I'm also going to take these all in order as possible and address only the important parts.
Now I am posting this with one assumption. That these bondsmen, who haven't got the same responsibilities as police yet have clear legal limitations and responsibilities, I am speaking ONLY AS IF THEY HAD COMPLETELY STAYED WITHIN THE LAWS. It's been established that they had acted within legal bounds to a point that they were not prevented from acting or arrested for these actions. The article made no statement whatsoever about the men violating any laws.
I am also speaking as if they had stayed within the laws, and that the state provisions are also like the missouri statutes that say, within a sentence or two, that no physical violence against a person who legally enters under any business the home is permitted. You can't shoot a cop or fireman, or even a gas company employee. That part is quite clear. The homeowner would not have been justified in shooting, he knew within a very slim margin that the action was legitimate.
Zukifile, I really can't understand what you have just said. If the bondsmen were there to retrieve the bail jumper and those laws for that jurisdiction were followed properly, then use of force against them is not legally permitted
unless and until one of them
clearly threatened the safety of the people or property with harm. You cannot use force unless you are genuinely fearful of injury (according to law), and whether or not the the person legally or illegally entered seems to be irrelevant. You cannot shoot without reasonable fear, and it appears that breaking a door down and walking in isn't enough.
Now seriously, a team of policemen cleared with their supervisor that the team was legitimate, that they had a legal right to find and apprehend the fugitive in a place that he listed as his home. If this homeowner chose not to comply, he was, in essence, in the same position as someone who refused entry to a government official with a warrant. Both have a state approved right of entry.
The argument that has been made that even policemen may be frauds isn't related to this concern. A homeowner can kill anyone who he believes, or
pretends to believe is a violent criminal masquerading as a cop. The laws do not protect that, unless other portions of the law are in effect.
Now here's the question. Do you truly believe that the guy would have been justified in killing the people who entered his home? Do you believe that he had legal immunity if he had killed an official government agent under those same conditions? Both are covered under my state law, and many other states.
I don't think that you do and you are just saying this because you don't like the facts as they have been portrayed by this obviously biased press story.
What I think you are overlooking is that no third party can give anyone permission to enter a property that said third party has no ownership/control interest in.
It will be interesting to see what a judge thinks.
I'm not overlooking this. That is in essence all that matters, whether or not they can be proven to have broken a law.
What Colas says he didn’t know: His cousin used his address when police asked where he lived. That gave the bounty hunters — referred to as bail bond agents in Florida and bail recovery agents elsewhere — a right to locate and detain Gabriel at his listed residence.
As private agents licensed by Florida’s Department of Financial Services and empowered by Florida Administrative Code, they do not require a search warrant to enter the home where they believe the fugitive they’re seeking is residing.
I'm quoting the article. An article that seems to be biased to the other side and sympathetic to the householder. The article appears to be saying that the invaders were following the law.
Spats, all due respect to a lawyer and overall very smart guy, look at what you said.
The homeowner has a property right in that door, one that is superior to strangers that feel like smashing it. The idea that some third party can put my (or another homeowner's) address on a court document and that somehow confers a right to enter and search, which is superior to the homeowner's right to exclude, upon a third party is ridiculous.
You didn't say that it was illegal, did you? You said that you didn't like it. If it's unconstitutional it would have been decided long ago, and unless the law it struck down, it remains legal. That is a very big problem to me. You referred to common law, your personal beliefs and opinions. Whatever state these events happen in, it was local to fla, and I am speaking of MO, which is probably similar to fl. It doesn't specifically address the question of whether the agents legally had a right to enter the home. What it says is that if the agent had the legal right the homeowner can not legally use force just because he violently opened the door and then walked in. We can debate forever if the bondsmen had
legal right as applied to defense, that's not as important as whether the homeowner chose to shoot despite the large amount of evidence that the agents were not just thugs in disguise who were attacking with no legal right. Reasonable belief is not as vague as many people want it to be.
Fla statute
776.013 Home protection; use or threatened use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person who is in a dwelling or residence in which the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and use or threaten to use:
(a) Nondeadly force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force; or
(b) Deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use 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.
(2) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using or threatening to use defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used or threatened was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(3) The presumption set forth in subsection (2) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened; or
(c) The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force is engaged in a criminal activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further a criminal activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using or threatening to use force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
mo statute
776.013 Home protection; use or threatened use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person who is in a dwelling or residence in which the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and use or threaten to use:
(a) Nondeadly force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force; or
(b) Deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use 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.
(2) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using or threatening to use defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used or threatened was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(3) The presumption set forth in subsection (2) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened; or
(c) The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force is engaged in a criminal activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further a criminal activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using or threatening to use force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
I don't think that's accurate at all. You appear to assume that the bondsmen are "legally operating." I'm unconvinced. And most of the laws that allow some legally-permissible intrusion (such as bondsmen or car repossession, etc.) are based on some contractual or legal obligation between the person upon whom such intrusion is visited, and the intruding entity.
There is no clear statement anywhere in the applicable news story that what the agents did violated either florida or US laws. There are a number of references that official FL statutes allow the action.
As private agents licensed by Florida’s Department of Financial Services and empowered by Florida Administrative Code, they do not require a search warrant to enter the home where they believe the fugitive they’re seeking is residing.
What more can be said?
Three people are taking strong exception to what I have said. Referring to a direct quote from articles, laws, black and white issues such as "you can't shoot a guy who has a legally supported right to enter your home" use of the word clearly is appropriate. You just read the article, you just read the laws regarding it, can there be any doubt when the event portrayed in the article was in fact covered by the applicable laws stated either in the article itself or official reports of the statutes? Those entries I posted are from the state laws themselves, not a hash tag search.
All three arguments are about property laws and protection that don't appear to apply by the state laws, even the reporter won't say that a law was broken. There does not appear to be a violation of any law on the part of the police or the agents. From what I saw in that video, there was no threat made or implied. Open the door and let us search,or we break down the door and search, without your permission, and then we are going to be on our way and leave you alone.
Now what would my reaction be? I'm already going to be armed. I might and might not demand to see their papers. I will probably refuse them entry no matter what those papers say, and call police to monitor their entry. They will be allowed in when the police arrive to act as witnesses and protection against them. Hell no, I'm not disarming myself while they are in my home, and they will never be allowed out of my sight.
What will I say to those bondsmen?
"I'll let you in when I am certain that you don't mean to harm me, and I have some protection against you in case you aren't who you say you are."
If I have to clarify it further:
I don't believe you, until the police arrive, you aren't welcome here. I don't trust you, you're scaring the hell out of my wife and daughter and myself, and I'm afraid of what sort of terrible things you might do. you haven't provided acceptable proof and I know very well that you don't belong here. I don't have a fugitive. When I'm sure of my safety you can come in.
If you disobey my wishes and break through that door I'm going to have to assume that you mean me harm and I'm going to kill every damned one of you.
If they break through my door with weapons or break through and threaten me and I kill them all, then my state's judicial system will decide if I was being reasonable in my belief that I was in danger. If they decide that I violated that single principle, that I felt certain that I was in physical jeopardy, I'm going to be handed over for prosecution.
There's one more point that I'd like to make, but it probably won't make any difference to you guys.
This wasn't just a fishing expedition, throwing a bunch of hooks into the water and hoping to snag the fugitive. The fugitive told the bondsmen that he could be reached at that home. Since the article stated that there is a provision in the laws of that state that allows entry to the home that is provided, the bonding agents apparently had a legal right.
Now here's a thought. If he failed to appear in court, If he had an outstanding warrant, I suppose, was he a fugitive from justice? If they were indeed harboring a fugitive from justice instead of just a bail jumper, I wonder how it would have played out then? Just wondering.