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.
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.
Yep.
Pending further review....
Bad shoot.
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.
Memo to self: shoot them *before* they surrender.
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.
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
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.
Agree.
LOL . . . and in the front too.
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.
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.
So the perp could return to stalk his daughter again?
Better: if the intruder is not a threat, then don’t shoot the intruder.
I guess that stalking could be considered a serious enough threat. I'd get a CC permit for the daughter.
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.
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.
INTRUDERS ARE ALL THREATS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! duh
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?
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.