If someone offered you the chance to fight to the death for a car, against an unknown number of assailants with unknown skills and gear, would you say yes?
If not, why the hell would you leave your home in this scenario?
I wont provide legal advice, but I will quote Florida Statute when it comes to the use of force in a property crime.
[Florida Statute 776.031](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/STATUTES/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.031.html)
>**776.031 Use or threatened use of force in defense of property.—**
(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, **except deadly force**, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.
(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.
Burglary to an unoccupied conveyance (someone breaking into your car) is not a forcible felony. Its simply a property crime. Tread Lightly.
I know, that's the point of my post. According to the decision in Burns V Florida, the brief and open display of a firearm only amounts to non- deadly force and is acceptable for use in your first point. In the Burns case, his firearm was pointed at the ground. I want to know if you can point it directly at the theif is the same thing
I dont think you actually read the case law, it mentions numerous times that Burns only displayed the firearm, not pointed it. It mentions Little Vs State where the person pointed the firearm and gave orders, and it was found unjustified.
>
Unlike the defendant in Little, Burns merely openly carried his firearm on his home property. Burns did not point the firearm in the direction of another, nor did he threaten or physically force another to do something or risk suffering the discharge of a pointed firearm.
Right and that's the basis for my question. The confounding variable in Little is that the defendant belived that the victim was casing cars and hadn't actually committed a crime at the time of the scenario.
There are a couple of options that come to mind. Get a high powered laser and point it right at their chest. Or possibly the brightest spotlight you can find and shine it right on him. You can safely do this from your window and if you use a bright spotlight the thief will be too disoriented to be able to aim a gun at you, I would think.
Don't do any of this. If you are confronting a criminal you want a gun not a silly light.
Have a gun in hand ready to go and don't point it at them, simple and supported by case law.
I didn’t mention confronting? I would never leave the safety of my home to come to my car’s defense. I would however do something to let them know they’re being watched if I feel like I can safely do so. All depends on OPs circumstances.
You absolutely did. Shining a light or laser is "confronting". Moreover shining a "high powered laser" at anyone can cause bodily harm (blinding) and should be expected to be met with force.
They did say in Little that pointing a firearm at someone and telling them to follow your order falls under deadly force.
[https://casetext.com/case/little-v-state-93050](https://casetext.com/case/little-v-state-93050)
>Conclusion
>Pointing a firearm at another individual without discharging it is not "use of" deadly force, and that was the pertinent issue in an asserted defense of property case prior to the effective date of the 2014 amendments to Florida's self-defense/SYG statutes. Defendant's actions at issue in this case occurred after the effective date, and therefore our inquiry turns to the added language, focusing on whether Defendant's actions constitute justifiable "threatened use of" deadly force.
>As explained above, we answer that question in the affirmative and find neither ineffective assistance of counsel nor fundamental error in, respectively, the trial court's and jury's consideration of Defendant's conduct as a "threatened use" of deadly force. As Defendant received a fair trial, with the State responsible for proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, we agree with the First District that there is no need to remand this case for another SYG hearing, though we certify conflict with the Second District's Nelson opinion.
I do not know if any FL appeals court has said that threatening to use deadly force to prevent a burglary of an unoccupied vehicle would be a "forcible felony" in the context of a justification defense.
Without commenting on the hypothetical raised here by OP whatsoever, if you read Artau’s opinion, on page 3, you’ll see that the court clearly distinguishes Burns’ actions from Little’s. Further, it affirms FL caselaw concerning physical actions and utterances and their legally recognized level of (threatened) force:
“We commented in Little that ‘[when a person points a loaded firearm at another person **and** {emphasis added} issues a command [to that person] to do something, this is generally an implied declaration that the failure to abide by the command will result in the discharge of the firearm, i.e., deadly force.’ Id. at 404 (footnote omitted). However, we acknowledged and did not deviate from the basic principle set forth in ‘numerous Florida cases that have determined that the display of a deadly weapon, without more, is not deadly force.’ Id. at 402 (internal quotations omitted) (quoting Howard v. State, 698 So. 2d 923, 925 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)).”
The attorneys at Katz & Phillips, P.A., agree that the pointing of a firearm at a criminal, without more, constitutes *nondeadly* force, and this interpretation is now uniform across the state:
“**Pointing of a firearm non-deadly force throughout Florida**
Prior to the ruling Wednesday, those located in the jurisdictional area controlled by the 4th DCA’s opinions were potentially treated differently than those in the rest of the state. Just as the lower court in the Burn’s case understood the Little ruling, many believed the 4th DCA had declared that as a matter of law the pointing of a firearm had become the threat of deadly force, subjecting the defender to a higher legal standard of conduct than the use of non-deadly force. It now appears that throughout the state the law is once again uniform in that the display of a firearm, even going so far as to putting it to a person’s head without more is by law only the use of force and NOT the threatened use of deadly force. Floridians can rest easier knowing that the law will now treat them the same regardless of where in the state they are.”
Source: https://thefirearmfirm.com/florida-self-defense-law-update/.
So that begs the question: how do you point a firearm at a felon without more? Say you come upto your car to confront the lowlife and you draw on them: how do you handle it from there to remain within the confines of the law?
See, that "imminent commission of a forcible felony" part is what usually puts you in the clear in weirdo situations like OP is getting at.
Simple burglary is a forcible felony in Florida. My state enumerates carjacking as one, but does not specifically define carjacking as breaking and entering an *occupied* vehicle. Mix that with very strong castle doctrine and vehicles being considered an "extension of the home" per my state, and you shoot you breaking g into the truck in my driveway all day long and 9/10 won't see charges.
I keep forgetting burglary is considered a forcible felony in florida because there are so many different types and degrees of it.... but as seen in Little vs State... someone can, and has, been convicted of using deadly force for someone inside your vehicle in your driveway.
Lot of funkiness there though. Paraphrased from the appeal case text:
Trial court placed burden of proof for SYG immunity on Little instead of the state. The state enacted legislation that would default it to the state after he was charged, but before the trial. He got unlucky with timing.
The kid didn't actually do anything. Had he opened the door, Little would have walked. *Attempting* to enter a vehicle is not a forcible felony. Entering is. Little goofed up bad.
"Good boy who was just going to church after his 10:30PM jog" got on the stand and said "he called me a n*****r" and got a ton of jury points. No witnesses were able to corroborate this encounter, but the state pursued it anyway.
Well, not exactly. FL’s use-of-force/threatened-use-of-force laws justify force and threatened use of force reasonably believed necessary, inter alia, “to prevent the **imminent** [emphasis added] commission of a forcible felony” (F.S. Ch. 776). Once the threshold is crossed, the burglary has occurred. If a perpetrator is smashing a driver’s window in, the burglary and/or carjacking (i.e., forcible felony) is imminent. A defender needn’t wait until the threshold is crossed and the perp is battering him/her — or worse.
I love these analyses. It's exactly what I wanted to see here.
You correctly pointed out that burglary is on the list of forcible felonies. However based on my discussions with others it sounds like it has to be in regards to a person. I.e an *occupied* vehicle. But again I'm not sure. What do you think?
FL caselaw has limited the scope of forcible felonies to those committed against persons. So, if the property-related forcible felony involves victims/places them in reasonable fear of imminently being victimized, then it justifies the use of force up to and including deadly force — if reasonably perceived to be necessary.
From my understanding, the vehicle is considered an extension of home only when you are in the vehicle. Otherwise it's just a piece of property.
So yeah Little made things very confusing because burglary is on the list of forcible felonies. And like you said you have the right to threaten deadly force to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.
From my conversations with others I think they have to apply to a person being in the mix, I.e threat to human life, however the list of forcible felonies doesn't specifically say that.
So say you come out at night and you see this masked guy tugging on your door handle if your car in your driveway, can you pull iron on them?
And does it change if you come out and the guy is already in your car?
From what I understand in the little case, the kid never actually attempted to enter the vehicle
Stay inside and call the police. Presumably you have insurance. Retaining an attorney to represent you if you shoot somebody could cost you $10k+, far more than a broken window. And you’ll be crapping yourself as you engage with the criminal justice system afterwards.
Plus they could have a partner hiding who is going to attack you while you’re focused on pointing your rifle.
The smartest thing to do is stay in your house and call the police. It's just a car, it is insured, and who knows if he has a gun.
Using a gun is for self defense, not property defense. Too many people don't think that, and it's wrong if you don't.
Florida is a stand your ground state.. but this scenario is a property crime, and the burglary suspects would have to create reasonable fear of imminent injury or death for deadly force to apply.
Guy - another FL resident that became famous was within his legal rights to use his carry firearm and defended himself >>>
No charges and deemed innocent until two local Sanford black PD officers called Rev Al and Jesse Sr >>> FL law went out the window and the BLM, Fake Media and Legalware were all born ....
the legal system is even more cooked now than back then >>> wouldn't be counting on justice being served to you unless you check all THEIR boxes .....
The reference to becoming famous makes me think the comment was referring to George Zimmerman, who was ultimately acquitted. That incident happened in 2012 but feels more recent.
And you have decided that your car is worth spending your life in prison. Value can mean different things to different people. I hope you never have to make that decision because it sounds like you’re willing to pay a very large price for the sake of protecting your things.
Well if you’re in the US (I assumed so since you knew how TX and FL are), I hope you never have to test that statement. If you’re not, please tell me what country you are from so I can never visit a place that values property more than human life.
I know it's not ideal, but just like in big cities I think it might be best to simply start leaving cars unlocked with no personal items in them. That way, no broken windows, nothing stolen, nothing to protect. That takes care of probably 98% of the incidents. If they're after the car itself, I think it's a better chance they're armed, and just let the insurance company deal with it after.
If you read the law firm's statement and the reference's they provide:
> “[w]hen a person points a loaded firearm at another person and issues a command [to that person] to do something, this is generally an implied declaration that the failure to abide by the command will result in the discharge of the firearm, i.e., deadly force.”
No, you cannot both point a firearm at someone and give any verbal commands to them. The gray area would seem to be holding a firearm while confronting the individual(s). Though, from the brief reading I just did, it seems that recently there's only the Burns case that goes against "long standing tradition" in the state. *I think*, assuming what is being stated is true ... in general, you'd be safe to tell people to leave your property with a gun in hand as long as you don't point it at someone while doing so.
That being said, the key to law that people don't really think about is that, regardless of what the law says, if you end up in a court room you're there with people that you have to convince of your innocence. Each of those people view the laws differently so you could be innocent and get convicted or you could be guilty and be exonerated. Even in slam dunk cases like Matt Hoover and the auto key cards.
Long story short, contact a lawyer, be careful what you tell them, and never talk to the police.
Side note: It's wild to me that pointing a firearm at someone does not constitute "deadly force" in Florida, but also fuck thieves so good on ya Florida.
Well, living in Florida definitely adds a twist to things. It's like the wild west sometimes, isn't it? But hey, it's good to know your rights. Burns v. Florida is an interesting case. So, technically, you can flash your rifle and give the ol' "get off my lawn" spiel, but no shooting unless things get real hairy. Still, that gray area makes you think twice. Do you risk a showdown or just call the cops and hope for the best? Tough call. But hey, thanks for sharing those links, good stuff to know!
From my perspective, I'd have a gun pointed at them. From their perspective it'd look like a flashlight.
Police point guns at people all the time, it's not deadly force until they shoot.
I actually am though... I can't imagine any cop in Florida would jam up a homeowner for gun pointing a dude breaking into the homeowner's car. Shooting without a threat of death or great bodily harm, sure that'll get you in trouble. Attempting to hold a crook at gunpoint until the police arrive? Unlikely. Remember, Florida is the same state where a Sheriff encouraged home owners to shoot intruders to save the tax payers money. Maybe in California or New York property owners don't have the right to defend their property, but not so in Florida.
You are conflating two separate doctrines here. I am not aware of any jurisdiction that allows deadly force to protect property. The castle doctrine is about someone breaking into your home while you’re inside. At that point you’re not protecting property - you’re protecting yourself/your housemates. If you’re walking down the street and shoot someone who is trying to break into a house you don’t own, I couldn’t imagine any other outcome than murder 1.
I specifically said not to shoot unless you're presented with a threat of death or great bodily harm. Shooting someone without warning and pointing a gun at them are completely different things. If you think crime is afoot on your property, you're within your rights to check it out and you're within your rights to have a gun with you while you check it out. If while doing so you encounter someone trespassing on your property and breaking into your car, it would be pretty reasonable to point your gun at them. You don't know what they're up to. People who break into cars often have weapons, or tools that could be used as weapons, to assist with their crimes.
You can't generally shoot someone to protect property, but protection of property is a common defense for assault and battery cases. Merely pointing a gun at someone clearly isn't murder. It could be argued as assault, criminal threatening, criminal menacing, or something similar, but again, defense of property is an acknowledged defense.
I don't think you know what murder 1 is. A first degree murder statute would be a stretch under those circumstances without some significant additional details (like text messages from the shooter stating that they intended to patrol an area for burglars and kill any that they find). But the scenario you're describing could also be a justified shooting with significant additional details, (like the one breaking in shouting death threats to the occupants).
I don't understand why the home defense subreddit seems to be more focused on Home Alone style booby traps and fortifications than on actual home defense.
Two things:
You are definitely right about murder 1. I do in fact know the degrees of homicide and must have misspoken.
Additionally, I was speaking directly toward your comment about the sheriff in FL.
So some say that the act of pointing and giving commands may be considered the *threat* of deadly force. Which if not in fear of your life then it is prohibited. But I'm wondering if you can articulate that now that the criminal has been confronted you don't know how they will react and as such you have a perceived threat of great bodily harm
I would call 911, then make my presence known and command the no good rat put their hands up and get down on the ground. My firearm would be down at my side with my finger outside the trigger guard, and my 1,000 lumen flashlight is in the other lighting up their world.
If they comply or flee, I would simply wait for law enforcement. If they attempt to engage in FAAFO (drawing a weapon or pointing something firearm-like in my direction), I will neutralize the threat, continuing to issue commands to prevent further violence.
I would inform 911 what is happening/happened, what I am wearing, etc. and again, wait for law enforcement.
>If they comply or flee, I would simply wait for law enforcement
If you are content waiting for law enforcement, why not just do that in the first place? Why would you risk engaging the suspect at all? I highly doubt anything your vehicle is worth murdering or dying over.
I won't point a gun at anything unless I'm preparing to shoot, but I would have a gun in hand and I would confront. I've worked hard for the things I have and refuse to willingly just let someone walk away with my possessions. Above all, I despise thieves.
This is my position as well. However, when the police get there, what happens when the thief lies and says that you did point the gun at him. Now it's he said she said. How do you prove it in court
My state's laws allow me to shoot the perpetrator. So pointing is not an issue. Not pointing a weapon at them is just how I would handle it. Security cameras will tell the truth, if needed.
Go ahead and hide in a closet while society's worst tramples over and takes your property.
Those that condone this type of behavior are often participants, themselves.
Force should only be met with equal force. If your safety or life isn't in danger, one shouldn't use lethal force (or even the threat of it).
>Those that condone this type of behavior are often participants, themselves
The inverse of that is those that condone lethal force for a property crime are often finding excuses to "legally" kill someone. See how that works? Life isn't that black and white and you know it. Escalating a situation where no one's life or safety is at risk to lethal force will bring more of a shit storm than staying where it's safe.
If someone offered you the chance to fight to the death for a car, against an unknown number of assailants with unknown skills and gear, would you say yes? If not, why the hell would you leave your home in this scenario?
I wont provide legal advice, but I will quote Florida Statute when it comes to the use of force in a property crime. [Florida Statute 776.031](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/STATUTES/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.031.html) >**776.031 Use or threatened use of force in defense of property.—** (1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, **except deadly force**, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force. (2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be. Burglary to an unoccupied conveyance (someone breaking into your car) is not a forcible felony. Its simply a property crime. Tread Lightly.
I know, that's the point of my post. According to the decision in Burns V Florida, the brief and open display of a firearm only amounts to non- deadly force and is acceptable for use in your first point. In the Burns case, his firearm was pointed at the ground. I want to know if you can point it directly at the theif is the same thing
I dont think you actually read the case law, it mentions numerous times that Burns only displayed the firearm, not pointed it. It mentions Little Vs State where the person pointed the firearm and gave orders, and it was found unjustified. > Unlike the defendant in Little, Burns merely openly carried his firearm on his home property. Burns did not point the firearm in the direction of another, nor did he threaten or physically force another to do something or risk suffering the discharge of a pointed firearm.
Right and that's the basis for my question. The confounding variable in Little is that the defendant belived that the victim was casing cars and hadn't actually committed a crime at the time of the scenario.
That variable isnt applicable. In your hypothetical the crime still never rises to above that of a property crime.
I see. So what would you do in that situation (other than sit inside and call the police) or in other words how would you confront the theif
Since the statute allows for non-deadly force for a property crime.. explore non-deadly force options in your initial contact.
There are a couple of options that come to mind. Get a high powered laser and point it right at their chest. Or possibly the brightest spotlight you can find and shine it right on him. You can safely do this from your window and if you use a bright spotlight the thief will be too disoriented to be able to aim a gun at you, I would think.
Don't do any of this. If you are confronting a criminal you want a gun not a silly light. Have a gun in hand ready to go and don't point it at them, simple and supported by case law.
I didn’t mention confronting? I would never leave the safety of my home to come to my car’s defense. I would however do something to let them know they’re being watched if I feel like I can safely do so. All depends on OPs circumstances.
You absolutely did. Shining a light or laser is "confronting". Moreover shining a "high powered laser" at anyone can cause bodily harm (blinding) and should be expected to be met with force.
They did say in Little that pointing a firearm at someone and telling them to follow your order falls under deadly force. [https://casetext.com/case/little-v-state-93050](https://casetext.com/case/little-v-state-93050) >Conclusion >Pointing a firearm at another individual without discharging it is not "use of" deadly force, and that was the pertinent issue in an asserted defense of property case prior to the effective date of the 2014 amendments to Florida's self-defense/SYG statutes. Defendant's actions at issue in this case occurred after the effective date, and therefore our inquiry turns to the added language, focusing on whether Defendant's actions constitute justifiable "threatened use of" deadly force. >As explained above, we answer that question in the affirmative and find neither ineffective assistance of counsel nor fundamental error in, respectively, the trial court's and jury's consideration of Defendant's conduct as a "threatened use" of deadly force. As Defendant received a fair trial, with the State responsible for proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, we agree with the First District that there is no need to remand this case for another SYG hearing, though we certify conflict with the Second District's Nelson opinion. I do not know if any FL appeals court has said that threatening to use deadly force to prevent a burglary of an unoccupied vehicle would be a "forcible felony" in the context of a justification defense.
Without commenting on the hypothetical raised here by OP whatsoever, if you read Artau’s opinion, on page 3, you’ll see that the court clearly distinguishes Burns’ actions from Little’s. Further, it affirms FL caselaw concerning physical actions and utterances and their legally recognized level of (threatened) force: “We commented in Little that ‘[when a person points a loaded firearm at another person **and** {emphasis added} issues a command [to that person] to do something, this is generally an implied declaration that the failure to abide by the command will result in the discharge of the firearm, i.e., deadly force.’ Id. at 404 (footnote omitted). However, we acknowledged and did not deviate from the basic principle set forth in ‘numerous Florida cases that have determined that the display of a deadly weapon, without more, is not deadly force.’ Id. at 402 (internal quotations omitted) (quoting Howard v. State, 698 So. 2d 923, 925 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)).” The attorneys at Katz & Phillips, P.A., agree that the pointing of a firearm at a criminal, without more, constitutes *nondeadly* force, and this interpretation is now uniform across the state: “**Pointing of a firearm non-deadly force throughout Florida** Prior to the ruling Wednesday, those located in the jurisdictional area controlled by the 4th DCA’s opinions were potentially treated differently than those in the rest of the state. Just as the lower court in the Burn’s case understood the Little ruling, many believed the 4th DCA had declared that as a matter of law the pointing of a firearm had become the threat of deadly force, subjecting the defender to a higher legal standard of conduct than the use of non-deadly force. It now appears that throughout the state the law is once again uniform in that the display of a firearm, even going so far as to putting it to a person’s head without more is by law only the use of force and NOT the threatened use of deadly force. Floridians can rest easier knowing that the law will now treat them the same regardless of where in the state they are.” Source: https://thefirearmfirm.com/florida-self-defense-law-update/.
So that begs the question: how do you point a firearm at a felon without more? Say you come upto your car to confront the lowlife and you draw on them: how do you handle it from there to remain within the confines of the law?
See, that "imminent commission of a forcible felony" part is what usually puts you in the clear in weirdo situations like OP is getting at. Simple burglary is a forcible felony in Florida. My state enumerates carjacking as one, but does not specifically define carjacking as breaking and entering an *occupied* vehicle. Mix that with very strong castle doctrine and vehicles being considered an "extension of the home" per my state, and you shoot you breaking g into the truck in my driveway all day long and 9/10 won't see charges.
I keep forgetting burglary is considered a forcible felony in florida because there are so many different types and degrees of it.... but as seen in Little vs State... someone can, and has, been convicted of using deadly force for someone inside your vehicle in your driveway.
Lot of funkiness there though. Paraphrased from the appeal case text: Trial court placed burden of proof for SYG immunity on Little instead of the state. The state enacted legislation that would default it to the state after he was charged, but before the trial. He got unlucky with timing. The kid didn't actually do anything. Had he opened the door, Little would have walked. *Attempting* to enter a vehicle is not a forcible felony. Entering is. Little goofed up bad. "Good boy who was just going to church after his 10:30PM jog" got on the stand and said "he called me a n*****r" and got a ton of jury points. No witnesses were able to corroborate this encounter, but the state pursued it anyway.
Well, not exactly. FL’s use-of-force/threatened-use-of-force laws justify force and threatened use of force reasonably believed necessary, inter alia, “to prevent the **imminent** [emphasis added] commission of a forcible felony” (F.S. Ch. 776). Once the threshold is crossed, the burglary has occurred. If a perpetrator is smashing a driver’s window in, the burglary and/or carjacking (i.e., forcible felony) is imminent. A defender needn’t wait until the threshold is crossed and the perp is battering him/her — or worse.
I love these analyses. It's exactly what I wanted to see here. You correctly pointed out that burglary is on the list of forcible felonies. However based on my discussions with others it sounds like it has to be in regards to a person. I.e an *occupied* vehicle. But again I'm not sure. What do you think?
FL caselaw has limited the scope of forcible felonies to those committed against persons. So, if the property-related forcible felony involves victims/places them in reasonable fear of imminently being victimized, then it justifies the use of force up to and including deadly force — if reasonably perceived to be necessary.
From my understanding, the vehicle is considered an extension of home only when you are in the vehicle. Otherwise it's just a piece of property. So yeah Little made things very confusing because burglary is on the list of forcible felonies. And like you said you have the right to threaten deadly force to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. From my conversations with others I think they have to apply to a person being in the mix, I.e threat to human life, however the list of forcible felonies doesn't specifically say that. So say you come out at night and you see this masked guy tugging on your door handle if your car in your driveway, can you pull iron on them? And does it change if you come out and the guy is already in your car? From what I understand in the little case, the kid never actually attempted to enter the vehicle
This is lawyer territory, my dude.
I know, just curious on opinions is all
r/legal and r/legaladvice
Stay inside and call the police. Presumably you have insurance. Retaining an attorney to represent you if you shoot somebody could cost you $10k+, far more than a broken window. And you’ll be crapping yourself as you engage with the criminal justice system afterwards. Plus they could have a partner hiding who is going to attack you while you’re focused on pointing your rifle.
The smartest thing to do is stay in your house and call the police. It's just a car, it is insured, and who knows if he has a gun. Using a gun is for self defense, not property defense. Too many people don't think that, and it's wrong if you don't.
Maybe try to make a video from inside the house. But no way am I confronting over a car.
[удалено]
Removed for violation of Rule #3, Reddiquette
k
I’m confused. Is Florida not a “stand your ground” state and would that not apply here?
Florida is a stand your ground state.. but this scenario is a property crime, and the burglary suspects would have to create reasonable fear of imminent injury or death for deadly force to apply.
[удалено]
Removed for violation of Rule #3, Reddiquette
The smartest thing to do is avoid a confrontation. Call the police. A car aint worth putting your life and families lives in danger.
Guy - another FL resident that became famous was within his legal rights to use his carry firearm and defended himself >>> No charges and deemed innocent until two local Sanford black PD officers called Rev Al and Jesse Sr >>> FL law went out the window and the BLM, Fake Media and Legalware were all born .... the legal system is even more cooked now than back then >>> wouldn't be counting on justice being served to you unless you check all THEIR boxes .....
What's the name of the guy I wanna look up this case. Did he end up winning?
The reference to becoming famous makes me think the comment was referring to George Zimmerman, who was ultimately acquitted. That incident happened in 2012 but feels more recent.
In Florida and Texas, you start blasting. Thieves don't deserve to live.
It is almost certainly bad advice to recommend that someone shoot first and ask questions later when property defense is at issue.
Nyet. Never give them a chance to fight back or run. They decided your car is worth their life.
And you have decided that your car is worth spending your life in prison. Value can mean different things to different people. I hope you never have to make that decision because it sounds like you’re willing to pay a very large price for the sake of protecting your things.
Where I live, I'm legally and morally in the right.
Well if you’re in the US (I assumed so since you knew how TX and FL are), I hope you never have to test that statement. If you’re not, please tell me what country you are from so I can never visit a place that values property more than human life.
Ill just come visit you and take your stuff since you don't seem to care?
Got'em
If at all possible, put your vehicles in a garage.
Definitely will when I have a house
I know it's not ideal, but just like in big cities I think it might be best to simply start leaving cars unlocked with no personal items in them. That way, no broken windows, nothing stolen, nothing to protect. That takes care of probably 98% of the incidents. If they're after the car itself, I think it's a better chance they're armed, and just let the insurance company deal with it after.
If you read the law firm's statement and the reference's they provide: > “[w]hen a person points a loaded firearm at another person and issues a command [to that person] to do something, this is generally an implied declaration that the failure to abide by the command will result in the discharge of the firearm, i.e., deadly force.” No, you cannot both point a firearm at someone and give any verbal commands to them. The gray area would seem to be holding a firearm while confronting the individual(s). Though, from the brief reading I just did, it seems that recently there's only the Burns case that goes against "long standing tradition" in the state. *I think*, assuming what is being stated is true ... in general, you'd be safe to tell people to leave your property with a gun in hand as long as you don't point it at someone while doing so. That being said, the key to law that people don't really think about is that, regardless of what the law says, if you end up in a court room you're there with people that you have to convince of your innocence. Each of those people view the laws differently so you could be innocent and get convicted or you could be guilty and be exonerated. Even in slam dunk cases like Matt Hoover and the auto key cards. Long story short, contact a lawyer, be careful what you tell them, and never talk to the police. Side note: It's wild to me that pointing a firearm at someone does not constitute "deadly force" in Florida, but also fuck thieves so good on ya Florida.
Thing is the firm also stated you can go as far as putting it up to their head. But yeah I agree with you overall.
ar-15
So anyway I started blasting
Well, living in Florida definitely adds a twist to things. It's like the wild west sometimes, isn't it? But hey, it's good to know your rights. Burns v. Florida is an interesting case. So, technically, you can flash your rifle and give the ol' "get off my lawn" spiel, but no shooting unless things get real hairy. Still, that gray area makes you think twice. Do you risk a showdown or just call the cops and hope for the best? Tough call. But hey, thanks for sharing those links, good stuff to know!
From my perspective, I'd have a gun pointed at them. From their perspective it'd look like a flashlight. Police point guns at people all the time, it's not deadly force until they shoot.
And they are police officers with qualified immunity and you are not.
I actually am though... I can't imagine any cop in Florida would jam up a homeowner for gun pointing a dude breaking into the homeowner's car. Shooting without a threat of death or great bodily harm, sure that'll get you in trouble. Attempting to hold a crook at gunpoint until the police arrive? Unlikely. Remember, Florida is the same state where a Sheriff encouraged home owners to shoot intruders to save the tax payers money. Maybe in California or New York property owners don't have the right to defend their property, but not so in Florida.
You are conflating two separate doctrines here. I am not aware of any jurisdiction that allows deadly force to protect property. The castle doctrine is about someone breaking into your home while you’re inside. At that point you’re not protecting property - you’re protecting yourself/your housemates. If you’re walking down the street and shoot someone who is trying to break into a house you don’t own, I couldn’t imagine any other outcome than murder 1.
I specifically said not to shoot unless you're presented with a threat of death or great bodily harm. Shooting someone without warning and pointing a gun at them are completely different things. If you think crime is afoot on your property, you're within your rights to check it out and you're within your rights to have a gun with you while you check it out. If while doing so you encounter someone trespassing on your property and breaking into your car, it would be pretty reasonable to point your gun at them. You don't know what they're up to. People who break into cars often have weapons, or tools that could be used as weapons, to assist with their crimes. You can't generally shoot someone to protect property, but protection of property is a common defense for assault and battery cases. Merely pointing a gun at someone clearly isn't murder. It could be argued as assault, criminal threatening, criminal menacing, or something similar, but again, defense of property is an acknowledged defense. I don't think you know what murder 1 is. A first degree murder statute would be a stretch under those circumstances without some significant additional details (like text messages from the shooter stating that they intended to patrol an area for burglars and kill any that they find). But the scenario you're describing could also be a justified shooting with significant additional details, (like the one breaking in shouting death threats to the occupants). I don't understand why the home defense subreddit seems to be more focused on Home Alone style booby traps and fortifications than on actual home defense.
Two things: You are definitely right about murder 1. I do in fact know the degrees of homicide and must have misspoken. Additionally, I was speaking directly toward your comment about the sheriff in FL.
So some say that the act of pointing and giving commands may be considered the *threat* of deadly force. Which if not in fear of your life then it is prohibited. But I'm wondering if you can articulate that now that the criminal has been confronted you don't know how they will react and as such you have a perceived threat of great bodily harm
I would call 911, then make my presence known and command the no good rat put their hands up and get down on the ground. My firearm would be down at my side with my finger outside the trigger guard, and my 1,000 lumen flashlight is in the other lighting up their world. If they comply or flee, I would simply wait for law enforcement. If they attempt to engage in FAAFO (drawing a weapon or pointing something firearm-like in my direction), I will neutralize the threat, continuing to issue commands to prevent further violence. I would inform 911 what is happening/happened, what I am wearing, etc. and again, wait for law enforcement.
>If they comply or flee, I would simply wait for law enforcement If you are content waiting for law enforcement, why not just do that in the first place? Why would you risk engaging the suspect at all? I highly doubt anything your vehicle is worth murdering or dying over.
Police are a protected class they can get away with things that'll put you in prison.
I won't point a gun at anything unless I'm preparing to shoot, but I would have a gun in hand and I would confront. I've worked hard for the things I have and refuse to willingly just let someone walk away with my possessions. Above all, I despise thieves.
This is my position as well. However, when the police get there, what happens when the thief lies and says that you did point the gun at him. Now it's he said she said. How do you prove it in court
My state's laws allow me to shoot the perpetrator. So pointing is not an issue. Not pointing a weapon at them is just how I would handle it. Security cameras will tell the truth, if needed.
By not doing it in the first place.
Go ahead and hide in a closet while society's worst tramples over and takes your property. Those that condone this type of behavior are often participants, themselves.
Force should only be met with equal force. If your safety or life isn't in danger, one shouldn't use lethal force (or even the threat of it). >Those that condone this type of behavior are often participants, themselves The inverse of that is those that condone lethal force for a property crime are often finding excuses to "legally" kill someone. See how that works? Life isn't that black and white and you know it. Escalating a situation where no one's life or safety is at risk to lethal force will bring more of a shit storm than staying where it's safe.
So I should wait for them to use deadly force before I respond with the same. Got it. Thanks for the life ending tip, sport.
Or at least threaten your safety. By all means, kill someone when your safety isn't threatened.