Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

King Without a Castle: Man Busted for Shooting Would-Be Intruder (Teen Broke In, Homeowner Jailed)
NBC Miami ^ | Mon, Dec 13, 2010 | BRIAN HAMACHER

Posted on 12/13/2010 12:35:16 PM PST by nickcarraway

Teen tries break in but homeowner goes to jail

A Key Largo man was arrested Monday after police said he shot a teen who was trying to break in to his house. The incident happened around 1 a.m. when 62-year-old Dimitrios Theodosiou heard 18-year-old Marlon Perez Monzon trying to open his front door, according to the Monroe County Sheriff's Office.

Theodosiou yelled at the would-be intruder, watched him run around the corner of the home, and went to get his gun, a .38 revolver.

When Theodosiou told Monzon he was going to shoot him, Monzon ran toward a fence and started to climb it until Theodosiou told him to stop.

Monzon got on the ground, but police say Theodosiou shot him anyway, hitting him in the ankle.

Monzon was airlifted to Ryder Trauma Center, where he's in stable condition.

Police said Monzon works with Theodosiou's teen daughter at a restaurant and had been making unwanted advances toward her. Theodosiou apparently didn't know about that at the time of the shooting.

Theodosiou was arrested for aggravated battery with a deadly weapon. Police said they considered applying the "Castle Doctrine," which allows a homeowner in immediate fear for their life during the unlawful entering of a dwelling to defend themselves.

They decided the doctrine didn't apply in this case.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: banglist; breakingandentering; floriduh; homeinvasion
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-111 next last

1 posted on 12/13/2010 12:35:19 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

IF the shoot went down as described - bad shoot.

I would much prefer to see attribution of the described events, and to see if the various accounts agree.


2 posted on 12/13/2010 12:37:32 PM PST by MortMan (To Obama "Kill them all and let [God] sort them out" is an abortion slogan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
IF the facts recited in the article are accurate, the homeowner was properly charged.
3 posted on 12/13/2010 12:38:38 PM PST by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MortMan

Yep.

Pending further review....

Bad shoot.


4 posted on 12/13/2010 12:39:45 PM PST by ButThreeLeftsDo (FreeRepublic......Monthly Donors Welcome.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Below is a copy of the Texas Castle Doctrine also known as Texas Castle Law or as Texas Castle Bill
This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.
______________________________________

AN ACT

relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding Subdivisions (4) and (5) to read as follows:

(4) “Habitation” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.

(5) “Vehicle” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.

SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as follows:

(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor’s belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor [he] would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) [if a reasonable person in the actor’s situation would not have retreated; and

[(3)] when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor’s belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used [requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor].

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A [It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the] defendant who uses force or[, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using] deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant’s [against a person who at the time of the] use of force or deadly force, as applicable [was committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the defendant].

SECTION 5. (a) Sections 9.31 and 9.32, Penal Code, as amended by this Act, apply only to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for this purpose. For the purposes of this subsection, an offense is committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of the offense occurs before the effective date.

(b) Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as amended by this Act, applies only to a cause of action that accrues on or after the effective date of this Act. An action that accrued before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect at the time the action accrued, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.

SECTION 6. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.


5 posted on 12/13/2010 12:40:06 PM PST by buffyt (Abortion is the ultimate CHILD ABUSE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Memo to self: shoot them *before* they surrender.


6 posted on 12/13/2010 12:40:47 PM PST by MeganC (January 20, 2013 - President Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MortMan
IF the shoot went down as described - bad shoot.

Agreed. Had the perp not been attempting to leave the scene, but continuing to bang on the door, it would be different ball of wax.

7 posted on 12/13/2010 12:41:10 PM PST by Islander7 (If you want to anger conservatives, lie to them. If you want to anger liberals, tell them the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

In most parts of Florida....the homeowner would not be arrested.

Key Largo is in liberal Monroe County...Key West is in Monroe County....if you are familiar with Key West in anyway....you know it is “Florida’s San Francisco”

Hopefully this homeowner will have charges dropped. He has a Right to Self Defense


8 posted on 12/13/2010 12:41:19 PM PST by UCFRoadWarrior (Whenever something is "Global"...it means its bad for America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buffyt

Tried every measure
Mr. Baker believes that, too.

He had lived in his modest neighborhood just north of Dallas Love Field for 15 years without a problem when burglars began stealing his equipment – five times in two months.

JIM MAHONEY / DMN
Mr. Baker had been burglarized five times in two months at his home before shooting and killing an intruder. He stored his tools in his garage, protected behind a locked six-foot gate and next to a back yard bathed by a light so bright that a friend said it looked like the Texas Rangers’ ballpark.

It wasn’t enough to deter the thieves.

On an early October morning, Mr. Baker heard a noise – his Mexican red-headed parrot, Salvador, had squawked an emphatic “Hello,” something he does whenever someone passes by. Mr. Baker flipped on a closed-circuit monitor and saw a man walk into his garage.

Mr. Baker said he had seen the man before, on tapes of the earlier burglaries.

“If he needed a fast fix, he’d go into my garage and grab something and take it to his drug connection,” Mr. Baker said earlier this month.

That night, he decided to confront the intruder, identified as John Woodson, 46, of Dallas, who had a criminal record for various offenses, including burglary.

“I went out the front door and came through the gate, and when he started walking from the back of the garage toward me, that’s when I shot him,” Mr. Baker said.

When police arrived, a homicide detective watched the video and told Mr. Baker, “This is by the book.”

The case received international attention, largely because of Salvador, the parrot. But Dallas grand jurors treated it as Texas juries usually do: They declined to indict.

That’s one of the reasons county prosecutors argued against the castle law in committee hearings before it was approved. It really wasn’t necessary, they said, because more than a half-dozen self-defense provisions already existed in Texas law. And Texas juries almost always sided with the person protecting his own.

“In 25 years, I’ve never known a Harris County court to prosecute a homeowner or businessman for killing a burglar or robber,” Harris County Assistant District Attorney Bill Delmore told legislators. “We don’t do that.”

Jana McCown, an assistant district attorney for Williamson County, echoed that in her remarks.

“I can assure you that we don’t try to arrest homeowners or crime victims for protecting themselves against crime,” she said.

But the Legislature overwhelmingly supported Mr. Wentworth’s bill, and it was quickly signed into law.


9 posted on 12/13/2010 12:41:53 PM PST by buffyt (Abortion is the ultimate CHILD ABUSE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MortMan
IF the shoot went down as described - bad shoot.

Agree.

10 posted on 12/13/2010 12:42:02 PM PST by Ditto (Nov 2, 2010 -- Partial cleaning accomplished. More trash to remove in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MeganC

LOL . . . and in the front too.


11 posted on 12/13/2010 12:42:29 PM PST by Islander7 (If you want to anger conservatives, lie to them. If you want to anger liberals, tell them the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

If the police told you to stop and get on the ground and you did they wouldn’t shoot you either, er....well anyway what the guy did was wrong.


12 posted on 12/13/2010 12:42:29 PM PST by Free Vulcan (The battle isn't over. Hold their feet to the fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UCFRoadWarrior
In most parts of Florida....the homeowner would not be arrested. Key Largo is in liberal Monroe County...Key West is in Monroe County....if you are familiar with Key West in anyway....you know it is “Florida’s San Francisco” Hopefully this homeowner will have charges dropped. He has a Right to Self Defense

How is that? if the story is as reported the kid had made it "Out of the Castle Grounds" before being shot. You feel that its OK to shoot someone who has made a real effort to disengage and retreat? Just assuming thats the real story?

If so me thinks the Karma Police just raised an eyebrow your way.

13 posted on 12/13/2010 12:46:36 PM PST by corkoman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky

So the perp could return to stalk his daughter again?


14 posted on 12/13/2010 12:46:49 PM PST by a fool in paradise (The establishment clause isn't just against my OWN government establishing state religion in America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MeganC

Better: if the intruder is not a threat, then don’t shoot the intruder.


15 posted on 12/13/2010 12:47:09 PM PST by dhs12345
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise
Killing the perp seems a little harsh unless he is a real threat.

I guess that stalking could be considered a serious enough threat. I'd get a CC permit for the daughter.

16 posted on 12/13/2010 12:50:25 PM PST by dhs12345
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: buffyt
“In 25 years, I’ve never known a Harris County court to prosecute a homeowner or businessman for killing a burglar or robber,” Harris County Assistant District Attorney Bill Delmore told legislators. “We don’t do that.”

They may not have prosecuted but they have taken homeowners to court to settle the matters all the same.

With the last 10 years or so there was a case on Fox 26 (in Houston Texas) where a guy had 2 men come to his door, one ended up jumping a fence and coming in through his back door. He grabbed his gun and shot the man on the internal staircase in his home. The other man fled in a car.

He was taken to court and the other suspect was eventually captured but never charged. Police refused to ID the other man citing privacy rights and when the man who faced possible trial for his shooting asked what he should do to prevent the other perp from coming back, he was told to circle the block a few times before he heads home each day.

What a joke.

17 posted on 12/13/2010 12:52:19 PM PST by a fool in paradise (The establishment clause isn't just against my OWN government establishing state religion in America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky

In Texas we can chase you as you run from our house, after trying to break in. So beware. The people trying to break in are criminals. If they get into your house, they will rob you, possibly rape, torture and kill you. THEY ARE NOT BREAKING IN TO WATER YOUR PLANTS OR FEED YOUR DOG!

If they don’t want to be shot, they should not be breaking in to homes! They all deserve to be shot dead! Any time they break in and find someone at home, that resident is in eminent danger of death!

MONSTER HOME INVADER STEVEN HAYES FOUND GUILTY IN CONNECTICUT MURDERS

NEW HAVEN, Conn. — Next step: Will he get the needle?

Monster home invader Steven Hayes has been convicted of capital murder in connection with the brutal 2007 slaughters of a Connecticut nurse and her two daughters.

The conviction, which brought family members, including the father who survived the attacks, to tears, means the same jury must now suffer through weeks more of harrowing evidence and render a second verdict on whether Hayes deserves to be put to death.

For now, the jury has agreed that Hayes, a 47-year-old crack-addicted career burglar, raped and strangled the nurse, Jennifer Hawke-Petit, as she lay bound at the wrists and ankles on the living room floor of her home north of New Haven.

AP
Steven Hayes was found guilty of murdering a Connecticut doctor’s wife and two daughters.

see more videos Hayes was also found guilty of joining with partner-in-terror Joshua Komisarjevsky, 29, in the hideous deaths of the daughters, Hayley, 17 and Michaela, 11.

Only Dr. William Petit survived the senseless, random attack that killed his wife and two girls. Clubbed nearly to death and still bound at the ankles, Petit broke free moments before his house erupted in flames, rolling himself across two back yards to summon help.

In a news conference outside the courthouse, Petit said the verdict could not bring back his family.

“There is some relief, but my family is still gone,” he said. “It doesn’t bring them back. It doesn’t bring back the home that we had.”

Asked whether he has the strength to go through the penalty phase, he said, “Why do you do it or how do you do it? I think most of you out here, you know, are good human beings. I think that you probably would all do the same things for your family if your family was destroyed by evil.

“I think that you would all try to do the same thing and be there for your family. I mean, it’s the one thing you can do. So ... Do I really want to do it? Do I look forward to the ride everyday? No. I have a little nausea everytime i get off the exit ramp.”

The girls had been bound to their beds, doused with gasoline, and literally ignited alive. Both died of smoke inhalation after suffering unimaginable cruelty.

Michaela, according to DNA evidence, had been raped by Komisarjevsky, who is to stand trial next year. Forensic evidence showed Hayley collapsed, while still on fire, in the landing outside her bedroom after the flames burned through the restraints holding her to her bed.

Hayes has confessed to raping and strangling the mom, though claiming it was at Komisarjevsky’s insistence, to “square things up” after Komisarjevsky raped the little girl.

Jurors had appeared to struggle with the question of just how responsible, legally, Hayes was for the girls deaths. Hayes had told a fellow inmate that he helped pour the gas, but only along a stairway.

“Define start of fire,” jurors asked yesterday, in a note to the judge. “Is the pouring of gasoline considered starting?” The judge answered no — the fire starts when it is actually lit.

Still, prosecutors said, it was enough that Hayes had been caught on surveillance tape purchasing gasoline, was soaked to his socks in gas when he and Komisarjevsky were captured outside the house, and had been overheard admitting to a fellow inmate

Then there’s the fact that he did nothing to stop the fiery carnage — even if he didn’t strike the match. The two were acting together throughout the attack, prosecutors said.

“Ask yourselves, feeling that liquid being poured over their bodies, smelling the unmistakable smell of gasoline, is it reasonable to assume they were screaming for help?” prosecutor Gary Nicholson had said of the two girls in dramatic closing arguments.

“Hayley and Michaela Petit knew their deaths were near ... What did the defendant do while they were screaming for their lives?” the prosecutor asked. “Did he lift a finger to help them?”

Prosecutors believe Komisarjevsky, a fellow coke-head and career burglar who’d known Hayes from rehab, was the one to target the family, having spotted the mother and daughters the day before in a supermarket parking lot.

Komisarjevsky has admitted breaking in to the home through an unlocked cellar door on a predawn Monday morning in July. He has admitted repeatedly clubbing the father in the head with a baseball bat from the family’s basement.

Together, prosecutors say, the pair tied up the entire family. Just after 9 a.m., after some six hours, Hayes drove the mother to a nearby bank, where she withdrew $15,000 in cash ransom and calmly alerted the teller to the attack.

No effort was made to chase Hayes and the mom as they drove away, though the bank is only a couple-minutes drive from the police station and the teller was describing the car as it left the bank.

It took cops 40 minutes to leap into action — once they saw the two men fleeing the home, where they’d been waiting after establishing a perimeter.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/hayes_found_guilty_in_conn_home_Rk3vPTyEemXSEm9VOJWbrN#ixzz181gJeM7e


18 posted on 12/13/2010 12:53:45 PM PST by buffyt (Abortion is the ultimate CHILD ABUSE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dhs12345

INTRUDERS ARE ALL THREATS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! duh


19 posted on 12/13/2010 12:54:24 PM PST by buffyt (Abortion is the ultimate CHILD ABUSE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Islander7

How does one tell if someone is “leaving the scene”, vs regrouping/calling re-enforcements or going to get a gun?

Is there anything the homeowner is permitted to do to keep a criminal at the scene (without firing) or does the homeowner just have to let them flee?

Has it been shown that robbery (and not rape) was his motive?


20 posted on 12/13/2010 12:55:36 PM PST by a fool in paradise (The establishment clause isn't just against my OWN government establishing state religion in America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: UCFRoadWarrior
Hopefully this homeowner will have charges dropped. He has a Right to Self Defense.

The right to self defense ended when the kid retreated and tried to leave the premesis by climbing over the fence.

21 posted on 12/13/2010 12:57:59 PM PST by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: buffyt
Jurors had appeared to struggle with the question of just how responsible, legally, Hayes was for the girls deaths. Hayes had told a fellow inmate that he helped pour the gas, but only along a stairway. “Define start of fire,” jurors asked yesterday, in a note to the judge. “Is the pouring of gasoline considered starting?” The judge answered no — the fire starts when it is actually lit.

That wasn't the government's position on the Waco fire.

22 posted on 12/13/2010 12:58:19 PM PST by a fool in paradise (The establishment clause isn't just against my OWN government establishing state religion in America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MortMan

>>IF the shoot went down as described - bad shoot.<<

Yep.

What you do is get your gun, wait silently and apparently helplessly, and when he enters your home, give him a couple of shotgun blasts.

But first make sure it’s not your drunk brother in law.


23 posted on 12/13/2010 12:58:54 PM PST by RobRoy (The US Today: Revelation 18:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
You can't shoot a perp who has surrendered.
24 posted on 12/13/2010 12:59:39 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (DEFCON I ALERT: The federal cancer has metastasized. All personnel report to their battle stations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buffyt
It took cops 40 minutes to leap into action — once they saw the two men fleeing the home, where they’d been waiting after establishing a perimeter.

Much like watching a filling out paperwork after the Columbine killers were already dead.

25 posted on 12/13/2010 12:59:59 PM PST by a fool in paradise (The establishment clause isn't just against my OWN government establishing state religion in America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Police said Monzon works with Theodosiou's teen daughter at a restaurant and had been making unwanted advances toward her.

The reason hunting season corresponds to the rut, is that the bucks (and does) get real stupid about then.

26 posted on 12/13/2010 1:00:53 PM PST by meadsjn (Sarah 2012, or sooner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

This is a difficult call to make since a trespasser has no right to be on your property. Today you have no idea what atrocities may be in store if you allow criminals access to your home. Shooting in the air may have been enough to deter this stalker from returning. It sounds like there is more to the story though.


27 posted on 12/13/2010 1:03:59 PM PST by sueuprising (The best of it is, God is with us-John Wesley)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dhs12345
When Theodosiou told Monzon he was going to shoot him, Monzon ran toward a fence and started to climb it until Theodosiou told him to stop. Monzon got on the ground, but police say Theodosiou shot him anyway, hitting him in the ankle. Monzon was airlifted to Ryder Trauma Center, where he's in stable condition.

A couple of things, "stable condition" and a shot ankle is not "death".

Also it is unclear which side of the fence the perp was on when he was shot.

If he dropped off the fence inside the yard and surrendered before being shot, he chance for fleeing was less than if he climbed the fence and dropped to the ground outside.

28 posted on 12/13/2010 1:04:56 PM PST by a fool in paradise (The establishment clause isn't just against my OWN government establishing state religion in America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: buffyt
It is up to the discretion of the home owner.

Unfortunately for me, I might have second thoughts. Especially, if someone is trying to flee.

Killing someone is not an easy thing for me... and probably most people. Sometimes we don't have a choice, sometimes we do.

29 posted on 12/13/2010 1:06:23 PM PST by dhs12345
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: sueuprising

It’s an act first situation. There may be one or more intruders (armed or unarmed).

I was robbed at gunpoint on the street this year, around the corner from where police were running a dwi taskforce. First officer I approached got the hell out of there. Second one I approached took down my statement. Afterwards, the team pulled up stakes and hasn’t returned to that area (even though they’d been there for months).


30 posted on 12/13/2010 1:08:44 PM PST by a fool in paradise (The establishment clause isn't just against my OWN government establishing state religion in America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Shooting your daughter’s BF is gonna get you in trouble - unless I’m on the jury...


31 posted on 12/13/2010 1:08:52 PM PST by Jim Noble (It's the tyranny, stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

Details that will be reviewed in the trial.

It is unfortunate that the homeowner has to go through a trial.


32 posted on 12/13/2010 1:10:10 PM PST by dhs12345
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
Lol. You probably wont be on the jury, then.
33 posted on 12/13/2010 1:11:11 PM PST by dhs12345
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise
It's a judgment call, but I think a reasonable person would consider that any immediate, mortal threat ended when the perp was in the act of fleeing. The homeowner would have been justified in keeping his weapon at the ready until he was out of sight, because he could easily have turned around with his own weapon in hand (re-establishing the threat).

Calling the police in the intervening time would have been a good idea.

34 posted on 12/13/2010 1:11:14 PM PST by andy58-in-nh (America does not need to be organized: it needs to be liberated.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

The guy made two mistakes. He left the bum alive and didn’t drag the body into his house.


35 posted on 12/13/2010 1:11:47 PM PST by Oldpuppymax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

If he really was stalking, he deserved to be shot dead.

But if he really was climbing over the fence to get away, then the homeowner lost his legal right to shoot.


36 posted on 12/13/2010 1:13:25 PM PST by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
This story illustrates the difference between self-defense and revenge.
37 posted on 12/13/2010 1:16:54 PM PST by Niteranger68 (I am in the party of "HELL NO"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: andy58-in-nh
Since the man didn't get inside the house, it would be attempted breaking and entering and trespassing at best.

The home owner would be lucky to see the DA prosecute. I know people who were carjacked (included one who was kidnapped at knifepoint) with zero prosecution (cars recovered, identification still in the car at the time of retrieval).

That would not justify shooting the perp, just pointing out that the police would not be likely to pursue someone fleeing without much to charge them with and little will to prosecute.

I'd be concerned with the numbers of people and whether they'd LEAVE or just rearm/regroup. Criminals don't like to leave witnesses or be caught in their crimes.

One of the stories in this thread concerned a man who'd repeatedly had his garage broken into. Those crooks weren't a “threat” (physical) because they had never been known to attack the home owner (and had acted on numerous occasions). They also felt bold enough to return again and again to the scene of the crime and repeat the deed. Police were okay with it too because he'd already had a criminal record of such crimes.

38 posted on 12/13/2010 1:18:38 PM PST by a fool in paradise (The establishment clause isn't just against my OWN government establishing state religion in America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: UCFRoadWarrior

If the homeowner had shot when the guy was trying to get in then he’d be legit.

Shooting the kid after he got on the ground was a mistake. Assuming the kid didn’t make a move towards a “gun” which may be the guys excuse.


39 posted on 12/13/2010 1:21:40 PM PST by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
He was probably afraid that he would be attacked if he tried to hold the perp until the cops came so he felt he had to shoot the attempted rapist in the leg to disable him.
40 posted on 12/13/2010 1:25:40 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

He was on the ground:
“When Theodosiou told Monzon he was going to shoot him, Monzon ran toward a fence and started to climb it until Theodosiou told him to stop.

Monzon got on the ground, but police say Theodosiou shot him anyway, hitting him in the ankle. “

You can’t shoot a guy after he surrenders.


41 posted on 12/13/2010 1:27:07 PM PST by discostu (Keyser Soze lives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
How does the homeowner know that he's really surrendered and not just faking it? How does he know he doesn't have a concealed weapon?

It's wrong to kill and unarmed man, but its right to shoot a dangerous person in the leg to incapacitate them.

42 posted on 12/13/2010 1:28:28 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: discostu

Somebody on the ground couldn’t threaten your life with a concealed weapon?


43 posted on 12/13/2010 1:29:19 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Shot in the ankle and he had to be air lifted?


44 posted on 12/13/2010 1:30:26 PM PST by Scythian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
It's wrong to kill and unarmed man, but its right to shoot a dangerous person in the leg to incapacitate them.

There is no such thing as "shoot to wound."

There is no part of the body that does not have arteries. Sever an artery, and you have killed the person.

Doesn't matter that your intentions were pure.

45 posted on 12/13/2010 1:33:06 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (DEFCON I ALERT: The federal cancer has metastasized. All personnel report to their battle stations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

Maybe they could but you have to deal with the fact that he’s complying. You told him to stop and he did, while it’s theoretically possible they still present a danger once they’re complying you’re kind of obligated to not shoot them, steer the order in a way to lessen the potential threat (”spread your arms away from your body, move over to the light, what the hell are you doing here”) and handle things peacefully. Back in the day the standard line was “stop or I’ll shoot”, nobody says the whole thing anymore but there’s still that implication, he stopped, you don’t shoot.


46 posted on 12/13/2010 1:34:19 PM PST by discostu (Keyser Soze lives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
True, he should have shot to kill, as is his right if he believes he's threatened.

The fact that he only shot to wound show that he is a good person who mercifully spared someone's life.

47 posted on 12/13/2010 1:37:07 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: discostu

Tell that to the scumbags who pulled a gun on me, called me nigger, and threatened to shoot even after I thrown down my wallet and laid on the ground.


48 posted on 12/13/2010 1:38:41 PM PST by a fool in paradise (The establishment clause isn't just against my OWN government establishing state religion in America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
The fact that he only shot to wound show that he is a good person who mercifully spared someone's life.

Good luck with the jury.

49 posted on 12/13/2010 1:39:22 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (DEFCON I ALERT: The federal cancer has metastasized. All personnel report to their battle stations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: discostu
This guy's not a cop and he wasn't trained to do all those things. He doesn't have handcuffs or leg restraints so the only way to make sure the perp didn't get away was to shoot him in the leg. Was he just supposed to ask the perp nicely to wait there while he went back inside to call the cops?
50 posted on 12/13/2010 1:40:39 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-111 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson