Ruger Forum banner
1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
505 Posts
Good for him I guess but I kinda have a problem with blindly firing a weapon thru a door,window,wall etc...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,306 Posts
i thought he used a .45
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
500 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Latest update on newspaper is more specific. TV news probably had it wrong.

I agree that shooting blindly through the door was a bad idea. The fates conspired, however, to make it a good kill.

One night, years ago, something bumped into my closed (and locked) bedroom door, waking me up. It bumped again and sounded as if someone was trying to break down the door. I got with 1911 pistol in hand and blocked by a chest of drawers next to the door, I released the door lock and put a combat hold on the pistol.

I'm not one to shoot without identifying a target. The door opened and I had a good sight picture on my sleepwalking stepdaughter. Reinforced my training discipline.

I don't think the old boy in the news had any discipline, but he was frightened and that was enough.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
29,619 Posts
I would only shoot thru a door that had a glass insert so I could see who it is. In NJ you realistically have to wait until the door is broken in to prove self defense. I am reasonably sure I would wait until the door was starting to give before shooting. In Nj we have a duty to leave our house if you are able to safely do so. Obviously if you have small children this may not apply.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
136 Posts
I didn't realize the castle doctrine allows someone to shoot a burglar outside the home to defend himself. Because the man was 82, you could argue desparity of force. The burglar had two potential deadly weapons so the homeowner could argue he was in immediate danger of bodily harm once the perp broke through the door.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
500 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
From another site:
The Florida "Castle Doctrine" law basically does three things:

One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, therefore a person may use any manner of force, including deadly force, against that person.

Two: It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others. [This is an American right repeatedly recognized in Supreme Court gun cases.]

Three: It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force.

It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them.

In short, it gives rights back to law-abiding people and forces judges and prosecutors who are prone to coddling criminals to instead focus on protecting victims.


The local authorities have no plan to charge the shooter. No one knows how the family of the burglar will ultimately react.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
500 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Now, the actual statute:

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

You will note that defense is permitted if the assailant is in the act of breaking in (section a) and permits the defensive action even if the defender believes the act is occurring. (section b).

So, regardless of his lack of identifying the suspect or of being sure, the old man is covered under Florida law--and, if you read on, the bad guy's family are blocked from any claims in court.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
136 Posts
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling,
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
500 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
The guy had burglar tools, was wearing a ski mask and was engaged in forcing his way in. The resident was aware of the sound of someone trying to break in the door.

Once again, I say it was unwise of him to shoot without seeing who or what he was shooting but, within the specific wording of the law, "was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering," so no charges will be filed for the shooting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,306 Posts
if it was a cop raiding the wrong house this story would be recieving a COMPLETELY different reaction...nationwide anti-gun nuts would have their panties in a major bunch. in my opinion, "sound" doesnt = shoot.

and yes, LE does hit the wrong house occasionally
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,189 Posts
But it wasn't a cop and a crook is dead.

Castle doctrine should be the law of the land. No exceptions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
463 Posts
I would hesitate to shoot through a closed door, too much of a chance to shoot an innocent by accident. Luckily this turned out well for the individual, and likely the neigborhood it a bit more safe today.
Looking up the round on Wikipedia...that is one mean sounding caliber. I am sure it had no issues with the door at all.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top