Florida's "castle doctrine"...

P

PunchPaper

New member
As many of you may know, Florida passed a law about a year ago allowing you to use a
firearm to defend yourself if your life was in danger.

OK. That is common sense and allegedly rooted in ancient British law.

The bad news is that there have been two legal tests of it with two separate results.

The first person was acquitted.
He lived in a bad neighborhood and was harassed by some gang members.
They eventually rounded up some of their buddies and drove onto his
property and at him with the intention of "roughing him up."

He shot at the car and killed two of them.
He might have been found guilty of firing additional shots after the car stopped but he saw movement in the car and thought he may be still in danger and fired until the gun was empty.

He was found not guilty.
(The gang repaid him by burning his home down and he has probably had to leave the area).

Next case...

In a more rural of part of our County, a new neighbor moved into
a fancy house earlier in the day.

In the middle of the night, the existing homeowner confronted the new
neighbor while walking his dog around 3am on an easement near his home.

The new neighbor went back to his home and told his parents what happened.
I completely blame the parents for not instructing their son to call the Sheriff but instead allowing him to allegedly return to the man's home with a BB gun.

The guy pulled onto the existing neighbor's property in the dead of night with
his headlights pointed at the front door. He proceeded to bang on the door.

When the neighbor opened the door and saw this and the BB gun, he shot the new neighbor twice with a shotgun.

The existing neighbor has been convicted of manslaughter and may spend 10 to 15 years in jail.

The issue, he should not have fired a second round after the first dropped him.

I think there are other issue at play, like the existing neighbor was considered a bit eccentric.

Another thing, you guys are certainly right when you mention that the
type of gun used will be picked apart. The newspaper mentioned
that he was using a pistol grip shotgun.

Lessons learned? Don't bother your neighbors, especially at 3am.

Two, the law is very fickle. It's hard, in the heat of the moment for
an average citizen to deliver a carefully measured response, but you
will be called to task for it later.

Also, the law is not "blind". You will be treated differently from
a wealthier or more conventional neighbor.

Tough to sort out at 3am when you feel threatened!
 
Can't help but think that in case 1 the BD's were "gang members" I take it as either black or Hispanic. Most likely why he got off.
 
Probably more to the second case than has been conveyed in a few lines here. How about posting a news link to the second case?
 
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/palmbeach/sfl-flptapanes0517pnmay17,0,1576649.story

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/crime/sfl-flpopenings0513pnmay13,0,7295503.story



To shoot a man inside your home who is making threats is one thing, to shoot a man outside your locked door "who demands" you open the door is another.

To unlock and open the door, knowing that someone who is threatening you is there showed the homeowner had intent to kill him. While the shooter was "verbally threatened" he had not been physically harmed nor had Cotes broke into his home.

I don't think the verdict in this case flys in the face of the Castle Doctrine at all. From my standpoint, I have several loaded SD guns available in my home. If someone broke in, I have zero issue using them and fully believe in and support the Castle Doctrine. The Castle Doctrine gives you the right to stop a physical threat. It does not give you a right to stop a verbal threat nor does it give the person a right to initiate contact.
 
A lot of it seems to hinge on whether Tapanes was in fear for his life. First, because he never called 911, Second, he willingly walked into the front yard to confront Cotes- that's not standing your ground, that's advancing. Third, the younger man didn't have a bb gun according to the news report. Fourth, if Cotes was already on the ground, with no indication of having a weapon he could use from the ground, Tapanes would no longer be in fear of his life, and the second shot wouldn't be justified.

This is one of the problems with the new stand your ground law. You have to duty to retreat. But if you're not retreating, what other evidence do you have to show that you were in fear and not angry?
 
To shoot a man inside your home who is making threats is one thing, to shoot a man outside your locked door "who demands" you open the door is another.

To unlock and open the door, knowing that someone who is threatening you is there showed the homeowner had intent to kill him. While the shooter was "verbally threatened" he had not been physically harmed nor had Cotes broke into his home.

I don't think the verdict in this case flys in the face of the Castle Doctrine at all. From my standpoint, I have several loaded SD guns available in my home. If someone broke in, I have zero issue using them and fully believe in and support the Castle Doctrine. The Castle Doctrine gives you the right to stop a physical threat. It does not give you a right to stop a verbal threat nor does it give the person a right to initiate contact.
__________________
Click to expand...


I thought there HAD to be a little bit more to the case than was conveyed by the OP! Yep, nothing in the Castle Doctrine will protect you, given these circumstances. There's a big difference in not retreating (which isn't required) and advancing unnecessarily.

Years ago, way before any Castle Doctrines, an old friend of mine shot through the door of his apartment and killed a guy. However, the guy was threatening my friend with death and was attempting to gain entry. The shootee thought that the shooter was in the apartment with the shootee's wife...which turned out not to be the case. The case did go to trial, but the shooter was found "not guilty."
 
Good feedback...

Very good feedback and I see we have some South Florida locals who are familiar with the case.

The point made about "advancing" makes a lot of sense.

Perhaps he should have shown more restraint and called 911 while
cradling his shotgun.

I still totally hold the parents to blame.
They should have NEVER allowed their teenager son to go back to someone's
house at 3AM who had just threatened him with a shotgun.

If anyone should have stayed behind closed doors and called 911
it was the victim and his parents.

I can't imagine allowing your child to put himself in jeopardy like that.
(And over what, dog walking?)

As I once heard a street musician in Key West play, "Can't talk to a man,
with a shotgun in his hand".
 
No doubt there was poor judgement on the part of the deceased. But his parents to blame. He's 19, he's old enough to know better. Perhaps they didn't raise him right. But a drunk (underage drunk) 19 year old acting like an idiot dug his own grave in my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top