Sounds like a dose of common sense to me. You know what they say, "play stupid games, win stupid prizes…"
"This is the State of Florida. If You Break into Someone's Home, You Should ...
- Thread starter Jack Flash
- Start date
wingriderz
Member
Lifelong Florida Boy here 63 clicks
AJ
US Veteran
AJ- I'm just a little north of you in Brevard County...Sheriff Wayne Ivey.
OP
Jack Flash
Member
Wow! Leave it to Newsweek to dredge up the Travon Martin case!
From Newsweek:
The deceased suspect was named as 27-year-old Jorge Nestevan Flores-Toledo, also known by the name Anibal Miller-Valencia.
Flores-Toledo, from Mexico, was born in 2001, the sheriff's office said.
Somebody's math is screwed up.
A few observations:
1) As AJ noted the old saw is make sure the body is inside the house. That doesn't mean shoot them outside and drag them inside. The police are going to notice and at the very best it makes you look guilty. You're better off making sure they are at least partially inside before you shoot them, or are at least outside, on your property's curtilage, armed and presenting what a reasonable person would consider to be an imminent threat.
2) State laws make a difference. For example when I lived in VA you could legitimately shoot someone in the process of breaking into your home as the law allowed you to assume they were breaking in to commit a felony in the form of murder, rape or assault where an imminent risk of death or serious bodily injury was present.
However, if they were in your home and in the process of stealing something, you then no longer had the right to assume they were there to commit a crime that presents an imminent threat as they were in fact committing a property crime. Since in VA you had no right to use lethal force to prevent a property crime you needed some other reason to believe they presented an imminent threat.
There are castle doctrine states, states with limited aspects of the castle doctrine and states where you still have a duty to retreat, even in your own home, to the point where you and or a family member can no longer retreat.
You need to know the laws in your state.
3) Common sense still applies. Each and everyone of us cringes when we hear about some armed homeowner shooting someone coming to the door to ask for directions, coming to the wrong house by mistake, etc. Do you shoot Girl Scouts for trying to sell you cookies? Of course not.
——
This will get controversial, but the need to know the laws pertaining to the use of deadly force in your state is the primary reason I have serious concerns about constitutional carry.
Studies in several states have shown that armed citizens with concealed carry permits are about 6-7 times less likely to commit any felony or misdemeanor than a law enforcement officer and in turn those LEOs are about 3 times less likely to commit any felony or misdemeanor than the average citizen. In other words, properly vetted and permitted armed citizens are 3 times less likely to commit a crime than a police officer and 18-21 times less likely to commit a crime than the average citizen.
They are in short the safest people you'll meet on the street or in a checkout line. That's largely because in most states they are well vetted and in many states there is some level of familiarity with the legalities involved. In all cases they exerted effort to get the permit and have a vested interest in keeping it.
Unfortunately, what we're starting to see in Constitutional carry states are people doing not so smart things with their now legal concealed carry handguns.
These are almost certainly the same people who would have done the same stupid stuff with illegally carried handguns. However, since it's now legal, they tar the whole concept of concealed carry and responsible armed citizens with the same broad brush. In the long run that doesn't help the cause.
The bottom line is that each and every right we have comes with a commensurate responsibility to wield that right responsibly and with due regard to the rights of others. That used to be fully understood and was backed into the social contract that civilized societies have in order to remain civilized. The irony is that when people in general lose that understanding about the connection between rights and responsibilities they start abusing those rights and that then invites increasingly harsher government regulation to curb those abuses by irresponsible individuals.
1) As AJ noted the old saw is make sure the body is inside the house. That doesn't mean shoot them outside and drag them inside. The police are going to notice and at the very best it makes you look guilty. You're better off making sure they are at least partially inside before you shoot them, or are at least outside, on your property's curtilage, armed and presenting what a reasonable person would consider to be an imminent threat.
2) State laws make a difference. For example when I lived in VA you could legitimately shoot someone in the process of breaking into your home as the law allowed you to assume they were breaking in to commit a felony in the form of murder, rape or assault where an imminent risk of death or serious bodily injury was present.
However, if they were in your home and in the process of stealing something, you then no longer had the right to assume they were there to commit a crime that presents an imminent threat as they were in fact committing a property crime. Since in VA you had no right to use lethal force to prevent a property crime you needed some other reason to believe they presented an imminent threat.
There are castle doctrine states, states with limited aspects of the castle doctrine and states where you still have a duty to retreat, even in your own home, to the point where you and or a family member can no longer retreat.
You need to know the laws in your state.
3) Common sense still applies. Each and everyone of us cringes when we hear about some armed homeowner shooting someone coming to the door to ask for directions, coming to the wrong house by mistake, etc. Do you shoot Girl Scouts for trying to sell you cookies? Of course not.
——
This will get controversial, but the need to know the laws pertaining to the use of deadly force in your state is the primary reason I have serious concerns about constitutional carry.
Studies in several states have shown that armed citizens with concealed carry permits are about 6-7 times less likely to commit any felony or misdemeanor than a law enforcement officer and in turn those LEOs are about 3 times less likely to commit any felony or misdemeanor than the average citizen. In other words, properly vetted and permitted armed citizens are 3 times less likely to commit a crime than a police officer and 18-21 times less likely to commit a crime than the average citizen.
They are in short the safest people you'll meet on the street or in a checkout line. That's largely because in most states they are well vetted and in many states there is some level of familiarity with the legalities involved. In all cases they exerted effort to get the permit and have a vested interest in keeping it.
Unfortunately, what we're starting to see in Constitutional carry states are people doing not so smart things with their now legal concealed carry handguns.
These are almost certainly the same people who would have done the same stupid stuff with illegally carried handguns. However, since it's now legal, they tar the whole concept of concealed carry and responsible armed citizens with the same broad brush. In the long run that doesn't help the cause.
The bottom line is that each and every right we have comes with a commensurate responsibility to wield that right responsibly and with due regard to the rights of others. That used to be fully understood and was backed into the social contract that civilized societies have in order to remain civilized. The irony is that when people in general lose that understanding about the connection between rights and responsibilities they start abusing those rights and that then invites increasingly harsher government regulation to curb those abuses by irresponsible individuals.
When I moved to NC and obtained a concealed carry permit here, the Sheriff told me if I were ever stopped by one of his deputies they would ask if I was armed, and if I was not their response would be "Why the ____ not?". He made it clear that there was no way they could ever respond to a call in time to prevent anything, and that self defense and defense of my family was on me. As a former LEO out west in SD in a county were it was 45 minutes from one side of the county to the other running code, I wholeheartedly agreed.
In that regard county sheriffs as elected officials are far more honest and far more in turn with reality than chiefs of police who are more often than not politically appointed or at least promoted based on politics and who are far more likely to parrot anti gun narratives of the mayor and or city council.
—-
The sherrif one county over had similar opinions but was to be blunt also a bigot. But even then, he was very ready and willing to acknowledge that he and his deputies did not have issues with immigrants. His observation was that they were very hard working people who kept their heads down and tried hard to stay out of trouble. For example they would often get together on Friday for family cookout and q if there was a noise complaint, a single visits from a single deputy asking them to keep it down would end it. They have no interest in getting arrested, in getting deported, or in attracting attention to where they live or the other who live there.
Consequently that's why crime rates for both legal and illegal immigrants are far lower per capita than they are for US citizens. The rates for immigrants are about 15 percent of that of US citizens.
Unfortunately, when an illegal immigrant does commit a crime it gets widely publicized and the immigration status becomes a focus, with many people incorrectly making an assumption that all of them must be "bad hombres".
SWFan27
Member
I always love a story with a happy ending. I think it takes a lot of nerve and lack of common sense to break into someone's home and expect them to not shoot you.
Doug M.
Member
We have invested in a collection of steps that make our house a less than attractive target for criminals, and less likely to have an erroneous attempt at entry.
Fences with padlocked gates; floodlights; posted "no Trespassing", big loud dogs, etc. The first goal is to preclude the need to use force; the second is to preclude ambiguities in the reason for using force. If you look at errors in home protection shooting, too many involve to take even minimal steps to prevent the errors of others (wrong house, drunk, etc.). To me, that is complacent and stupid.
Fences with padlocked gates; floodlights; posted "no Trespassing", big loud dogs, etc. The first goal is to preclude the need to use force; the second is to preclude ambiguities in the reason for using force. If you look at errors in home protection shooting, too many involve to take even minimal steps to prevent the errors of others (wrong house, drunk, etc.). To me, that is complacent and stupid.
AJ
US Veteran
Don't know if they were illegals or immigrants or not. A family of Hispanics had rented the place next to my Mother. They were having a party, when my Daughter called my Mom to talk. She could hear the music over the phone and ask Mom what was going on. She told her that the neighbors were having a party. When they hung up my Daughter called my S-I-L ( a Deputy Sheriff). He swung by Mom's and parked in the front yard and walked over to the neighbors. He asked whose home it was and talked to them. From what I understand was all he told them was "My Grandmother does not like loud music" and left. Volumes were turned to low and no parties like that were held there anymore. No threats or anything were made on his part and the folks next door decided not to push it. Normally very polite folks.
Doug M.
Member
I once went to a call of loud music, possible underage drinking. The music was, I kid thee not, Laurence Welk and the most dangerous thing was fried chicken. Easily the most BS call I can remember.
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,559
- Reaction score
- 6,290
Champagne and accordions - a riot waiting to happen.
AJ
US Veteran
Not the same as a Mariachi Band and Hot Salsa. Honestly, I don't think they really realized they were disturbing the peace.
pantannojack
US Veteran
I love a story with a happy ending.
I can't say I find this to be a "happy" ending.
FYI, FL statute on home protection:
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.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
Suspect does not have to be "inside," merely attempting to illegally enter. Trying to kick in a door can get you shot.
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.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
Suspect does not have to be "inside," merely attempting to illegally enter. Trying to kick in a door can get you shot.
max503
Member
I've gone to functions at a small church in a small town about 25 miles away. Once or twice a year.
A couple years a go they were having a potluck. So I drove up to the church and I went to the door and opened it and walked right in. There was a family sitting around the room. I asked, "who are you all and where's so and so?"
Turns out the church sold their building and moved and no one bothered to tell me!
A family had bought the church and turned it into their home.
Luckily, the people were nice, and I was nice, and they told me where the new church was at. I apologized and left.
But they could have legally blown me away. Good thing I appear calm, and clean cut, and polite. Good thing they were calm, and clean cut, and polite.
I wonder what would have happened if I was upset, or a minority, or ??? What if I had spun my tires while coming in to impress my friends? What if.....
Last edited:
Similar threads
