FL: No Charges To Resident Who Shot Unarmed Burglar In The Back

[GreenStormCloud]

http://www.dailycommercial.com/022410burglar

TAVARES -- A homeowner who killed an unarmed burglar last November with a shot in the back, will not be charged.

The State Attorney's Office cited a Florida State Statue that justifies the use of deadly force in its decision announced Tuesday to not prosecute Shane Biel, who killed 23-year-old Brett Lee Canada with a .357 magnum after coming outside to confront the prowler trying to break into his lawn storage unit.

The Nov. 19 shooting came after at least one burglary in the Sorrento area yard of Biel and a couple prison stints for burglary by Canada.

Biel told investigators that he ordered Canada to the ground, but instead the suspect came at him with something in his hand, and that "scared me to death."
-------------
In Florida and Texas, being a burglar is a very high risk occupation.

[Tim01]

1. A whole bunch of burglaries will never happen. nt

[proteus_lives]

18. Yep.

[zanana1]

2. Murder is now legal. nt

[oneshooter]

7. Do you have proof of that? n/t

[Hoopla Phil]

15. I did not see a murder take place in this story.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[proteus_lives]

19. What murder?

[spin]

3. It sounds like Florida's "stand your ground" law is working ...

criminals take note.

If a Floridian has the draw on you, comply with his instructions. Definitely do not attack him.

It might be a good idea to move to Chicago. The weather sucks but the city frowns on citizens owning firearms.

[mucifer]

4. Then why doesn't the death penalty work as a deterrent?

Murder rates don't go down with the death penalty:


The Death Penalty and Deterrence

A September 2000 New York Times survey found that during the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48 to 101 percent higher than in states without the death penalty.

FBI data shows that all 14 states without capital punishment in 2008 had homicide rates at or below the national rate.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/death-penalty/death-penalty-facts/the-death-penalty-and-deterrence/page.do?id=1101085

[X_Digger]

5. Because the time between action and consequence is 7-20 years.

Whereas the consequences are rather immediate for picking the wrong victim who happens to be armed and ready to use it.

[mucifer]

6. I'm not thinking that murderers think it through so thoroughly.

[GreenStormCloud]

8. Violent felons tend to live in the now and not plan very far ahead.

But getting shot by a supposed victim is a "now" event.

[TPaine7]

11. People who are unimpressed with *immediate* consequences

have no reason to avoid stepping in front of buses, avoiding open flames, or keeping their forks out of electrical outlets.

Even animals are smart enough to avoid obvious dangers that they know are responsible for the deaths of their fellows.

[X_Digger]

13. It's not 'thinking' as such..

it's psych 101, human nature.

[Tim01]

23. Because there is a good chance any potential victim may shoot them.

No courts, and investigations, and lawyers, and plea bargaining and all that stuff.

[customerserviceguy]

10. Well said

A twenty year period for application of the death penalty in a tiny fraction of the cases is hardly a deterrent. A person defending their own life, their family, or their property, prepared to do so immenently is a serious deterrent.

[SteveM]

34. As one who does not support the death penalty, I cannot equate...

the shooting of an attacking burglar with state-imposed execution. As you have alluded to, executions cannot be shown to reduce capital crimes. However, the shootings (most non-fatal) of home invaders/robbers occurs in larger numbers and under different circumstances. Some think these shootings can be related to drops in some crime rates, others do not. I will wait for better studies which might indicate which.

But this is NOT social policy: this is an individual who is defending his life against a B&E robber. The shooting "worked" against this thug.

[slackmaster]

37. Please don't try to conflate use of deadly force in self-defense with a judicial punishment

They're not the same thing at all.

[RZM]

9. It's a high risk occupation everywhere

And a rather stupid one. You face the prospect of prison time if caught and a wrathful homeowner/resident if you're not careful or lucky while doing the deed. Doesn't seem to pay off in the long run.

I do question how fair it is to bring up charges on people who are defending their property. While the decision to 'burgle' reflects time spent choosing a target and formulating a plan of action, those who are confronted with an intruder often have to make split-second decisions, which are often not the best ones and not those one would take if they had time to think. I've never owned a gun and I'm not sure how I'd react if faced with an intruder, but I'd probably be terrified and running on pure instinct, which might lead to violence. That being said, I'm sure there are situations where charging the resident makes 'moral' sense, but I tend to think those are probably few and far between and moot in any case, since the issue is supposed to be the law, not morality.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[zanana1]

60. No takers, huh? nt

[Callisto32]

62. Absolutely not.

While you would have been entitled, at that point, to use some level of force against the thief, it does not rise to the level of lethal force. Rather, the appropriate response would be, at the most, to eject the person from your property and demand restitution for the value of the veggies.

[zanana1]

68. Explain to me why that would be different from the case in question. nt

[Callisto32]

74. See my comment at the bottom of the discussion.

[X_Digger]

65. Only if he charged you, or presented a weapon.

.. thus the 'reasonable apprehension of imminent threat of grave bodily injury'.

[zanana1]

70. A p erson who "charged me" would not show his back to me...

Thus, he would not be shot in the back. I think the guy said this clearly to save his ass. He went out to his yard because he saw someone trying to break into a storage unit. There was no fear for his life, but he went out in his yard like a Wild West sheriff looking for a showdown. He doesn't deserve to get away with it. The Forida and Texas laws are so over-the-top that they are sure to be repealed in the future. Florida's tourist industry is already suffering because of it. You guys look like a bunch of maniacs to most of the world.

[X_Digger]

71. If I take a step to the side when you're reaching for me..

I can shoot you in the back.

What, I'm supposed to stand still while you're coming at me just so that I can shoot you square in the chest?

[Callisto32]

75. The knowledge contained within the man you so readily ignored,

one Mr. Ayoob, shows how in many cases, an attacker, faced with a weapon, turns tail to run and in the mean time the bullet has already exited the barrel. It takes time to fire a weapon, and time for the bullet to reach its target, especially from a handgun. 1,500 FPS is not fast at all by firearm standards.

[lepus]

77. Actually it would not belegal.

But in the course of you attempting to stop the theft, if the man attempted violence against you and you then shot him, it would in fact be perfectly legal in most states.

[d_r]

12. not to split hairs

but I think it is one thing to shoot an intruder inside your house, but not the same to shoot somebody out in the yard.

[PavePusher]

14. My property, even the property outside my house...

...is worth defending.

Yours may not be. And that is your choice.

[safeinOhio]

17. I defend my property with insurance

I'd only take a life in defense of mine or an innocent life. That's just me and how I see it. You are welcome to your own nightmares.

[proteus_lives]

21. And you're welcome to your own judgmental attitude.

[safeinOhio]

22. We need a Constitutional Amendment

to protect our judgmental attitudes, don't we?

:crazy:

[Euromutt]

25. In this case, the homeowner thought the burglar was coming at him

So strictly speaking he was shooting in (what he reasonably believed was) defense of his life.

Even if you don't believe it's acceptable to shoot someone in defense of property, that doesn't mean you can't try to intervene if someone is trying to steal your stuff, and have a firearm at the ready in the event the burglar tries to assault you rather than fleeing or surrendering.

[PavePusher]

26. I have a poor track record with that...

...mostly due to the fact that I can't get police to respond when I call incidents in. "Petty Theft" is not a priority for police, understandably. No response means no report means no claim. So, my property is, by default, my responsibility. For the record, I've had close to $15K of property stolen from me in 3 countries.

I also firmly believe in giving thieves a strong disincentive when possible. I certainly don't want to kill or severely injure anyone, but if I can make them at least contemplate a different career path, I'll consider my efforts worthwhile. Anything more severe is simply thier Karma arriving at 850 ft/sec, 230gr. at a time.

[shadowrider]

27. For me, their karma arrives at 950 fps

[cowman]

89. Firestar .45

with Winchester Black Talons

[GreenStormCloud]

28. Winchester .45 G. A. P. JHP out of a GLOCK.

http://www.handgunsmag.com/gap_1118/

Similar performance from any.45 autoloader.

I like your choices, although I tend to like SIG.

[oneshooter]

29. SIG 220 with 200gr JHP. Higher velocity. n/t

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

30. Both of you can eat my shorts. Desert Eagle... point five-oh. :P eom.

[oneshooter]

32. Let 's try a test.

We all carry our stated weapon concealed for 12hrs. THEN we will see who's shorts are showing!!

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

33. I tried carrying it before. CCW is only possible in a winter coat.

Aside from being totally awesome... it's totally worthless.
Very accurate though.

[GreenStormCloud]

38. That's why my normal carry gun is a S&W642 in pants pocket and...

a Taurus PT 58 S (.380) in the waist. I wear suspenders.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[oneshooter]

44. Hot or cold I carry a 45

Either a SIG220 or a Colt LW Commander. Your .50 is a very reliable hunting pistol, think HOGS. But has to much penetration for a defensive weapon. However the OMG factor from seeing the wrong end, while at the wrong place and time is off the scale.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[zanana1]

61. I'll say it again. I don't think you're really talking about guns...

But who's "tougher" because they have a tougher gun. I think there's alot of insecurity here.

[Callisto32]

63. It is your prerogative if you wish to project.

[zanana1]

72. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to understand what your're really talking about.

Bragging about your biggest, baddest gun and competing for the toughest guy contest is so obvious with you people I'm surprised you don't see it. Most people outside of the gun forum certainly do. BTW, it used to be against the DU laws to brag about the guns you bought. I guess the moderators who are now on duty sympathize with you. They've deleted two of my posts, but then again I don't go running to them to fight for me. I fight my own battles, but run to them for protection if you must. After all, I'm too far away for you to shoot me.

[X_Digger]

76. You might want to refer to Skinner's recent post in GD re civility..

.. it applies here in the gungeon just as elsewhere.

Krispos42 made a post here detailing some of the applications for the gungeon- http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=288003&mesg_id=288003

(iirc, you made some reference to male sexual organs. See post #12 in the thread linked above.)

[oneshooter]

78. We were holding a conversation about our proffered CCL weapons.

If you want to think something else of it, that is your right. But if you would read more, and speak less, then perhaps you may learn a little.

"It is better to remain silent and seem the fool, than to open your mouth and confirm it" Unknown

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[zanana1]

82. Holy crap.

Maybe you could apply that saying to yourself. I really shouldn't have come into the gun forum. It's foolish to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person. (No, I don't know who first said that, but I like it.)

You're still not fooling anyone. You were talking about who's the most "manly", and you all know it.

[oneshooter]

83. You "Don't have to come into the forum"

It is a choice that you have made. Nobody here has forced you in any way to be here.

It was a conversation about firearms. If you have these attacks frequently then I would suggest a councilor.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[zanana1]

41. THANK YOU for that sane response.

The "shoot first and ask questions later" crowd approve of shooting anything that moves in their back yard, which sounds very much like an excuse to shoot people.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

46. Insurance doesn't defend anything... it replaces things.

However, despite the premium, an insurance policy cannot replace a life or the trauma suffered through victimization. If you want to assume that a criminal (whose morals obviously did not stop them from burglurizing you) will not injure/attack you if the oportunity presents itself then that is your right. Seems like a silly ass assumption to me.... the guy is already committing theft and such a person's mere presence is a threat to the safety of residents.

"shoot first and ask questions later"... :eyes:
There's not many good excuses/answers to the question, "Why are you criminally trespassing and stealing my belongings?"

[zanana1]

50. The burglar didn't hurt anyone.

The burglar was running away. He was shot in the back. I was raised to believe that someone who shoots someone else in the back is a coward. I don't think that has changed. True, insurance doesn't defend anything and it's not as much fun as shooting someone.

[Euromutt]

24. I think that depends on how hard the yard is to get into

If the yard is surrounded by a six-foot fence with a locked gate, it's a different proposition from an unfenced front yard. The overriding factor in this instance, however, was that the defendant evidently convinced the state attorney's office that he had a reasonable belief that the burglar (even if he was only burglarizing the tool shed) presented an imminent threat to his (the defendant's) life and/or limb.

[GreenStormCloud]

31. Horn's yard was unfenced.

For those who don't remember (I am confident that Euro does remember)Horn was the guy that was on the phone to police in Houston describing a burglary next door. Then he went out and killed the burglars as they crossed his property.

[AtheistCrusader]

35. According to a police officer that witnessed the shooting it was a little more than 'crossed his yar

d'. They were heading right for him, even after he ordered them to stop.

Could the cop have just been sympathetic and perjured himself to protect Horn? Maybe. Absent a trial for THAT, I will accept the official story as it stands.

[Endangered Specie]

16. Occupational Hazard

[proteus_lives]

20. Criminals take note.

Harm or steal from other people at your own risk.

[Callisto32]

36. As far as people who move toward an armed man telling them to stop...

I can only presume they are not very smart. Further, if you close distance on a person with a gun pointed at you, how can you expect anything but to be shot?

As far as being shot in the back, I am guessing something like the following happened. Homeowner tells thief to stop, thief not seeing that homeowner is armed moves toward homeowner. Homeowner, suspecting that some burglars tool in thief's hand is a weapon, moves into a more obvious firing position. Thief, having now realized that homeowner is armed, turns to run, too late, trigger was already rolling back. End result: Thief shot in back. Never underestimate how quickly a human being can turn tail and run. I don't remember the times, but it is mere fractions of a second, on average.

I write this up because at first I was a bit taken aback by the shot in the back part. As I thought of it, this became the more likely scenario to me.

[GreenStormCloud]

39. In addition it was dark, so it may have been difficult to see the prowler clearly.

At close range I would take ANY sudden movement of a criminal as the beginning of an attack and would defend myself. The dead Canada had two prior prison terms for burglary, and there was only one story told.

I think the resident made a mistake going outside to confront the prowler. And he made a second mistake by telling the prowler to stop. That gives the prowler the iniative and you have to decide immediately what to do if the prowler makes a movement. Better to stay in the house and call 911. If the prowler breaks into the house, then shoot without any warning.

[lepus]

49. Hey, cops get away with backshooting people all the time.

I should think this guy should get away with it too for the same reasons.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lepus]

53. Former military member actually.

Would you feel better if we killed them up close with a manly baseball bat? I don't equate methods of lawful self defense with cowardice.

Is it cowardly to use a hammer to pound a nail into a board, or should I use a flat rock. The proper tool for the job at hand. In the case of confronting a burglar, a gun is the proper tool. Cowardice has nothing to do with it.

I have a gun so I don't have to get close and match strength with a person who quite likely is stronger than me and fights more regularly.

I guess you have a belief then that only physically strong people should be allowed to protect their property?

The guys version of events is common to a lot of police alibis that have been used over the years to defend themselves after they have shot someone in the back. People in tense situations can move very fast.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[X_Digger]

66. I notice that's not an answer..

Care to answer lepus's questions?

[zanana1]

80. Because this isn't the wild, wild west.

You can't go shooting people in the back because you feel like it. We want police officers who are TRAINED to uphold the law; NOT YOU.

[lepus]

85. When did I ever say I would shoot someone in the back because I felt like it?

Did the shooter in the OP shoot someone in the back because he felt like it? I don't know and neither does the law. Based on this, he was not prosecuted.

All I pointed out was the fact that the police officers that you want,and are trained, have many times shot people in the back and got away with it for pretty much the same reason. People in tense situations can move very fast. Burglar charges homeowner, homeowner raises weapon to defend himself, Burglar turns to evade at the last instant and gets shot in back instead of the front. Just because a man is shot in the back does not mean he was running away.

Based on your rants about cowardice, why not apply cowardice to the burglar? After all, he was the one that chose to get shot in the back instead of bravely taking it in the chest like a real man. Hmm, doesn't make sense at all does it? Cowardice does not come into play on either side of this story even though you seem to feel it does.

I likely would never shoot anyone in the back, but I would likely end up acting as a police officer in a burglary situation with full rights of arrest and detention. My nearest law enforcement is 45 minutes away on some very bad roads.

If I have to act to prevent theft of my property, I will likely use a firearm to do it.

I have a right to confront a burglar stealing my property. If the burglar escalates the situation by trying to attack me, I have the right to defend myself. My state understands this and has granted it's citizens a whole lot of leeway in our actions in protecting our property and our lives.

[zanana1]

42. You really had to reach to come up with that excuse for murder.

Have you ever considered writing fiction?

[The Green Manalishi]

45. Have you ever considered writing facts?

It wasn't murder. It was taking out the trash.

[zanana1]

51. I guess we now know where you stand with that statement.

What other kinds of human beings do you consider to be "trash"?

[The Green Manalishi]

54. Rapists, muggers and car jackers

You got a problem with that?



Actually anybody who would use force or the threat of force to unlawfully deprive someone else of life, liberty or property.

[zanana1]

55. Yeah...it takes alot of courage to shoot somebody in the back. nt

[The Green Manalishi]

79. The only 'good' robber, rapist or carjacker

is one rapidly expiring from a gaping chest wound.

I can't do anything about your fixation regarding whether or not said thug was coming or going. Quite frankly I don't care. If they had broken into a house and were leaving, or had raped and were leaving I have zero problem with them being subsequently ventilated; front or back, my only concern and hope is that the victim is hassled as little as possible by cops and perp's family as possible. It isn't 'vigilante justice' just because they saw the gun and decided to split.

I''l grant that once they've completely left the property or scene of the assault that subsequent punishment might be best left to the duly constituted authorities. but some POS robber who sees the gun and heads for the window? Good riddance to bad rubbish, blame it on the adrenaline, hell blame it on Rio for all I care, I think they constitute a sufficient threat as long as they are in the building, if armed even on the property.

[zanana1]

81. You'd love Afghanistan.

Maybe you'd get to cut off some hands. And you think I'M judgmental?

[The Green Manalishi]

84. "And you think I'M judgmental?"

This discussion doesn't have anything to do with Afghanistan.

And, no. I think you might honest and sincere. Many want the violence to stop.

Many good honest people, with whom I can agree and strive with on issues of marriage equality, racial justice, environmental sanity and safeguarding the weakest in society against the most grievous injustices of a free market economy honestly believe that the fewer guns, and the harder they are to get the less violence will plague America.

I don't agree, and think that one thing that will help reduce violent crime, is if criminals face the highest possible chance of getting shot.

Yes, we need a better education system, more, and better trained teachers and cops, better healthcare, including mental healthcare for ALL. But a robber or rapist who wouldn't be deterred by the slight chance of a brief prison sentence, viewing it only as three hots and a cot and a chance to catch up with their homies, is certainly deterred by ever increasing probabilities of getting lead poisoning.

[Hoopla Phil]

47. What murder? I did not read about a murder in that article.

[Hoopla Phil]

48. You might check out this D.U. thread for a real murder.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x296727

[Callisto32]

56. Care to explain why this is so unlikely, or would you rather just insult me?

Situations like that occur all the time. If you don't believe me, look up the writings of Massad Ayoob on the subject. He is an expert in the use of lethal force and the situations surrounding it, a police officer, expert witness, firearms instructor et cetera.

[zanana1]

59. The writing of WHO?

Do you think it's realistic to ask someone who obviously does not agree with your life philosphy to read a book by some firearms instructor? Try reading something like "Crime and Punishment" by Fyodor Dovsteosky. It's exercise for the brain muscle,and allows you to see into the human psyche instead of your preoccupation with guns and shooting people.

[Callisto32]

64. Crime and Punishment is on my headboard as my evening reading right now.

Its next to The Brothers Karamazov (not sure of spelling). The Russian masters are not beyond my ken.
And YES I expect you to read the works of an expert in a field if you wish to discuss it. I have read plenty of books on all sides of the political spectrum. I have disagreed with more of them than I have agreed with.

Don't armchair analyze my psyche, though I admit, I did a little bit of that myself, further up.


EDIT: P.S. It's Dostoyevsky.

[zanana1]

67. PS It's spelled both ways.

I encourage your reading of the classics. It might help you in your search for a moral center. PS You spelled Karamozov right.

[Callisto32]

73. My moral center is simple. It is Liberty. Live, and let live.

All human beings are vested with the right to life, and to make their own decisions in all matters so long as they engage in whatever actions on a voluntary basis. Initiation of violence is ALWAYS wrong; violence being defined as force used against a person, or that person's property. This is generally referred to as "the harm principle." When a person decides to violate the rights of others by initiating violence, that person has waived their right to not be interfered with TO THE LEVEL OF THE VIOLENCE THAT THAT PERSON HAS INITIATED. For example, as I stated above, if someone were to steal your stuff, you have the right to eject them from your property and demand restitution for the value stolen. If a person threatens you bodily harm, you are justified in meeting that with like force. In unfortunate cases as we are discussing here, there is another layer involved. If a man seeks to protect his property, and in doing so ends up in a situation where he believes he is being threatened with personal harm and responds with force appropriate to such a personal attack, and it turns out such an attack was not actually occurring, he has a problem but he is not a murderer. To be raised to the level of murder requires some kind of criminal mens rea. This doesn't even seem to be depraved heart murder based upon the admittedly slim facts with which we are presented.


As for ruminating on the use of force? Yes, I admit I have done so, and in depth. You see, I am training to be an attorney, and questions like "how much force is appropriate and when" are exactly what I will be thinking about. Every. Single. Day.

[Euromutt]

86. PPS: No, it isn't.

You can transcribe it "Dostoyevsky" or "Dostoevsky" (the Cyrillic е is typically pronounced "yeh") but there's no way you can spell it "Dovsteosky."

[spin]

69. To know something about a topic requires knowledge ...

Drawing conclusions from a book that centers on the story of a young mentally unstable Russian student and the murders he commits with an ax has little to do with the subject we are discussing.

Marion Hammer who was the first female president of the NRA and is currently the NRA's chief lobbyist in Tallahassee Fl discussed the Florida Castle Doctrine law in an interview on a northwest Florida talk radio program. Here's an interesting excerpt:

GIACHINO: One thing that is a little bit confusing – well, actually a lot of things are confusing about this law, particularly because of the misinformation that is being given by the Brady group, but one thing that confused me, and I read the law several times myself and would consider myself qualified to read it and understand it with my legal background, but nonetheless someone who is retreating, a perpetrator who is retreating, what happens then? If they had entered the person’s home unlawfully and the person felt that their life or someone in their family’s life was in danger, even if at some point the perpetrator turns to retreat, if deadly force is used against them would this law still apply?

HAMMER: The law is designed to allow you to use deadly force against an individual who breaks into your home. If someone turns around, you have no way of knowing whether or not they are retreating or whether or not they are going for a gun or something else. So yes, if someone breaks into your home they are at your mercy. Once they get outside your home – if they turn around and run and get outside your home, then you cannot take action against them.
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/marion-hammer-nra-interview.htm

Her statement dealt with a situation inside the home. For the jury to acquit the defendant of shooting a person in the back outside the home there was probably extenuating testimony. What probably happened is covered in reply #25 above by Euromutt.

Not being on the jury and privy to all the testimony I will withhold my judgment. However I did notice that in the linked newspaper article in the OP was this statement:

Gladson stated in the memo that it is not unreasonable for the homeowner to believe he was being attacked and decided not to charge Biel. Gladson held up Florida State Statues 776.012, .013, and .032 as well as State v. Hamilton court case for his decision.

"Given the clear evidence gathered at the crime scene and the statements of the homeowner, it is my opinion that a good faith prosecution cannot be justified," Gladson said.

Gladson added that bolt cutters were found at the scene and there had been pending charges out for Canada, of Mount Plymouth, on burglary and grand theft charges.
http://www.dailycommercial.com/022410burglar

[guardian]

87. His back was to me

[Tim01 2.0]

88. It is amazing how jumpy homeowners get

when they think they might be about to die.

Burglars should consider that before they make the decision to break into a someone elses house in order to take stuff that doesn't belong to them.