Neighborhood watch shooting in FL

[hepcat]

one where stating a willingness to shoot an unarmed person in the back was a required part of the job interview.

What job would require that?

Seriously. I would love to know what interviewer would ask that kind of question.

As for the topic at hand, I've read through LM's last response twice and I've come to the conclusion it's a lost cause at this point. I'm not even sure what he's saying now.

But I do apologize for using hyperbole earlier. I don't like it when others use it against me, so I should avoid the same. However, my point still stands in that I believe giving people the right to kill outside the realm of self defense creates a loophole I'm not comfortable with. I've seen nothing that changes my mind, and to be honest much that reinforces that belief. I actually think Blackhawk summed up my feelings when he noted that if he had to choose between losing material goods that can be replaced and killing someone that wasn't an immediate threat to mine or anyone elses' existence, I'm going with door number 1 every time. I don't trust my judgement (or any other's) enough to guarantee I'm doing the right thing under those circumstances.

[RLMullen]

The point is that drawing the line at self-defense is a clear, easy to understand line.

My point to you earlier is that this line is *not* clear, nor is it easy to understand. In addition it puts the burden on the soon-to-be victim far too close to the actual crime of "inflicting severe bodily harm" for them to be able to make a reasonable life or death decision. The result is people becoming crime victims due to worry about the legality of a deadly force defense, and/or people having to spend inordinate amounts of time and money defending themselves in court when an overzealous prosecutor wants to quibble over where the self-defense line is drawn.

The very reason that we are seeing an increase in "Castle Doctrine" laws and an expansion of existing castle doctrine is precicely because your clear and easy to understand line is ambiguous and obscure. Also, your and Hepcat's and Backhawk's persistence in focusing on the specific crime for which deadly force is used detracts from the real scope and purpose of castle doctrine. Castle doctrine is concerned with place, specifically places of secure abode. That's why most castle laws deal with a person's home, car, and workplace. The purpose of castle doctrine is to give people more leeway in using deadly force within places of secure abode. This doesn't make life and death decsions clearer, but it provides a needed buffer for the one making the decision.

If you want to have a discussion on whether Florida's castle law goes too far, as Jag alluded to earlier, then I'd likely agree that Florida's law is too expansive in its definition of "place". I'm not real sure about Texas' castle law, but since I live in a rural area with sparse police coverage, I like the idea of my neighbors protecting my property... so, "Yee Haw!"

[hepcat]

The point is that drawing the line at self-defense is a clear, easy to understand line.

My point to you earlier is that this line is *not* clear, nor is it easy to understand.

People running towards you (or someone else) with knife/gun/large baseball bat = self defense *

People running away from you/people in neighbor's yard and completely unaware of you = not self defense

For the latter, we have 911. You also run the risk of getting killed yourself if you now find yourself in their crosshairs and you've missed.

I'm having no trouble seeing this as clear and easy to understand. Perhaps the disconnect between our views is so great that we'll never understand the other's viewpoints. If that's the case, I'm not sure what can be said.

* I'm not sure if el guapo would agree with this, but I would also include someone breaking into your home while you or someone else was home. I would hope for a warning to be issued first, but I can certainly understand the urgent and frightening immediacy of that situation.

[Isgrimnur]

Texas

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.
...
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

There's also a phrase in there specifically about the actor not provoking the person on whom the force was used.

[hepcat]

wait...we're talking about actors?

fire away, boys. fire away...

[LawBeefaroni]

Texas

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.
...
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

There's also a phrase in there specifically about the actor not provoking the person on whom the force was used.

Well to apply this to the example, robbery is using force or the threat of force on someone to steal from them. The burglary wouldn't qualify. There is no defense of person, it is defense of property. In the Horn example it's not even his property.

[hepcat]

I'm surprised we haven't been pushed over to R&P by now.

[RLMullen]

* I'm not sure if el guapo would agree with this, but I would also include someone breaking into your home while you or someone else was home.

So, when I'm deciding whether or not to kill the intruder in my house, I need to consider whether it is you or ElGuapo who is the prosecutor. The line isn't real clear is it?

Thank you for proving my point.

[Isgrimnur]

Turns out that is the text of a bill. The full section is here:

Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY.

(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or

(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
and

(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Sec. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or

(2) the actor reasonably believes that:

(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;

(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or

(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

I would love to see some definitions as to where the line for section 9.42: 3(a) lies in terms of protected or recovered lies.

In any case, it appears that the Texas law would not cover the example of stopping the neighbor's robber unless the neighbor asked him to look after his property.

[Jag]

Texas

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.
...
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

There's also a phrase in there specifically about the actor not provoking the person on whom the force was used.

Or as my old Civil Procedure professor used to say: "The Texas homicide defense: He needed killin'."

[Blackhawk]

one where stating a willingness to shoot an unarmed person in the back was a required part of the job interview.

What job would require that?

Corrections officer. If you're in a tower you have a rifle, and if an offender is escaping and is beyond the walls (ie - about to disappear into the woods), you're expected to kill him rather than let him loose in the community. This fact is thoroughly posted and well known to the offenders.

[Isgrimnur]

Fair enough.

[hepcat]

* I'm not sure if el guapo would agree with this, but I would also include someone breaking into your home while you or someone else was home.

So, when I'm deciding whether or not to kill the intruder in my house, I need to consider whether it is you or ElGuapo who is the prosecutor. The line isn't real clear is it?

Thank you for proving my point.

The discussion earlier was about the ability to use deadly force on someone who wasn't an immediate threat. I honestly think el guapo would agree that being alone in a house and hearing an intruder breaking into your home is an immediate threat to your life in some instances. However, I didn't want to speak for him.

But to placate you, I will say that would be the one and only point on which there might be a discussion, IMHO.

In any case, you've attempted to move out of the realm of immediate threat and use the death of someone as a way to "send a message" to others. You've also stated that you believe your "kill zone" (sorry, couldn't resist) extends beyond your home and does not have to include an actual threat of bodily harm against another (as is the case with Horn). I still disagree strongly with that and think the line is quite clear.

[Rip]

one where stating a willingness to shoot an unarmed person in the back was a required part of the job interview.

What job would require that?

Corrections officer. If you're in a tower you have a rifle, and if an offender is escaping and is beyond the walls (ie - about to disappear into the woods), you're expected to kill him rather than let him loose in the community. This fact is thoroughly posted and well known to the offenders.

Also a nuclear weapons security guard when encountering someone in an exclusion zone.

[Combustible Lemur]

I should add that I don't have a ton of sympathy for burglars who wind up getting shot during the crime. To some degree getting shot is a foreseeable risk when you break into someone's home, regardless of what their legal rights to shoot you are.

Still, given the people one encounters on a day to day basis I tend to think it not a great idea to give people ill-defined rights to shoot people.

+ 1
Guy you didn't kill, kills the person in the next home he burglarizes.

As someone disillusioned with calling 911 after the fact and some of the realities of neighborhood burglary sprees. The line on communities protecting themselves clear or not, is not simple or easy.

sent from incredible'

[Isgrimnur]

Also a nuclear weapons security guard when encountering someone in an exclusion zone.

Yeah, but that's not exactly a post that you interview for. Military postings I kinda took as a given.

[Zurai]

The point of Castle laws isn't to legalize killing burglars, it's to legalize defending yourself against people who are invading your home. You don't know if they're just burglars until they leave without killing and/or raping you and your family.

As a fairly liberal person who has no desire to ever own or fire a gun, I have no conceptual problems with Castle laws at all. If you've broken into someone's house in a Castle law state, you either know that there's a high risk you'll be shot, or you're too fucking stupid and unethical to matter to me.

Now, the specific case in the OP is ludicrous. This guy should get anything and everything the law can throw at him. Also, IANAL, but I didn't think Florida's Castle laws covered this circumstance. 'Course, the last time I had anything resembling a reason to know about them was in high school Law Studies class, which was pretty broad.

[Jag]

The point of Castle laws isn't to legalize killing burglars, it's to legalize defending yourself against people who are invading your home. You don't know if they're just burglars until they leave without killing and/or raping you and your family.

As a fairly liberal person who has no desire to ever own or fire a gun, I have no conceptual problems with Castle laws at all. If you've broken into someone's house in a Castle law state, you either know that there's a high risk you'll be shot, or you're too fucking stupid and unethical to matter to me.

Now, the specific case in the OP is ludicrous. This guy should get anything and everything the law can throw at him. Also, IANAL, but I didn't think Florida's Castle laws covered this circumstance. 'Course, the last time I had anything resembling a reason to know about them was in high school Law Studies class, which was pretty broad.

This extension of Florida's 'castle law' applies anywhere you feel threatened by deadly harm. I think I stated this before, but it essentially codifies existing judicial doctrine which has been expanding to allow the use of deadly force in self defense.

[Zurai]

Yeah, I've got problems with that, then. I agree with being able to protect your home; in a lot of situations, escaping simply isn't an option, or would leave other family members vulnerable.

Out on the street? Way, way easier to escape confrontation and way, way less chance that family members will be at risk if you do escape. Plus there's already legal provisions for self defense if you're actually attacked or threatened with violence (at least, I think having a gun pointed at you counts as far as self defense is concerned, even if it isn't fired). No need to extend the Castle doctrine that far.

[Blackhawk]

Self defense generally* has a certain degree of common sense tied in with it. If you're out and a man in a wheelchair is coming at you with a knife, and you have avenues of escape, it generally isn't self defense to shoot him.

If you're out and someone is threatening you with a knife from 40 feet away and you don't at least try to escape before you shoot, you may be in hot water.

If you're out and someone is threatening you with a knife and you have a six year old child who couldn't possibly outrun the attacker (or would weigh you down enough your couldn't), that's a factor in your favor.

*Note I said generally.

[Zurai]

Self defense generally* has a certain degree of common sense tied in with it. If you're out and a man in a wheelchair is coming at you with a knife, and you have avenues of escape, it generally isn't self defense to shoot him.

If you're out and someone is threatening you with a knife from 40 feet away and you don't at least try to escape before you shoot, you may be in hot water.

If you're out and someone is threatening you with a knife and you have a six year old child who couldn't possibly outrun the attacker (or would weigh you down enough your couldn't), that's a factor in your favor.

*Note I said generally.

Yep, and all of those make sense to me. If it's reasonable for you to escape without putting yourself or family in undue danger, that's what you should try to do. Trying to fight back is inevitably going to elevate the level of violence and could cause others to be hurt. At the same time, if you can't reasonably escape, the law should (and generally does) allow you to defend yourself from violence.

We don't need extensions of the already-existing protection to allow vigilantism. As cool as Western movies are, society really doesn't need a return to the days where the guy with the gun makes the rules.

[Arcanis]

Self defense generally* has a certain degree of common sense tied in with it. If you're out and a man in a wheelchair is coming at you with a knife, and you have avenues of escape, it generally isn't self defense to shoot him.

If you're out and someone is threatening you with a knife from 40 feet away and you don't at least try to escape before you shoot, you may be in hot water.

If you're out and someone is threatening you with a knife and you have a six year old child who couldn't possibly outrun the attacker (or would weigh you down enough your couldn't), that's a factor in your favor.

*Note I said generally.

Interesting choice of range for the knife. Years ago I was told by a cop they were expected to shoot someone brandishing a knife at 30 feet, due to less than that the person could stumble far enough to stab you in the leg before dropping.

[RLMullen]

* I'm not sure if el guapo would agree with this, but I would also include someone breaking into your home while you or someone else was home.

So, when I'm deciding whether or not to kill the intruder in my house, I need to consider whether it is you or ElGuapo who is the prosecutor. The line isn't real clear is it?

Thank you for proving my point.

The discussion earlier was about the ability to use deadly force on someone who wasn't an immediate threat. I honestly think el guapo would agree that being alone in a house and hearing an intruder breaking into your home is an immediate threat to your life in some instances. However, I didn't want to speak for him.

But to placate you, I will say that would be the one and only point on which there might be a discussion, IMHO.

Placate? That's a funny way of admitting you are wrong.

In any case, you've attempted to move out of the realm of immediate threat and use the death of someone as a way to "send a message" to others. You've also stated that you believe your "kill zone" (sorry, couldn't resist) extends beyond your home and does not have to include an actual threat of bodily harm against another (as is the case with Horn). I still disagree strongly with that and think the line is quite clear.

Yes, I said that. Personally, I believe that you should be able to defend you home and your neighbor's home with deadly force, and I believe the bar on determining "defense" should be quite low. Basically, I like Texas' castle law. Florida's castle law goes too far.

[Blackhawk]

Interesting choice of range for the knife. Years ago I was told by a cop they were expected to shoot someone brandishing a knife at 30 feet, due to less than that the person could stumble far enough to stab you in the leg before dropping.

I've seen demonstrations where even an experienced shooter can't clear his holster before a knife attacker under 30 feet closes and strikes. We were always told that at short range, you're better off just skipping the gun and defending yourself bare handed. If you already had your gun unstrapped and your hand on it, you could pull, but forget stances and forget aiming. You just rock it back and fire from the hip, as by the time you do so the attacker will be at arm's length.

[El Guapo]

* I'm not sure if el guapo would agree with this, but I would also include someone breaking into your home while you or someone else was home.

So, when I'm deciding whether or not to kill the intruder in my house, I need to consider whether it is you or ElGuapo who is the prosecutor. The line isn't real clear is it?

Thank you for proving my point.

If you're looking for a system where who the prosecutor is does not matter much, then you're tilting at windmills. Who the prosecutor is matters a TON in the application of criminal law not just here but in general. What's more is that there really isn't much one can do about that. In this case for example the only way you could really construct a system where the prosecutor does not matter is if you make a straight "killing a non-resident inside your home is by definition legal, no questions asked" rule. But that would obviously invite all sorts of abuse wherein you could validly kill anyone inside your home, even if you invited them inside.

Outside of that rule, there's going to be some inquiry into the circumstances of the death, and the identity of the prosecutor is going to be relevant to that inquiry.

Now, I'm not opposed to a rule that says that "if someone's unlawfully present in your home, then we will presume that the shooter was acting in reasonable self-defense absent evidence to the contrary."

As to the particulars here, based on what I'd know I say both Zimmerman (the skittles shooter) and Horn (the Texas neighbor shooter) should both be charged with crimes - murder or manslaughter.

[Rip]

I love the way the news plays right into our discussions.

A man stabbed four people at a downtown Ohio office building and then was shot by an officer as he left the building, police officials said.
Columbus police spokesman Sgt. Rich Weiner said three of the victims were in critical condition at a downtown hospital, while the fourth received minor injuries.
The attack was reported at about 12:40 p.m. Wednesday at a building that houses offices of the Ohio attorney general and Miami-Jacobs Career College.
Weiner says the suspect confronted one victim inside the building near Miami-Jacobs Career College. He said other people inside intervened and took away one knife the suspect was using.
Weiner says those who intervened didn't realize suspect had a second knife.
A female officer responding to a report of multiple stabbings at the college saw victims when she arrived on the scene. She confronted the suspect who was armed with two knives, one in each hand, NBC station WCMH reported, citing a police source. The suspect went toward the officer in a violent manner so she fired multiple shots. The officer was not injured.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/ ... umbus-ohio



Good for her.

And I would have been ok with someone shooting him in the back as he fled.

[hepcat]

How does this relate to Horn or Zimmerman...or any of the previous discussions? He was shot by a police officer, he had already proven to be a murderer and he was still armed when he menaced the officer that shot him.

[Rip]

How does this relate to Horn or Zimmerman...or any of the previous discussions? He was shot by a police officer, he had already proven to be a murderer and he was still armed when he menaced the officer that shot him.

Related to the side-discussion about knife wielders and that they are as dangerous if not more so than someone with a gun. Not to shooting justification.

[hepcat]

Ah, I see. NM.

[Bob]

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/se ... d-shooting" target="_blank

The quite chilling 911 calls have been released.

From the 8 or so calls during the confrontation between Zimmerman and Martin it's clear that Zimmerman fired once, Martin screamed for help for long enough for the neighbors to call 911, and then Zimmerman shot Martin dead.

I don't think self-defense is going to fly.

[hepcat]

My god. In that second call you can clearly hearing the kid screaming for help. I'm guessing that that's after the warning shot (the article says zimmerman fired twice). That second shot just screams "execution".

Zimmerman's father is telling the press that because his son is at least partially hispanic that he can't be called a racist.

I'm glad hear that this case is getting national interest now.

[Turtle]

Yeah, pretty clear that was an execution.

Gun arguments aside, there's people who can be plenty trained with a gun so that it's not a threat by accident. But who are too willing to take lives, those people are just as dangerous as some criminals, if not more.

When a person gets to the point where he's begging for help. He's pacified and is no longer a threat. I doubt the kid had a gun of his own, or a decent weapon.

I hope some of the police lose their jobs as well, no sympathy for those guys who tried to obstruct justice in this matter. The family had to sue to get the evidence released.

[deadzone]

So gruesome and heartbreaking. Fear and guns - not a good combination. Sounded pretty much like an execution in my opinion.

I would be interested to see reactions if the colors were reversed on this one.

[LawBeefaroni]

Paraphrased, from what I remebmer hearing on the radio:
Disptach: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yes.
Disptach: We don't need you to do that...

Right there he went too far. He's clearly the instigator. I think in the initial call he says there had been break-ins in the neighborhood so he's targeting this kid from the start.

[hepcat]

Another article on the incident that I read over the weekend noted that the police department involved has some other issues that are coming to light now. I'm curious to see just what these issues are.

[El Guapo]

It seems like it's getting increasingly difficult to justify not arresting Zimmerman.

[deadzone]

It seems like it's getting increasingly difficult to justify not arresting Zimmerman.

I hope that this is the case.

[Kurth]

It seems like it's getting increasingly difficult to justify not arresting Zimmerman.

I hope that this is the case.

Same. How on earth is this guy not behind bars awaiting trial??? And why hasn't this case gotten more press? Seems like the media is treating it as footnote-worthy. This should be headline news.

[hepcat]

It's definitely getting more attention than I think you believe. Al Sharpton has been invited in by the family and I'm sure it will move to the front page at that point...and cease to be about the victim and more about Al.

[Jag]

It's getting a ton of press, but it's with the State Attorney now. My gut tells me there will be an arrest, but I honestly don't know how long these things take at that level.