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.
With instructions to go after the other ankle.. /sarc
I am all for that 100%. But if the perp was climbing a fence trying to get away...hard to make the case.
There is no such thing as “shoot to wound.”
***Is that a well known legal position? I’ve heard of the Castle Doctrine, but I haven’t heard of this.
There is no part of the body that does not have arteries. Sever an artery, and you have killed the person.
***Are we expected to know this when we are trying to apprehend someone who just attempted to break into our house with ill intent towards our possessions and perhaps our daughter?
Doesn’t matter that your intentions were pure.
***I think it matters to juries. If you’re a little pipsqueak and you’re trying to detain a 300 pound criminal, the only leverage you would have would be your gun. Take away that leverage by insisting the victim not be able to shoot to disable, and you’re handing the advantage to the criminals.
If you shoot a perp who is retreating and isn’t in your house, good luck getting away with murder.
You might, you might not.
The guy was not in the house and he was leaving. Those facts are clear, and will be clear to a jury.
You go ahead and shoot to wound though. You can do any idiotic thing you please, as far as I am concerned.
“Afterwards, the team pulled up stakes and hasn’t returned to that area (even though they’d been there for months).”
Are you saying that you would robbed with a gun in your face, and the police did virtually nothing? How horrible. Where do you live, may I ask? The task force thing might have ended and that is why they are not there anymore, but to not follow up on a crime, is disturbing.
Houston Texas.
It’s been a problem in town for YEARS. Long before Katrina bumped up the crime rates (with criminals released from New Orleans jails and bussed to Houston).
Mayor Bill White didn’t want to beef up security, then he attacked those who blamed crimes rates on Katrina refugees, THEN he bitched to the feds for money to help the city budget cover security. Nothing like a Democrat.
But this happened to me with our NEWEST Democrat mayor. The one who is fighting the citizens over removing the red light cameras (and wants to put up more London style “security” cameras).
I don’t need police sitting in an office watching people get robbed, I need police PATROLS. I was standing in the middle of an empty parking lot by a major road when I got robbed. I wasn’t in the shadows somewhere.
The crack addicts had trailed the mother and daughters. Rape was on their mind when they committed their crime.
Same as when those racists in Carolina (or wherever) carjacked a couple, kidnapped them, raped and tortured both of them, and then ditched the SUV. ROBBERY was not the goal because they went an entire different route (didn’t even keep “the prize”).
So we should legalize rape, no more crime. Right?
But then you will have to convince a jury that you shot a man (with full intent to kill) in the back because you thought he was reaching in his pants or jacket or boot...
Which puts us back at square one of this case. Does saying that "he was reaching" give you that much protection when the perp is dead?
I wouldn't want anyone to lie under oath or in a police report, I just don't see how WAITING until you are AGAIN threatened would be proven to a jury. They only look at the result (man dead in your yard, shot in the back, not the foot).
In Texas (Galveston) there was a man who had a dispute with his neighbor (wasn't even breaking and entering), man he was arguing with died (self-defense or not), the defendant then cut up the body and tossed it in the ocean.
He was only charged with improper disposal of a corpse.
That he was a millionaire probably helped his defense.
I agree that you cannot legally shoot someone after they surrender and I do not support vigilante justice.
I will also point out that terrorists and crooks do not obey laws or any "rules" of combat.
Knowing that your opponent will not honor the rules may get you killed. You don't have to step over a line, but don't give him too much room to complete his deadly task.
A for-instance could be the underpants bomber. He'd already made a decision to kill everyone onboard that plane. He'd already set the wheels in motion.
He'd receive a few good punches to the side of the head, be stripped completely naked, and bound to his seat, before I'd believe he has "surrendered".
Fought too many fights on playgrounds against bullies who "gave up" only to throw another sucker punch and to get some buddies to join in.
"him and me". When someone has already launched a deadly attack, the fair response is death. You make a mistake in this matter and it could be to your peril and that of everyone around you.
Breaking and entering a home is not like some bar fight where two parties can agree to disagree and go their separate ways. The home owner is clearly a wronged party. There is no excuse for the intruder. The intruder can't say "well, let me go over the fence and we'll just forget this ever happened..."
I wouldn't defend this man shooting to kill someone who has dropped over a fence. I'd have to know more details before I could convict him for shooting a man in the ankle. What are the sizes of the two persons? What was their proximity? Can we accept that both men reportedly honestly what happened in their police reports?
Or what? You'll be "forced" to shoot him in the back?
What is your bargaining position to ensure he acts as you order?
The fact that he’s on the ground and you’ve got a gun pointed at him. Eventually he’s going to have to move, that movement will either be in the direction you instruct or it won’t, if it’s contrary to your orders he has resumed being a threat and you shoot. You can’t shoot him when he’s stationary because people who aren’t doing anything aren’t a threat, but when he’s moving it’s a very clear either/ or, either he’s doing what you told him to (not a threat) or he’s doing something else (threat). Doing nothing is a neutral spot. Keep in mind that in the situation as described the bad guy HAD positively responded to commands already, he had stopped when told to, that is generally accepted not a threat behavior.
“A for-instance could be the underpants bomber”
The bomb in his control represented a threat, so your analogy to this case does not hold up.
If someone has surrendered and is on the ground there is no threat. In Florida it would be illegal to shoot him.
You could have used deadly force while he was trying to break in. Not once he surrendered.
Its really pretty simple, don’t get close to him while he’s on the ground. You do not “shoot to wound”, the concept does not exist under the law. If you use deadly force you had better have cause.
“Eventually he’s going to have to move, that movement will either be in the direction you instruct or it won’t, if it’s contrary to your orders he has resumed being a threat and you shoot.”
Better hope the jury believes your STORY for shooting a man in the back.
Who said anything about shooting the guy in the back? You keep assuming that but it’s not the case. If the guy is running he’s not a threat, yeah I’d prefer to turn him over to the cops (even though he’ll probably just wind up with a fine for criminal trespass) but he ain’t a threat and I wouldn’t shoot him.
You say that you hold him on the ground “surrendered” and that if he then “unsurrenders” you’d shoot him. That would be in his back.
And you’d have to explain that to a jury. Good luck with that.
I recognize that the law doesn’t grant a man priviledge to shoot trespassers on his property anymore. Time was he could legally shoot someone fornicating with his wife if he was caught in the act.
The law is an ass. Presumes a crook is innocent. Even when he’s caught in the act. Even after death. Too many newspaper articles say “the police then shot the suspect”. I only hope they got the RIGHT guy since they are still referring to him as a “suspect” for a crime he will never be tried in a court in law (his trial was at the scene).
Same way as the only war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan have been committed by Americans. The enemy also committed attrocities, but then no one anywhere in this world expected them to fight fair or by any rules and certianly there will be no prosecution for their warcrimes.
Same double standard. Hope you encounter an honest crook and not some gangsta hood.
No, I’m not saying anything about shooting people in the back, that’s YOU that keeps saying that. I’m saying once a person surrenders you can’t shoot them AT ALL until they behave in the THREATENING manner, which would NEVER wind up shooting them in the back. In order for them to be a threat they’d have to come TOWARDS you, which means you’d shoot their FRONT. Now stop lying about what I said.
The law isn’t presuming anything except that if someone is complying with what you’ve ordered them to do they no longer present a threat. Which is why this guy got charged, the other guy had surrendered and was complying and he shot him anyway. You can’t shoot somebody that surrendered.
A man can pull his gun and shoot you from the ground. By then it is too late to return fire.
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.