Man Stops Home Invasion With KSG Shotgun - VIDEO - Page 2

Glenn E. Meyer · December 20, 2018, 07:08 PM

Let's not re-try Zimmerman. That was discussed into the ground at the time.

Back to this sterling example of family.

Reloadron · December 20, 2018, 08:30 PM

I have seen this play out in the courts before in the Greater Cleveland, Ohio suburbs before. We do have Castle Doctrine. In one well publicized case the home owner pursued a retreating home invasion suspect. The homeowner was in his yard when he shot and killed the suspect a full backyard next door. When the suspect was retreating, literally running away you can't just open fire. While dead bad guys is a nice thought you can't just shoot them as they are fleeing, that is the law. The homeowner was charged and convicted but I can't recall if it was manslaughter or murder.

In this case the only redemption I see for D1 is he was shot at and apparently a jury felt his returning fire at the fleeing suspect(s) was justified. There may have been other circumstances we simply don't know as the relationships are just strange.

Ron

MoArk Willy · December 20, 2018, 08:31 PM

Self defense ends when the intruder /attackers are on the run.
Once they left the home he had absolutely no legal right under Castle or Stand Your Ground to fire at them. You cannot shoot someone in the back and call it self-defense.....PERIOD.

DT Guy · December 20, 2018, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoArk Willy

Self defense ends when the intruder /attackers are on the run.
Once they left the home he had absolutely no legal right under Castle or Stand Your Ground to fire at them. You cannot shoot someone in the back and call it self-defense.....PERIOD.

That's certainly true-but after receiving fire, I suspect many reasonable folks would 'reflexively' continue the fight until the opponent was neutralized.

I had an instructor once who used to say, "It's important you can slow down as fast as you can speed up" in lethal force incidents; I suspect that's easier said than done sometimes.

Larry

briandg · December 21, 2018, 06:40 AM

willy, you are splitting a few fine hairs.

The guy had a legal right to be anywhere on the property he is defending. some jurisdictions allow him to defend his safety and life from exactly where he stands, no matter where it is. If he went outside because of a legitimate need, to make sure that they hadn't doubled around to the back door, for example, or had a can of gas outside, that's one thing. If he was out there from legitimate need and he was fired upon, then just as it was inside his home, it would be legitimate self defense.

Intent matters, however, if he went outside to chase the guys off or to maybe even mock them as they ran, or even try a few more times to drop them, then he crossed over the line from performing a legitimate errand to re-escalating the conflict. Stupid, and completely out of the realm of self defense. Not legally protected. It will have to be run through the courts system, for a jury to decide just how big an idiot he was, and whether he committed a crime.

All of this is dependent on the laws of the jurisdiction and there are still several other things that must be judge before the person can be said to have acted in legitimate defense of himself or others. the bottom line, however, is that a person can defend, but we are not gunfighters or soldiers, nor policemen, and we have no guaranteed rights to attack a criminal unless he is currently in the act of violence that threatens our life or safety. Once the threat to one's self is over, whether the attacker is incapacitated, has surrendered, or is running for his life screaming like a little girl, the reason for further 'defense' is gone, as well as our legal rights to further 'defend' ourselves.

briandg · December 21, 2018, 07:28 AM

Just for myself, I have seen and read a little extra along with the two shown links. There is no question in my mind at all that he should have been convicted, especially if he didn't answer all of the relevant questions with all of the right answers.

how many times did he leave a place of safety and re-engage the men who had not, as far as can be proven, engaged in activities that justified deadly force in the first place?

He obviously, clearly planned for a confrontation, meaning that he knew in advance that it would be happening. He obviously, clearly stepped out of line when he continued to shoot at the men who had disengaged. having 'no duty to retreat' cannot be interpreted as having a legitimate right to pursue and continue to engage the suspects, not at all.

The laws as written in florida don't give any support at all, nothing, zippo, to support his decision to pursue and kill a home invader. The laws are simple and once you go outside of those protected circumstances, the laws are written to protect the person who used defensive force to defend himself, not to go on offense.

Castle law of florida is likewise devoid of any justification for his actions.

Quote:

The presumption set forth in subsection (2) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;

The titleholder went into the home, and unless he engaged in activity that justified the use of force under the stand your ground law, there may be some question. Stand your ground law doesn't limit the location, it gives blanket protection anywhere from defense as far as the law provides. In fact, if those circumstances are considered, it's really unclear that the guy had the right to fire. There was no obvious or proven justification in form of an attack or serious crime in process. In fact, from what is available, it seems that the 'invader' would have been thoroughly justified in killing the 'resident' under stand your ground law when the resident showed his gun.

These statements are what I am getting from the very simple, very clear few sentences that are part of the codes of the state of florida.

Leaf · December 21, 2018, 02:23 PM

I'm guessing the father-in-law or soon to be ex-father-in-law either returned fire in the yard or brandished his own weapon. Or maybe D1's attorney was able to prove the death shot actually occurred while his not-so-beloved father-in-law was inside the residence.

GarandTd · December 21, 2018, 09:02 PM

Seems to me, if D1 knew A1 was coming, and D1 was so fearful as to armor up, D1 should have contacted police. If A1 questioned police and was informed he could not be denied entry(locked out), police should have intervened then. By intervened, I meant be present to intermediate, not necessarily detain.

Bartholomew Roberts · December 22, 2018, 12:21 PM

oops

Tactical Jackalope · January 22, 2019, 04:59 PM

Sorry to bring this up again after a month.

I didn't see anyone mention that there have been cases where a fleeing subject simultaneously shoots in your general direction. Some times resulting in successful/lucky shots and even so far as resulting in death. I know of one case here in Miami Florida where during a gang-related shootout where everyone scattered, someone did just that. It was a temple shot from 15-20 yards away with a 1911 chambered in 45ACP. (Not that the gun or caliber matters, but extra details.)

December 20, 2018, 07:08 PM	#26
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	Let's not re-try Zimmerman. That was discussed into the ground at the time. Back to this sterling example of family. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

December 21, 2018, 06:40 AM	#30
briandg Senior Member Join Date: May 4, 2010 Posts: 5,468	willy, you are splitting a few fine hairs. The guy had a legal right to be anywhere on the property he is defending. some jurisdictions allow him to defend his safety and life from exactly where he stands, no matter where it is. If he went outside because of a legitimate need, to make sure that they hadn't doubled around to the back door, for example, or had a can of gas outside, that's one thing. If he was out there from legitimate need and he was fired upon, then just as it was inside his home, it would be legitimate self defense. Intent matters, however, if he went outside to chase the guys off or to maybe even mock them as they ran, or even try a few more times to drop them, then he crossed over the line from performing a legitimate errand to re-escalating the conflict. Stupid, and completely out of the realm of self defense. Not legally protected. It will have to be run through the courts system, for a jury to decide just how big an idiot he was, and whether he committed a crime. All of this is dependent on the laws of the jurisdiction and there are still several other things that must be judge before the person can be said to have acted in legitimate defense of himself or others. the bottom line, however, is that a person can defend, but we are not gunfighters or soldiers, nor policemen, and we have no guaranteed rights to attack a criminal unless he is currently in the act of violence that threatens our life or safety. Once the threat to one's self is over, whether the attacker is incapacitated, has surrendered, or is running for his life screaming like a little girl, the reason for further 'defense' is gone, as well as our legal rights to further 'defend' ourselves. __________________ None.

December 21, 2018, 09:02 PM	#33
GarandTd Senior Member Join Date: June 15, 2016 Location: Rural PA Posts: 1,639	Seems to me, if D1 knew A1 was coming, and D1 was so fearful as to armor up, D1 should have contacted police. If A1 questioned police and was informed he could not be denied entry(locked out), police should have intervened then. By intervened, I meant be present to intermediate, not necessarily detain. __________________ 22lr, 20 gauge, 8mm Mauser, 35 Remington, 30-06, 5.56x45/223, 9mm, 380acp

December 22, 2018, 12:21 PM	#34
Bartholomew Roberts member Join Date: June 12, 2000 Location: Texas and Oklahoma area Posts: 8,462	oops Last edited by Bartholomew Roberts; December 22, 2018 at 12:27 PM. Reason: wrong thread

December 20, 2018, 08:30 PM	#27
Reloadron Senior Member Join Date: June 8, 2016 Location: Cleveland, Ohio Suburbs Posts: 1,750	I have seen this play out in the courts before in the Greater Cleveland, Ohio suburbs before. We do have Castle Doctrine. In one well publicized case the home owner pursued a retreating home invasion suspect. The homeowner was in his yard when he shot and killed the suspect a full backyard next door. When the suspect was retreating, literally running away you can't just open fire. While dead bad guys is a nice thought you can't just shoot them as they are fleeing, that is the law. The homeowner was charged and convicted but I can't recall if it was manslaughter or murder. In this case the only redemption I see for D1 is he was shot at and apparently a jury felt his returning fire at the fleeing suspect(s) was justified. There may have been other circumstances we simply don't know as the relationships are just strange. Ron

December 20, 2018, 08:31 PM	#28
MoArk Willy Member Join Date: June 15, 2018 Posts: 93	Self defense ends when the intruder /attackers are on the run. Once they left the home he had absolutely no legal right under Castle or Stand Your Ground to fire at them. You cannot shoot someone in the back and call it self-defense.....PERIOD.

December 21, 2018, 02:23 PM	#32
Leaf Junior member Join Date: August 11, 2018 Posts: 198	I'm guessing the father-in-law or soon to be ex-father-in-law either returned fire in the yard or brandished his own weapon. Or maybe D1's attorney was able to prove the death shot actually occurred while his not-so-beloved father-in-law was inside the residence.

January 22, 2019, 04:59 PM	#35
Tactical Jackalope Senior Member Join Date: December 5, 2010 Location: Miami, Florida Posts: 6,429	Sorry to bring this up again after a month. I didn't see anyone mention that there have been cases where a fleeing subject simultaneously shoots in your general direction. Some times resulting in successful/lucky shots and even so far as resulting in death. I know of one case here in Miami Florida where during a gang-related shootout where everyone scattered, someone did just that. It was a temple shot from 15-20 yards away with a 1911 chambered in 45ACP. (Not that the gun or caliber matters, but extra details.)