Castle Doctrine Used on Drunk Fla. Man

H

hillbillyshooter

New member
Florida 24 year old man was apparently drunk and entered the wrong home. 61 year old home owner shot the man twice. Hopefully the homeowner will be protected under Florida's Castle Docterine/Stand your Ground Law, because he had no idea who the person was and why he was in his home.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,435464,00.html

While I looked at this I noticed the Colorodo Incident from last week where a college kid was breaking into what he thought was his house and was killed. The commentators responses are very irritating, blame the guns and the laws. It seems that being 2 times the legal BAC gives you a pass for any stupid behavior you decide to do.

Video:
http://www.foxnews.com/video-search/m/21811524/drunk_man_shot_entering_wrong_house.htm

But watch, the grabbers will want to use this against guns, when it was alcohol or stupidity that brought both of these situations to reality. Can't outlaw stupid I guess.
 
S

SPUSCG

New member
someone in portland executed 3 people with a 22 automatic, shot one twice in the head, got SD and walked free. I believe in property defense but you cant call castle doctrine on everything. then again, most cases you hear about around the country you only get what the media tells you, and we all know of the bias
 
H

hogdogs

Staff In Memoriam
Home invasion, burglary of an occupied dwelling and simple B&E are plainly defined and it doesn't have a clause stating it is okay for a drunk to mistake your home for his... discretion being the finer part of valor is all fine and good most of the time but it is a very fast paced situation and the drunk only has to make one more mistake to find them selves putting hemoglobin all over my floors!
since we named the law the "castle doctrine" I am forced to wonder what a drunken peasant would face had he accidentally broke into the king's castle in the days of yore when we had kings and subjects...
Brent
 
D

Double Naught Spy

New member
Home invasion, burglary of an occupied dwelling and simple B&E are plainly defined and it doesn't have a clause stating it is okay for a drunk to mistake your home for his...
Click to expand...

I sort of wonder how often these are mistakes versus being drunk/stoned enough to have the nerve to attempt the intrusion.
 
O

OuTcAsT

New member
I sort of wonder how often these are mistakes versus being drunk/stoned enough to have the nerve to attempt the intrusion.
Today 10:54 AM
Click to expand...

Well DNS that is the question, and one that you have to decide in a very short amount of time.

I think the gentleman who was commenting during the video (the second video) has the right idea, You have to presume that anyone who is brazen enough to break out a window, and reach in to unlock the door, (In this instance while a dog is barking, and people are shouting) should know that someone is inside, and may defend themselves. Level of intoxication not withstanding. That is a call that a homeowner should not have to second guess. there is no way to know for sure what the intruders' mental state is.


As for myself, if he reaches in the door, he has crossed the line.
 
Last edited:
V

vranasaurus

New member
I don't blame a homeowner for shooting someone who broke into his house even if it was by mistake. Many gun owners, including myself, would possibly do the same.
 
Z

ZeSpectre

New member
I sort of wonder how often these are mistakes versus being drunk/stoned enough to have the nerve to attempt the intrusion.
Click to expand...

Well, "back in the day" when I worked LE we eventually caught a burgler who made a practice of swishing some alcohol in his mouth and on his clothes so that if he was caught he could just "play drunk" as an alibi. Apparently it worked as at least one homeowner who caught him felt sorry for the "poor drunk" and let him go.

I guess my point is you simply can not assume that someone who has broken into your home is harmless.
 
J

JWT

New member
The Castle Doctrine should definitely apply in this case IMO. It's certainly not reasonable to expect a homeowner to ask an intruder if they're drunk or in the wrong house. The anti gunners and ambulance chasers will almost certainly dissagree.
 
F

FyredUp

Moderator
I guess I am the dissenting voice once again.

I understand defending yourself and your family INSIDE your home. I don't understand the shooting of someone just because they are there. I know, I know, you are all going to say that if he is inside your house and he knows you are there he means you harm. I guess I am cut from a different cloth than some of you and if I shot and killed that drunk for being in my home only to find out he thought he was in his house I would have a hard time living with that.

I am not being a wise ass here, not at all, but could someone explain to me the mindset that would shoot in this situation?
 
B

Brian Pfleuger

Moderator Emeritus
I guess I am the dissenting voice once again.

I understand defending yourself and your family INSIDE your home. I don't understand the shooting of someone just because they are there. I know, I know, you are all going to say that if he is inside your house and he knows you are there he means you harm. I guess I am cut from a different cloth than some of you and if I shot and killed that drunk for being in my home only to find out he thought he was in his house I would have a hard time living with that.

I am not being a wise ass here, not at all, but could someone explain to me the mindset that would shoot in this situation?
Click to expand...

I tend to side with your line of thinking but I might be able to explain some of the responses.


1) Some of us live in VERY safe places, places where there is virtually no crime, places where it is likely that someone coming in your window really is just the drunk neighbor. Some of us do not live in those places. In some places that person coming in the window in far more likely to be an armed felon or a determined rapist. If I lived in one of those places, I'd move, but I'd also lean more in the shoot to protect direction.

2) Some people are of the persuasion that breaking and entering is, in and of itself, justification for shooting someone. In fact, that is essentially the essence of the "Castle Doctrine". A mans home is his castle which he has the right to defend with force whether the intruder is after his TV or his wife.

3) Some people (no reference to ANYBODY in this thread) are do-good Rambo types on the internet but would more likely pee themselves than shoot an intruder, regardless of their hyperbole on-line.

4) There are also those who believe that some one who steals from you is essentially stealing a little piece of your life, since you have a certain amount of unrecoverable time invested in everything you own, and it is therefore justifiable to defend those possessions with force, including lethal force.

With the exception of #3 I am not making any judgements for or against any of these attitudes. They are simply what I have observed.
 
Last edited:
C

Creature

Moderator
Some people are of the persuasion that breaking and entering is, in and of itself, justification for shooting someone. In fact, that is essentially the essence of the "Castle Doctrine". A mans home is his castle which he has the right to defend with force whether the intruder is after his TV or his wife.
Click to expand...

Are you not of this persuasion?

The beauty of the CD is that the man doesn't have to wait to find out which the intruder was after.

3) Some people (no reference to ANYBODY in this thread) are do-good Rambo types on the internet but would more likely pee themselves than shoot an intruder, regardless of their hyperbole on-line.
Click to expand...

Unless you're like me...I would likely pee AND shoot.
 
Z

ZeSpectre

New member
I understand defending yourself and your family INSIDE your home. I don't understand the shooting of someone just because they are there. I know, I know, you are all going to say that if he is inside your house and he knows you are there he means you harm. I guess I am cut from a different cloth than some of you and if I shot and killed that drunk for being in my home only to find out he thought he was in his house I would have a hard time living with that.
Click to expand...

FyredUp,
Actually I have a lot of respect for your stance and knowing your own mind. I do not agree with you but I do respect the ideals.

Unfortunately the problem is, basically, that we're not mind-readers.

Self-Defense events in a home usually happen under confusing circumstances and they happen FAST so I think most folks here create their response plan with a goal of "least personal harm".

For example, if you pull the trigger and it was an innocent mistake that's a horrible situation that you (and your family) will have to live with. for some folks "survivors guilt" is nearly unbearable.

On the other hand if you stand there in a moral quandary and loose the initiative you could wind up like these folks.

Or these folks.

Or these folks.

I think concern over the latter situations is what causes many to lean strongly towards "protect my family and intruder be damned".
 
H

hogdogs

Staff In Memoriam
All I know is my chicken liver butt would say "Heavens to betsy someone just broke in..." That, in and of itself is plenty of threat to my safety to cause me to need to take measures.
How easy would it be for some thug to "ACT" drunk all the while intending to leave no witnesses? Don't reckon I am gonna try to become an acting judge no more than I am a shrink seeing the BG as just a poor guy needing to feed the youngins'
Brent
 
B

Brian Pfleuger

Moderator Emeritus
Do you believe that breaking and entering is, in and of itself, justification for shooting someone?
Click to expand...

Well, PURELY in and of itself? No.

Example: I get up in the night to pee and I hear a bang like someone kicked my door open. When I look there is a person standing inside the door.

They have broken and entered. Do I shoot? No. I challenge them and react to their response. If I feel threatened, so on and so forth, I will shoot if I feel I need.
 
W

Wuchak

New member
FyredUp said:
I guess I am the dissenting voice once again.

I understand defending yourself and your family INSIDE your home. I don't understand the shooting of someone just because they are there. I know, I know, you are all going to say that if he is inside your house and he knows you are there he means you harm. I guess I am cut from a different cloth than some of you and if I shot and killed that drunk for being in my home only to find out he thought he was in his house I would have a hard time living with that.

I am not being a wise ass here, not at all, but could someone explain to me the mindset that would shoot in this situation?
Click to expand...

1. Yell "STOP OR I'LL SHOOT!" at the person coming in the broken window.
2. If they retreat and run then call the police and let them search for them.
3. If they stop where they are then hold them at gunpoint until the police arrive to sort things out.
4. If they keep coming through the window then you shoot. At this point the person knows you are there and knows you are armed and is coming anyways. If you wait any longer to act you and your family will probably end up dead.

You have about 3 seconds to decide if the person means to kill you or not and to act. If you guess wrong one way there is a very slim chance that it will turn out to be someone who wasn't going to kill you, if you guess wrong the other there is a very slim chance that you and your family will live. Which side are you going to err on? Remember you didn't ask to be placed in the position of having to make this decision. You were just hanging out in your house. The person invading your home, for whatever reason, placed you in this situation. You, not they, deserve the benefit of the doubt.

ETA: Update on the story of the family in Texas linked to above. It turns out their 16 year old daughter was one of the killers, along with the boyfriend they made her break-up with http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/03/02/texas.deaths/ and they planned it for a month http://www.newser.com/story/20712/texas-teen-planned-familys-murder-for-a-month-cops.html

Update from 1/3/2009. They all pled guilty. The daughter got 2 life sentences +25 years. She's 16 now and will be eligible for parole when she is 59. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/03/erin-caffey-17-gets-2-lif_n_155013.html?page=2&show_comment_id=19366464#comment_19366464
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top