Armed Citizen catches arsonist in Florida fires

A prosecution will depend on whether it can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that it was NOT "reasonably necessary" to use deadly force in order to stop the arson.
 
Got to love it how a guy who prevented potential deaths and saved homes and wildlife habitat might be the one getting sent to jail instead of the Arsonist.
 
Got to love it how a guy who prevented potential deaths and saved homes and wildlife habitat might be the one getting sent to jail along with the Arsonist.
Click to expand...


Fixed it for you:)


I highly doubt it will happen though.
 
Arson is NOT a forcible felony. It is a crime against property and therefore not eligible for the special exemption previously mentioned.
Click to expand...
Actually in many places it is. Arson fires can quickly spread, endangering peoples lives.

the arsonist was attempting to start a fire in a wooded area near the citizen's home.
Click to expand...

Considering the arsonist set the fire close to homes it could be assumed that the arsonist was intending for the fires to burn down homes.
 
prove the arson attempt

would seem to be the first order of business. Should the accused not be convinced of attempted arson what would that do to the actions of the armed citizen?
 
You do not have to prove arson any more than you have to prove that you fired to prevent a rape or a robbery. The law says you must have a reasonable belief that you are using deadly force to prevent arson. That's it: REASONABLE BELIEF.

However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
Click to expand...
 
Reasonable belief

so who get to determine if your reasonable belief was reasonable; you, some judge, a coroners jury or a criminal trail. It is easy to simply toss out those phrases like Reasonable but in the end you have to prove it was to more than just yourself.
 
Right toybox, it may be very unreasonable to have assumed the particular individual being fired at was an arsonist.

A can of gasoline, or even a road flare (if thrown in such a manner to start a fire) can be considered a destructive device.
Click to expand...

It would NOT be considered reasonable to be shooting at a man with a can of gasoline walking along the road, especially given he may be transporting it to his car that had run out of gas a few miles up the road.

The reporter is stating that charges may be pending against the citizen for firing the shots. I think the reporter is mistaken there.
Click to expand...

Is there a link to the actual story? This may be like a lot of the stories that get posted here where a person is "arrested for defending himself" and you read that the person wasn't arrested for defending himself. In fact, the act of defense wasn't a consideration. The arrest was for the fact that the person defended themself using a firearm and being a felon in possession of a firearm is the actual charge. In other words, there are a vareity of ancillary but related reasons why charges may be pending, even if the shooting itself was valid.

Another way to look at it is that charges are pending...the result of the investigation. It will be up to the police to determine if what is being reported is actually what happened. Is the guy claiming the suspect was an arsonist when maybe he wasn't or there isn't any evidence to support it?

Pending does not mean that charges are inevitable.
 
still wondering

Double Naught I still would like to know who and how the determination will/would be made in this type of case. While this thread is concerning one particular case the circumstances that led a person to make a similar response to what they believe is an eminent danger must have some standard as to how reasonable belief is decided. Certainly you can not rely only on the report of the person who uses deadly force and simply claims they were acting within the law.
 
Hey toybox,

I'll take a stab at this.

In the jurisdiction where the event occurs, the prosecuting or district attorney would receive the case from law enforcement. They would then review it first for completeness of investigation ("WHY don't I have a statement from this witness mentioned in your report?") and legality of any evidence accompanying the case. Once that is all resolved the actions of the potential defendant will be held up against the language of applicable law.

Most likely in a case like this the pertinent state's 'Defense Justification' statutes, pertaining to a private person's use of force, would be where they look first. The facts known to the actor and the reasonableness of his actions would also be considered- again, in the light of the law as written.

If it is obvious that the actions were not permitted by law, then the next step is to see if a criminal violation occurred and determine what law(s) were in fact violated. Often by this point, still more information or supplemental investigation has been requested from law enforcement.

Shortly thereafter, a charging decision will be made. The PA/DA can either file the charge with the appropriate court of jurisdiction, or they can present it to a grand jury if one is available in that district.

That's pretty much it. Hope things are good in Kodiak. Take care-
 
Last edited:
what I figure more or less

Thanks Sarge. That is how I expected it would go. I know there has to be more than what some of our posters want to believe: see a BG and blast him away any you'll always be in the right. As with most things when it comes to citizens reacting to a situation you had best be right in you judgement as there are penalties for being wrong.
 
What is reasonable is decided first by the grand jury, and then by the trial jury. Of course, a case may not even see a jury if the DA does not feel the case has merit.

I believe that "reasonable man" is discussed in Mas Ayoob's "In the Gravest Extreme"
 
I believe that "reasonable man" is discussed in Mas Ayoob's "In the Gravest Extreme"
Click to expand...
Although one of the premiere names in the world of firearms and defensive tactics, I would look to someone else for legal advice. His theories and opinions are widely discredited and often proven to have no real legal basis.
 
I believe that "reasonable man" is discussed in Mas Ayoob's "In the Gravest Extreme"
Click to expand...

So he may have discussed it. Your point?

Still no link to the story about the shooter? I have not seen it online and so right now all we have is divemedics reporting of what he heard from the local media and what he disagreed with in the story.
 
Here's a story. No mention of a shooting, just that the resident tipped off police that the suspected arsonist had thrown a molotav cocktail into the woods. Anyway, they chased the suspect into the woods and he tried to set the woods on fire to cover his escape. The guy says the tipster was mistaken- that he tossed a cigarette in the woods- that the resident mistook a cigarette for a molotav cocktail. Right...


http://timestranscript.canadaeast.com/rss/article/298382

PALM BAY, Fla. - A man accused of lobbing a Molotov cocktail into one small part of a large area of woods that burned along Florida's Atlantic coast conceded yesterday that he may have accidentally sparked a fire.
Caption
AP
Brian Crowder, accused of throwing a Molotov cocktail into woods that are among thousands of acres that have burned along Florida's Atlantic coast, set several other fires to throw off officers who were pursuing him, police said yesterday.

But Brian Crowder, 31, said he tossed a cigarette, not a bottle full of flammable liquid, out of his car.

"I believe that I accidentally may have -- may have -- started by tossing a cigarette out the door," Crowder told a horde of reporters as he was being led in shackles by police early yesterday.

Authorities arrested and questioned Crowder on Wednesday and said he was expected to be charged with setting a small fire in the area of the larger blazes. The small fire was immediately extinguished.

Palm Bay police Chief Bill Berger said police were recommending he be charged with one felony count of setting fire to public lands.

Berger said Crowder remained "a prime suspect" in the larger fires that burned nearly 40 square kilometres in and around neighbouring Palm Bay and Malabar.

Berger said Crowder has denied being involved with the larger fires, which have cost millions in damage.

A resident alerted police after allegedly seeing Crowder throw an object from his car that sparked a small fire in the woods, Palm Bay Det. Ernie Diebel said. The object was a glass bottle containing an accelerant, Berger said.

Crowder was stopped a short time later and apprehended after fleeing from police. During the chase, Berger said Crowder set a few small fires with a long-stemmed lighter trying to throw police off, but those too were insignificant. He was found hiding under a pile of leaves in the woods.

Berger said Crowder's mother told police he had a juvenile fascination with fire.

Crowder said yesterday that he ran because he had violated probation and was driving without a licence.

Records show he has drug, burglary and automobile theft convictions dating from 1996. He was charged Wednesday with six probation violations.

Firefighters made major gains Wednesday against the flames, enough that schools that had been closed for two days reopened yesterday, electricity was being restored and many residents had returned to the area where about 30 homes were destroyed and 140 structures damaged. The fires were more than halfway contained yesterday. About 890 homes and businesses were still without power in surrounding Brevard County yesterday morning, after officials shut off electricity as a precaution.

All power was expected to be restored by the end of the day, Florida Power & Light said.

"People are starting to feel a little bit more comfortable again," Palm Bay Councilman Ed Geier said.

"There's no big black clouds in the sky. It's beautiful blue up there."

Firefighters credited additional support and equipment for help containing the fires in Palm Bay and neighbouring Malabar.

"We got quite a bit of work done," Todd Schroeder, spokesman for the state's Division of Forestry, said yesterday. "There's been no more damage to homes or property."

Elsewhere, scattered fires were still burning around the state Wednesday. A total of about 100 square kilometres were ablaze as of yesterday morning, according to an emergency management report.

___________________________________________

Here's another couple of stories about the incident:

http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080514/BREAKINGNEWS/80514005/1086/rss07
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I heard a blurb on the radio about it in my area as well, and it mentioned something about a resident with a gun confronting the suspect, but it seems the newspapers have omitted or were never privy to the information. Or the radio station got it wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top