being able to close or lock your home's front door?

We'll see how it turns out.

As for the letting 24 hours lapse... I'm not sure I could afford to have it repaired so professionally that it was hard to tell it had been recently repaired, between 11:30 p.m. Satruday and Sunday night. :shrug:

for not naming the kid. Up here, it's illegal to publish the name of a young offender (under 18), and that's how it should be.

Conflicting reports by different news outlets: one sees the doorframe and says it's intact, one sees earlier photos of the doorframe and says it's broken. Maybe it was fixed in the meantime. I haven't seen either the doorframe or the photos, so I don't know.

That -- and the fact that there are loads of other things I don't know about the incident -- is why I haven't expressed an opinion about the legality of the shooting.

I'm just disgusted by it.

to the frame came before the one which cited the sheriff's report and the pictures.

comes from ... "appeared intact" to whom? Under what circumstances? The article's reporter, craning to see the door from the street? :shrug: (Also, since it was 24 hours later, so perhaps after the sheriff's department had their pictures the door was replaced.)

for anyone not directly involved to know one way other the other.

READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE. I linked to it in post 25. You click, and the page opens. You read it. THEN you comment on it.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/politics/content/local_news/epaper/2007/02/13/s1a_wellshoot_0213.html

A little more than 24 hours later,
the Colliers' door showed several
knuckle-sized indentations, but
the frame appeared intact.

The Colliers did not return calls for comment,
nor did they answer the door
at their neat, white-stucco home.

Now ... yes ... I suppose that the reporter could have been craning to see the door from the street while someone else knocked on it ...

Another interesting tidbit:

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/epaper/2007/02/14/w1b_shooter_0214.html

Ricardo Collier (the man who did the shooting)
is an advocate investigator at the Legal Aid Society
of Palm Beach County, said Robert Bertisch,
executive director of the nonprofit.

My personal bias, having handled many cases on legal aid myself, would lead me to think that a person who works in legal aid is probably credible and trustworthy, being devoted to truth and justice and all.

My more rational side reminds me that people who work for legal aid in Florida are likely very well versed in what constitutes lawful use of force, and what needs to be demonstrated to establish it.

Just one more reason for me not to have an opinion about the lawfulness of this use of force.

I read the fucking article, thanks. (You're right, when I clicked, the page opened.) As I said, the information is vague. It could be (as you've presumed elsewhere) that Kelly Wolfe went to the house and knocked on the door, and after a thorough inspection declared that the frame "appeared" intact. (Assuming the door was closed, whoever came to that conclusion couldn't have actually seen the whole door frame, but that's another story.) It boils down to "meh, looks alright to me." Beyond that, it's too vague to really understand on what basis that assessment was reached.

In the other article, we know where the information is coming from, and that there is apparently photographic documentation. It would be nice if we could see the photo, but I guess we can't.

Journalists get details wrong more often than they get them right, especially on the first pass.

haven't made a judgment about its legality.

What would be disgusting about a person defending themselves if that is what happened?

eta: Nevermind, I just read your post #37. I don't know how you could determine that there are not enough facts to determine whether the shooting was justified, but think there is enough evidence to find the shooting disgusting.

Well, at least the "Stand Your Ground" will likely prevent the shooter from having to endure a lawsuit if the shooting is determined to be self-defense.

The necessity of it is disgusting?

Just guesses...

what I meant was, the necessity was disgusting.

I would have no problem severely harming or killing someone who tried to harm me or my children.

However, I'm pretty sure I would get physicially sick shortly after.

but at some point you have to feel that they committed suicide. I’d probably get sick too.

Regards, Mugu

from alleged rumormongering with excessive violence?

Why on earth would someone think they have the right to use excessive violence to defend themselves, their loved ones or their property? Yes, I'm being extremely sarcastic.

What the "kid" did that was wrong was throw the first punch. My dad taught me never to do that, by the way.

The way he should have handled it was invite alleged rumormonger (ar) to his house. Then he should have taunted ar from inside the house; leaving the door unlocked. When ar finally became angry enough and entered the "kid's" "castle," the "kid" shoots ar.

Problem solved. Ar pays price for alleged rumormongering and the "kid" deals with the issue per legal requirements and gets off scott free.

Ah, and yes, this is all very sarcastic.




edit: typo or Freudian slip? LOL

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/palmbeach/sfl-pshooting16feb16,0,4054354.story?coll=sfla-news-palm

3rd paragraph from the bottom

"Pictures of the door released by the Sheriff's Office show it was dented in several areas, that the doorframe gave way, splintering the door trim and dislodging the strike plate."

Sounds like kicked in to me.

and as I've already said, we have conflicting reports by two news outlets: one sees the door 24 hours later, one sees photos of the door taken shortly after the incident.

I haven't seen either. Neither have you. I have no dog in this race, and I'm not claiming either report is correct, or stating that the reality represented by either report is relevant. (I mentioned the possibility that the door was repaired before the other news outlet saw it; but has it occurred to you that the homeowner could have smashed up the door himself after shooting the kid and before police arrived? I am certainly not saying that happened, and in fact I would think it unlikely that it happened -- but we don't know.)

Why do so many people have to have opinions about things they are simply ignorant of?

I am ignorant of the facts that I would need in order to have an opinion about the legality of the shooting. There are still enough facts that appear to be known for me to have the opinion that an adult shooting a teenager in the chest in this situation is disgusting.

got a link?

It also says what I quoted above.

"A little more than 24 hours later, the Colliers' door showed several knuckle-sized indentations, but the frame appeared intact."

I doubt it. The POLICE REPORT says the kid kicked the door in. I take their word over a reporter looking to stir up "controversy"

The POLICE REPORT says the kid kicked the door in.

Were the police there?

The police report too obviously says that THE COMPLAINANT SAYS that the kid kicked the door in. (Complainant is the word used where I'm at; I don't know what might have been used in the police report.) How would the police know what happened? They know what they were told happened, and the two parties seem to have different stories. I have no idea which party is more credible, or which account, if either, is true.

And again, if you haven't got it yet, see post 25:

A little more than 24 hours later, the Colliers' door showed several knuckle-sized indentations, but the frame appeared intact.

One would assume that this was written by the reporter who wrote the story after visiting the home and receiving no response at the door.

And not automatically visible from the outside. Additionally, sometimes broken door frames will resume their former shape with the damage hidden by the wood grain. My dad was bad about destroying doors when I was a kid. I don't doubt that the police would have arrested the homeowner in a second if they thought they could get him. Usually the cops are more interested in a bigger arrest than justice. So, some reporter who was refused an interview and only saw the outside of the door is not, to me, in any way credible. The police report will be used at trial. This article will not. So, run with the reporters observation if you wish. I think most reasonable people will see that the homeowner was justified.

The reporter who visited the home 24 hours after the incident reported that THE DOORFRAME WAS INTACT. At that time. Twenty-four hours later. Long enough for it to have been fixed, presumably, if it HAD been splintered.

The police who visited the home shortly after the incident reported that THE DOORFRAME WAS SPLINTERED. How much later, I dunno; 20 minutes? Long enough for it to have been kicked in - from the outside, assuming the homeowner wasn't a complete moron - by a homeowner wanting to justify shooting someone.

I DON'T KNOW. YOU DON'T KNOW. THE POLICE DON'T KNOW. THE REPORTER DOESN'T KNOW.

The homeowner and the kid he shot know whether the kid kicked the door in, obviously. Others who were present may know, if they saw what happened. I don't know. You don't know. Nobody here knows.


I don't doubt that the police would have arrested the homeowner in a second if they thought they could get him.

Oh, it's that old line again.

I quote me:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=46053&mesg_id=46072

Like that story that was posted back in October (2004) about the guy in Boca Raton, Florida, who successfully defended himself against an intruder by shooting and killing said intruder (in the back, as he fled) ... who turned out to be an unarmed 16-year-old engaged in a pre-Hallowe'en doorbell-ringing prank.

Last I checked, the "victim" had been charged with homicide, some time after the event, when the police had investigated it -- even though I was insistently told here that if he had done anything wrong he would have been charged on the spot, and it was plain from the initial news reports that he wasn't.

If we'd gone by that news report alone, we'd have thought that Mr. Milquetoast Accountant of Boca Raton, proud owner of a concealed carry permit and keeper of an in-home handgun, was a shining example of yer average citizen who deserves to have a firearm to defend his/her life against bad guys and whose tale illustrated the wisdom and necessity of having a firearm handy at all times.

... Stories in the news may appear backwards in your mirror. "Victims" claiming to have shot someone dead in self-defence are not always victims and are not always acting in self-defence, for instance.

Keeping one's peace until one knows the facts ... a lesson learned by some in the Gun Dungeon when Mr. Milquetoast Accountant, righteous shooter of introoders whose conduct the police so obviously found blameless, pleaded guilty to manslaughter.

Here we are not dealing with a kid on a Hallowe'en mission to annoy the neighbours, not doubt about it.

But the question that has always had to be answered by people who harm others and claim self-defence, in civilized societies -- the various formulations of which can be paraphrased as did you have a reasonable fear of imminent and serious bodily harm and no reasonable alternative to harming the person at whose hands you feared it? -- now MAY NOT be asked of this individual, in Florida, if it is determined that the kid he shot did kick in his door and enter his home.

Why? That's all I've ever wanted to know.

And just by way of not getting this thread kicked to the Gun Dungeon -- there is a political issue here in the US states that are adopting these laws.

There were Democrats in Florida who supported the bill. Pandering, stupid Democrats, if you want my opinion. But the bill was opposed by Democrats, and that is an important point.

for providing the context that this incident should be considered in light of.

I appreciate your posts in this thread.

(And apologies for my tortured syntax...)

Well, moi, anyhow. ;)

The chorus of cheers that regularly greets the death and injury of human beings at the hands of other human beings in this place is nauseating.

The use of force against another person may be justified, and the person who used it may be both legally and morally blameless. Legally blameless does not necessarily imply morally blameless, of course, particularly given how laws vary. But the fact that it ever happens, let alone that it happens to teenager or child, is a source of regret to a decent, reasonable person, not an occasion for gloating and hand-rubbing glee.

The dividing lines at DU are at their most obvious in discussions of crime and criminals, I find.

regret, not glee.

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that.

It's good that such lines are made clear... those are opportunities! :)

Jay Levin is a criminal. He tried to hide behind self-defense, when he murdered a kid. He was charged criminally, but his punishmnet was far too lenient. He is, however, getting sued civilly as well, and that will ruin him financially. I know that won't bring the boy back, but it's something. I do not defend his actions in any way shape or form. He should be in prison.

Well,at least you are admitting you don't have any greater insight about what happened than I do. Especially after that whole "opening your mouth before you know the facts" thing. All we know is what we are told. The police report, from where I sit, supports the homeowner. You think otherwise. It is possible that the homeowner staged the whole thing. It is also possible that the homeowner is telling the truth. I side with the homeowner until he is proven guilty, or until I see something tha convinces me he was in the wrong. Since you follow south-florida news so closely, you are probably aware of how home invasions have increased dramatically recently. I don't want to be presumed guilty if I shoot one of those dirtbags. In my area there have been several serial rapists. I don't want my wife to be presumed guilty if she shoots one of them. Period.

I never CLAIMED to have any greater insight into what happened than you did. I did apparently have more facts, in the sense of information about whatever the facts are that conflicted with other information about whatever the facts are.

All we know is what we are told -- but many of us think it wise to check sources, and see whether there might be more than one worth considering.

The police report, from where I sit, supports the homeowner. You think otherwise.

I think no such thing.

The police report QUOTES the homeowner. It therefore neither supports nor refutes what the homeowner says. I'm quite sure that the police report in its entirety also QUOTES the person who was shot, since he seems to have made statements (although possibly not to the police).

I do not think that the police report either supports or doesn't support the homeowner. I fail to see how anyone could think it did. The observation of a splintered doorframe is consistent with the homeowner's account -- but it is also consistent with a break-in having been staged after the fact.

There is no way for anyone who wasn't there to know. Any jury who might hear the case would not know, either. It would have to decide whom to believe, based on the person's credibility as a witness (including motive for lying, which both parties here would obviously have) and what other witnesses might have to say, and their credibility. We still might not know what happened. And here is where I am always compelled to ask: OJ didn't do it, right?

I side with the homeowner until he is proven guilty, or until I see something tha convinces me he was in the wrong.

And I just don't have a clue why.

Does the homeowner give a shit whether you or anyone else sides with him? Does it matter to the universe whether you or anyone else sides with him? Will it matter to the police, or the prosecutor, or a jury?

I don't want to be presumed guilty if I shoot one of those dirtbags.

Ah, do I see? It's important to you that someone who shot someone else be perceived as righteous, just in case you decide to do it some day. Not that I can imagine the two things being connected in any way. What someone else does, and how and why and to whom, surely doesn't have the slightest effect on what you do and how and why and to whom you do it.

A suspicious person might think that someone saying that wasn't in fear of a wrongful conviction for assault or homicide, but was actually in fear of a rightful conviction for assault or homicide.

In any event, you apparently prefer the risk that someone who needlessly and without justification caused very serious injury to a young person get off scot free to ... well, I don't know to what. Since there just isn't a choice between that risk and anything else, that I can see, things being unrelated as they are.

About the condition of the door frame?

that the police report "quotes the homeowner"
About the condition of the door frame

??

The police report quotes the homeowner about HOW THE DOORFRAME GOT INTO THAT CONDITION. One more time: the police were not present when the doorframe got into the condition it was in. Am I right?

Why would you read what I said as meaning that the police report quotes the homeowner about the condition of the doorframe???

Maybe this thread does belong in the gun dungeon at this point. It would fit right in.

"Ah, do I see? It's important to you that someone who shot someone else be perceived as righteous, just in case you decide to do it some day."

Look, no one at my house is celebrating what happened. It is a tragedy for all involved. Especially, from where I sit, the boys family, because, (again) where I sit, the boy brought this on himself.

I have no desire to go around killing people. If I did, I would re join the Army. But, I don't.

If I have to shoot someone in self defense, I want there to be a precedent showing my expressed right to do so. That's (as far as I can tell) how our legal system works. Not because I am trigger happy. I am not spoiling for a shootout. But that also doesn't mean that I have submit to the will of an attacker.

A common trait in murderers that I have noticed is that they try to get away with it. Even if they are caught standing over the body with the weapon in their hand and a note saying they did it. See oj and jay levin for examples. That is where our legal system comes into play, and sometimes they get away with it. See oj and jay levin.

BTW you never presented me an alternative. What would you do if a 6' 215 lb trained fighter kicked your door in?

What would you do if a 6' 215 lb trained fighter kicked your door in?

I wouldn't have a kid who behaved the way that, from everything I've read, the son of the person who shot that kid did. So I wouldn't be expecting anybody to break down my door seeking to avenge the honour of the girlfriend being wrongfully badmouthed by my kid.

What I wouldn't do is shoot him. If only because I don't have, have never had, and will never have a firearm in my home.

I did have an enraged cokehead in my home once -- sadly, my partner at the time, whose problems I had been unaware of when the relationship began. What I did was grab my cordless phone, lock myself in the upstairs bathroom, climb out the window onto the deck, go down the stairs, and call the police from the street. Worked pretty well.

Now, your question starts a little too late for me, making it a bit of a false dichotomy. There was really no reason to get to the point of the kid kicking in the door, I'd think. But I might be wrong. So I have no opinion on what anyone else did or should have done, as I'm sure we all know by now.

I'm not at all sure, though, why the family going out the back door and circling around to the front wouldn't have stopped him from kicking in the front door and probably from singling out anyone in the group to lunge at. There seem to have been an adult male, an adult female, a teenaged male and a young female person present, at least.

And then hell, if you got a gun, brandish it. I know y'r not supposed to. But ... I had a reasonable fear that I or a member of my family was about to be seriously injured, and I had a reasonable belief that there was no way I could avert the assault but to use force, and so I raised my firearm to shoot, and bingo, he backed away, and so, given the change of circumstances, I no longer had a reasonable fear of imminent injury, so I lowered my gun. Seems reasonable.

There are reports that the members of the group inside the house were taunting and insulting the kid at the door. I have no idea whether that's true. But I can certainly tell you that it's not what I would have done.


If I have to shoot someone in self defense, I want there to be a precedent showing my expressed right to do so. That's (as far as I can tell) how our legal system works.

Actually, no. The law governs. The law is applied to the facts. So unless the facts of your case are identical to the facts of a previous case (and, generally, unless that previous case was decided at some appellate level), there's no precedent. The question would simply be whether the law that applied to your case meant that you could be prosecuted, based on the facts of your own case, and if so whether you could be convicted.

So you have no vested interest at all in whether this individual is prosecuted or convicted, based on the facts of his case, whatever they are.

All I can think is that you may have a vested interest in no one questioning what someone who injures/kills someone else offers up as a legal justification for doing it. Other than you having a misapprehension of how the legal system works.

Certainly a lot of people who chime in on stories like this do seem to be pretty invested in them for some reason, although I just can't ever understand what interest someone would have in ensuring that a person who kills another person not have to offer up justification for it or be questioned about the justification offered.

One might think that every living human being would have an interest in people who kill other people having to justify their actions. If only because one might one day be the victim one's self, and knowing that the person who might otherwise have killed one would have to justify his/her actions just might be the deterrent that kept that from happening.

maybe the republic talking point about Dems wanting to "take our guns away" has infected more people than we'd like to think.

if you are willing. Neither of us will change the others mind. I respect your tenacity. I do not harbor any hostility or ill will towards you, and I hope you harbor none towards me. I will see you around.

-- see me around.

I was last there 3 years ago next month; had to drive down to fetch the worldly possessions of my dad, who had become ill while on vacation and died a few weeks after returning home. Hadn't been there since the mid 80s, then, and hadn't been planning to go back. Ditto Texas.

Chalk it up to the fire ants. They can smell me coming.

And yes, the fire ants are HORRIBLE here.
I meant I would see you around DU. :hi:

well we differ in opinion there. Police reports are not written by a deity.

and not being automatically treated like a criminal if I do. That's all.

My immediate reaction on reading the OP was to say "GOOD!"

It was only after I saw the article iverglas had posted that I began to think it wasn't as clear a case as it first seemed to be.

It seems pretty muddled... I hope that justice is done.

Especially if it was compromised in the first place by someone who wanted to assault you and your family. I know I would have fixed that door ASAP. And like others have pointed out, an inspection of the door from the outside (the reporter's perspective) likely would not have shown the full extent of the damage.

Perhaps the reporter was simply doing a poor job... I don't know.

I do wish someone would publish the pics the sheriff's department has released.

Pics of the door taken right after the incident would probably put it all to rest one way or the other.

The kid's a big wrestler, breaking down the guy's door, after he already warned him and called the cops. The guy was in the right to shoot him.

If it happened to me, that kid would be looking down the barrel of my 12-gauge. If he didn't turn around and leave immediately, he would die.

i really hope that i live long enough to see the ocean rise up and reclaim it.

I used to love it here, but I'm looking to get out. Tired of it now.

try- 'miserably hot and sticky weather' and all the giant bugs and poisonous pests you can use.

we had friends that moved to port st. lucie, and their kids could barely ever play in the yard unsupervised, from the threat of snakes and scorpions and the like.

and then there's the politics...and the laws they choose to pass...and the bible beltists and other fundy religoids.

i don't mind the keys so much- although most of the reefs are extremely overdove(dived?) anymore.

it's a halfway decent place for a short visit...but i would NEVER choose to live there.

In feb. so I appreciated the weather. I used to love the heat. Now... not so much. I live down by miami... the traffic is horrible, lots of nasty attitudes...

the big island of hawaii is the much better choice.
the diving is LOTS better, too.

Kinda hard to do that with Hawaii. Sounds beautiful, tho. I am actually looking to move to Washington to be near Vancouver and Whistler for the epice freeriding they have there.

Fuck him.

another floridian gets what they deserve.

Slimy.

"Mike Edmondson, spokesman for the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office, said the law has been used as a defense - but so far, only unsuccessfully."

*sigh*

Just seems to have caused more trouble... and for what?

That has been allowed for centuries.

State legislators in all states are for the most part whores.

I only called the Democrats who voted for the Florida bill pandering and stupid. ;)

And most other states.

What a dumbass.

...than I am about a homeowner who'd shoot someone breaking down their door.

Holy crap. Anger management for life for you, kid.

Too bad the kid didn't have some kind of mental health intervention before he got himself wounded.