The Castle Doctrine

[2damnold4this]

My point was that depending on the facts that second shot may subject the homeowner to criminal prosecution and civil liability

How would that differ from the first shot?

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by TheKlawMan

Please explain how this is not so. Force was definiteley being used against a person who had or was unlawfully and forcibly entering John's home.

I never said it was not so. It is so ... that is what the law says. It was YOU who initially proposed this as if it was a radical concept that only a few people in Florida believe to be the case.

Personally, I think this is the way the law should be. If a criminal sets out to rob a bank and anyone is killed as a result -- a bank teller, and innocent bystander, even the robber's partner -- it is legally construed that it is the robber who is guilty of murder even if it was not he that was the immediate cause of death. Why? Because, absent his commission of a felony, the victim would not have been killed.

How is this different from your example? The guy who broke into the house committed a criminal act -- breaking and entering. The guy IN the house has a right to defend his castle. The law does not require him (nor, IMHO, should it require him) to be an expert marksman in order to be allowed to defend his castle. The responsibility and the liability should not lie with the guy defending the castle, but with the guy invading the castle.

[TheKlawMan]

Blanca,

The guy who broke into the house committed a criminal act -- breaking and entering. The guy IN the house has a right to defend his castle. The law does not require him (nor, IMHO, should it require him) to be an expert marksman in order to be allowed to defend his castle. The responsibility and the liability should not lie with the guy defending the castle, but with the guy invading the castle.

Let's just say that we agree that a person has a right to defend themselves and their loved ones, but we do not agree that a homeowner should have be permitted to execute an intruder. I also noticed that not one person had a word to say regarding immunity where the homeowner greviously injures and perhaps maimes or kills a perfectly innocent bystander.

Under your theory a homeoner should be immune from liability, criminal or civil, for shooting a drunk who foolishly confused the homeowner's home with the inebriates, even if the homeoner shoots them as they lay peacefully passed out, for all purposes dead to the world, and totally helpless.

Do you honestly think that the ioccupant of a dwellilng should have the right to take the drunks life? Assume that the premises are well lit, the homeowner knew that the intgruder was passed out, and the homeowner recognized the intruder as his friend and neighbor, Charlie, who in the past has made the same mistake and passed out on the homeowner's couch thinking it was Charlie's. Add to the hypo the fact that the homeowner and the other three occupants of his house are expert sniper instructors assigned to a local Navy base and each one is awake and armed with conventional small firearms plus cans of mace.

[TheKlawMan]

Aguila Blanca,

I want to make sure I understand you and that you believe that a homeowner should bear no criminal of civil liability for the shooting an innocent bystander, including their death, regardless of how reckless the homeowner may be and whether or not their resort to deadly force was in fact and indisputably unreasonable and you so believe BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT FLORIDA LAW SAYS. I know of no test case, but it is far from clear that is what Florida law says. A slug or shot striking an innocent is not clearly force used against the intruder abd that ambiguity should open the statute to interpretation to give effect to the meaning of the Florida lawmakers.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by TheKlawMan

Do you honestly think that the ioccupant of a dwellilng should have the right to take the drunks life?

Yes, I do. How could any sane person argue otherwise?

If I am the occupant of a home, and someone breaks into my home, busting the lock or kicking in the door, I don't know what his intentions are but I think it is logical, reasonable, prudent, and SMART to assume that he probably means to harm to me and/or my family. Since I have a gun for self-defense, it would thus be logical, reasonable, prudent, and SMART to use the gun to defend myself.

If people don't wish to be shot by home owners, people shouldn't break into other people's homes. I don't have drunk neighbors named Charlie who break into houses to pass out on other people's sofas. You are, of course, entitled to have whomever you wish as your friend.

Originally Posted by TheKlawMan

I want to make sure I understand you and that you believe that a homeowner should bear no criminal of civil liability for the shooting an innocent bystander, including their death, regardless of how reckless the homeowner may be and whether or not their resort to deadly force was in fact and indisputably unreasonable and you so believe BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT FLORIDA LAW SAYS.

Why do you care what I believe?

I do believe that a person who is lawfully defending himself or herself should NOT be criminally or civilly liable if someone is injured or even killed in the process. If I am the victim (meaning the person being attacked and forced to defend myself) I didn't ask to be assaulted, so if something happens to a bystander why should I be liable? Why shouldn't the assailant, the person who set the events in motion, be responsible and liable?

And I don't believe that because Florida law says that. I believe that because it's the only way that makes any sense.

[TheKlawMan]

Look, friend. I don't have a drunk Charlie for a neighbor and who said anything in the hypothetical about him being the homeowner's friend. It seems you want to make this personal.

I believe you said something to the effect that a homeowner shouldn't have to have some expertise to use deadly force in defense of their home. I disagree. If you are going to get a gun you should learn to use it and to use it with care for innocent bystanders.

That you feel shooting a passed out drunk is justified by the fact that he broke in to your house says much.

Why do you care what I believe?

If there are only a few that think like you, I guess I don't care. Unfortunately, there may be many and that is scary.

I should add that the criminal is generally liable for injury to a third person, but that should't excuse the homeowner if they recklessly injure the innocent bystander. Both should be held liable, but any liability of the homeowner should be usually be junior to that of the bad guy. In the case where the neighbor was totally harmless I would make an exception if the recklessness amounts to wanton and willful misconduct.

[SwampYankee]

If people don't wish to be shot by home owners, people shouldn't break into other people's homes.

This seems pretty reasonable to me.

And drunk is no excuse. I'll admit to being drunk in the past but I have always maintained a modicum of reason even in my "fuzziest" hours. Being drunk is no excuse for drunk driving per law, it should not be an excuse for B&E. Drunkenness has never been a legitimate excuse for ANY criminal action. Driving, rape, murder, etc.

Look, friend.

If you are someones friend, you generally don't need to tell them you are their friend. I'm not sure you are Aguila's friend...

[MLeake]

No, he doesn't act like AB's friend.

He acts like a frustrated tort attorney, who wants to be able to go after homeowners more easily.

And he puts words in people's mouths. AB said nothing about executing a passed out drunk. AB said a drunk, breaking into his home, and appearing to be a threat, would not get special treatment for being drunk.

Nowhere did I read AB say he would shoot the drunk if AB did not feel threatened; nowhere did I read AB say he would shoot a passed out person.

As far as hypotheticals go, I would feel badly for an innocent bystander caught in the crossfire, but I think the criminal liability and civil liability should attach entirely to the intruder, unless it could be proven that the homeowner had behaved in a reckless manner. Please note that shooting under justified circumstances, but missing the target, does not in my view constitute recklessness so long as the homeowner is under threat.

Have that homeowner keep shooting at a fleeing BG and hit a bystander, and things change.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by TheKlawMan

I believe you said something to the effect that a homeowner shouldn't have to have some expertise to use deadly force in defense of their home. I disagree. If you are going to get a gun you should learn to use it and to use it with care for innocent bystanders.

That you feel shooting a passed out drunk is justified by the fact that he broke in to your house says much.

First, Sir, I am not your friend, so kindly do not use that term in a derogatory fashion. I don't know you and you don't know me. We are two strangers engaging in a long-distance discourse.

And you seem to keep changing the parameters of that discourse. First we were discussing Florida's "stand your ground" law. Then it somehow morphed to a homeowner defending his house against someone breaking in. And now you have again changed the parameters, so that good ole drunken Charlie is NOT breaking in -- now you have me discovering him already asleep on MY sofa and murdering him as he sleeps.

Believe me -- if Charlie or anyone else is breaking into my house, he is NOT going to sleep on my sofa. Since we don't know each other, we obviously do not know one another's religion. I'll just say for the moment that I am a Christian, and not a Roman Catholic. But I am willing to concede that Roman Catholic theologians have devoted a considerable amount of study to the purpose of trying to determine what's right and moral. If you are willing to agree to that, perhaps you'd be interested to read what the Roman Catholic catechism has to say on the subject:

Legitimate defense

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor.... The one is intended, the other is not."[65]

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful.... Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.[65]

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life. Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. To this end, those holding legitimate authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their charge.[66]

YOU began this discussion by asking if others agree that it's "right" for Florida law to absolve a person who defends himself or herself from liability if an innocent third party is killed by accident. I have stated that I think this position is reasonable and logical. I also think it is moral. You are free to disagree.

But kindly don't then shift from there to having me murdering sleeping drunks. It's a common trick of politicians when they're losing the argument to shift the parameters. I think the other participants in this thread can see your tactics for what they are. If you choose NOT to defend your home against someone who is breaking in through the front door, that's perfectly fine with me. Kindly respect my right to engage in lawful self-defense, and stop changing the ground rules to fit your perceptions of what's right or wrong. If you didn't want to hear the answer, why did you ask the question?

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by MLeake

Have that homeowner keep shooting at a fleeing BG and hit a bystander, and things change.

I agree completely.

[TheKlawMan]

The one good thing to be gleaned from this discourse is that I am not AB's friend and have no desire to befriend the likes that would execute a helpless person. Don't give me this nonsense that AB didn't mean that he would shoot the guy who was passed out on his couch. I made those facts quite clear in the hypthetical and if that isn't what he meant he should say so for himself. As for the fool that thinks I want to make it easier to sue homeowners, how does that work when the law I am complaining of is Florida's and I am in California? As for the stand your ground law, AB is the one that is changing the parmeters I made it abundantly clear that I was taliking about Castle Doctrine law and I even cited Florida's statute as well as Califonia's in post #1. The Floridian statute entitled "Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm".

Regardless, I see that AB has stooped to dragging religion into a discussion of legal rights. Open your eyes, AB. Everything you highlighed concerns taking the life of the agressor; NOT THE INNOCENT BYSTANDER.

As for having amplified the facts of the hypothetical, I just wanted to make sure that you thought that you had a right to execute an intruder even though they no longer posed any kind of a threat.

I also see that he is treating the reckless killing of a bystander as an accident. Depending on the degree of recklessness, for instnace if the defendant acts with a complete and utter disregard for human life, such a shooting is generally not treated as an acdident but intentional homcide.

Anyway, I see no purpose in futher spending time on this thread.

[TheKlawMan]

As far as hypotheticals go, I would feel badly for an innocent bystander caught in the crossfire, but I think the criminal liability and civil liability should attach entirely to the intruder, unless it could be proven that the homeowner had behaved in a reckless manner.

MLeake, The bolded point is exactly what I have been talking about. As enacted, the Florida statute confirms immunity on a homeowner who's home is unlawfully and forcibly entered and some are concerned that such immunity extends to the shooting of an innocent bystander by a reckless homeowner. Personally, I am not convinced that Florida law will be construed as such.

By the way, wouldn't you say it was reckless to discharge a firerm in a densely populated area where there was no need, such as when the bad guy is incapacitated, whether they are passed out drunk or had been incapacitated by a previous shot to center mass?

[JohnKSa]

What a mess...