Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No ... the reason you try to get out - if possible - is because, if an intruder is armed, there is a chance that you will get shot.
I'm not saying that is bad advice as already noted. My point is LE should never be able to second guess what actions you take if you don't. In many states you have the duty to flee and it's certainly possible you the homeowner can be charged if a DA decides you could have fled, that is insane. Being charged with murder because of the decisions they have made should never be a concern for the homeowner. The homeowner is the victim and should not be victimized yet again by law enforcement.
Before I respond, let me make it perfectly clear that I do think that home owners should be able to use deadly force against intruders. So I am trying to come at this issue from the homeowners perspective and my intent is both to explore the legal risks to the homeowner after the event as well as the physical risks to the homeowner if the intruder(s) is armed. This echoes the discussion at the recent CCW class that I took ....
Looking at Florida's wording, the key term is 'forcibly'. If an intruder enters through an open slider or an unlocked door, does this meet the definition of 'forcibly'?
I served on a Grand Jury a while ago and we did have one case of an intruder in a person's home. That intruder was drunk and didn't really know what he was doing. The homeowner punched him, threw him out and called the police. We did indict the intruder and there were no charges against the homeowner. The comment from several on the jury was that the intruder was lucky that a punch was all he got. So I think that - depending on the state and depending on the city - juries will tend to side with the homeowner. But the law being what it is, you just never know.
Inside the home or just on their property? There have been a few crazies in Florida who have shot salespeople, meter readers, for simply being on their property with No Trespassing Signs. Do they have that right too?
I once pulled into the wrong Florida cookie cutter house coming home from work very, very tired. It wasn't until I actually got out of my car that I realized that the potted plants weren't mine. I left immediately but would that justify the "Castle Doctrine" too? Unfortunately, there are far too many who might think so.
I'm not saying that is bad advice as already noted. My point is LE should never be able to second guess what actions you take if you don't. In many states you have the duty to flee and it's certainly possible you the homeowner can be charged if a DA decides you could have fled, that is insane. Being charged with murder because of the decisions they have made should never be a concern for the homeowner. The homeowner is the victim and should not be victimized yet again by law enforcement.
So I am trying to come at this issue from the homeowners perspective and my intent is both to explore the legal risks to the homeowner after the event..
There should never be a legal risk. The only question here should be has the person you shot illegally entered your home without any involvement by you (e.g. the guy that baited that teenager). If the answer is yes it should be case closed.
I'm not saying that is bad advice as already noted. My point is LE should never be able to second guess what actions you take if you don't. In many states you have the duty to flee and it's certainly possible you the homeowner can be charged if a DA decides you could have fled, that is insane. Being charged with murder because of the decisions they have made should never be a concern for the homeowner. The homeowner is the victim and should not be victimized yet again by law enforcement.
41 States have a form of the Castle Doctine. So most states, you have no duty to retreat from your home.
Inside the home or just on their property? There have been a few crazies in Florida who have shot salespeople, meter readers, for simply being on their property with No Trespassing Signs. Do they have that right too?
I once pulled into the wrong Florida cookie cutter house coming home from work very, very tired. It wasn't until I actually got out of my car that I realized that the potted plants weren't mine. I left immediately but would that justify the "Castle Doctrine" too? Unfortunately, there are far too many who might think so.
And now we are in that legal minefield again. When is it trespass (deadly force is not justified) and when is it burglary (deadly force is justified)? In Arizona, being on the property is trespass. Being in a residential structure is burglary but only if you have 'intent to commit any theft or any felony'.
Of course, if you walk into someone's home uninvited then the homeowner does not know if you intend to commit any theft or any felony. That is when you come up against the standard of 'reasonably believes' and will the DA or a jury agree with the homeowner?
Inside the home or just on their property? There have been a few crazies in Florida who have shot salespeople, meter readers, for simply being on their property with No Trespassing Signs. Do they have that right too?
I once pulled into the wrong Florida cookie cutter house coming home from work very, very tired. It wasn't until I actually got out of my car that I realized that the potted plants weren't mine. I left immediately but would that justify the "Castle Doctrine" too? Unfortunately, there are far too many who might think so.
Inside the home = Castle Doctrine
Outside the home = Stand your Ground
Stand your ground law is nothing more than taking the Castle Doctrine and applying it outside the home in any place that you have the right to be. However in Stand Your Ground cases, your life must be threatened by someone that has the ability to harm you.
Absolutely correct Orlandochuck. Alabama also has the Castle Doctrine which also extends to your vehicle. If someone enters your home without your consent (regardless of whether they broke in or not) they are intruding. In my house, you would not be received well as you would be blocking my egress from the building. Late last year I had someone attempt to push their way into my house after I declined to buy the "magazines" they wanted to sell me only to be met with something that promptly turned them around. Had they made it through the threshold that situation would have ended much differently.
The homeowner had no malicious intent before being intruded upon so I see no reason to prosecute them. Had they invited someone into their home with the intent to harm them, that would be a different situation altogether.
There should never be a legal risk. The only question here should be has the person you shot illegally entered your home without any involvement by you (e.g. the guy that baited that teenager). If the answer is yes it should be case closed.
The problem is that there often is a legal risk. And as homeowners we need to try to understand those.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
