When is the "Castle Doctrine" not the "Castle Doctrine" in Florida?

[Sheldon]

Just an opinion here but he was in retreat, dropped to the ground in submission, and then was shot, really, come on, just how is that justifiable??? Not much defending that act, even if he was stalking his daughter, in which case he should have fired legal charges and not his gun.....

[joespahr]

"Theodosiou went outside, then went back in and got his .38 caliber revolver. He went back outside and at one point, told the teen -- later identified as Marlon Perez Monzon, 18 -- he was going to shoot him."

If you have time to go back inside to get your gun, it seems like it would be pretty hard to make the case that you felt like your life was in immediate danger, especially if you then go back outside.

[caldwelljoe]

Soon we will have the Castle Doctrine here in PA, and I urge never doing what this fellow did. Hell, even the cops can't shoot a fleeing felon, under the US-SC '84 decision in Tenn v Garner. There a 13 year old punk named Garner was shot in the back of the head and died. He was fleeing a home he burgled, and all he got was $10.00. No sympathy for Garner, but why cap bad guys just because they run away. That is not anything more than swirling emotions on the part of the homeowner, and now he faces the Criminal Justice System. Too bad for him.:-(

[wjh2657]

Here in Tennessee Castle Doctrine basically means that if somebody forcibly enters your house you don't have to see a weapon to assume that they mean to harm you.

It isn't a blanket permission to shoot somebody just because they are in your house. If it did, I would have a whole lot fewer in-laws!

[mappow]

If the Perps opening in distance-DON"T shoot, If the Perps closing in SHOOT. Got to have a justified fear to plug someone. IF not you're just as bad...............

[kelcarry]

I agree with majority--In SC, "forcible entry" to an "occupied" house or car. Those are the key words. As much as I like to see perps get street justice like this case, the above two restraints make this a slam dunk--shooting him while running away makes it even more of a slam dunk. In SC, however, we have had cases outside house in yard where a suspicious person near the owner's parked truck (unoccupied) was confronted and shot (only wounded) by owner and there were no charges. Not sure how much credence is given to "forcible entry", as opposed to you leaving your door unlocked, but the presumption of imminent danger is still there--perp is nowhere where he should be and owner should feel in danger even if if did not lock his front door.

[Islander]

I agree with majority--In SC, "forcible entry" to an "occupied" house or car. Those are the key words. As much as I like to see perps get street justice like this case, the above two restraints make this a slam dunk--shooting him while running away makes it even more of a slam dunk. In SC, however, we have had cases outside house in yard where a suspicious person near the owner's parked truck (unoccupied) was confronted and shot (only wounded) by owner and there were no charges. Not sure how much credence is given to "forcible entry", as opposed to you leaving your door unlocked, but the presumption of imminent danger is still there--perp is nowhere where he should be and owner should feel in danger even if if did not lock his front door.

Remember that we also have a citizens arrest law where you can use force to pursue and stop someone committing or having just committed a felony, and if it is at night the citizen is authorized to the point where the arrested may lose their life (Title 17):
SECTION 17-13-10. Circumstances where any person may arrest a felon or thief. [SC ST SEC 17-13-10]

Upon (a) view of a felony committed, (b) certain information that a felony has been committed or (c) view of a larceny committed, any person may arrest the felon or thief and take him to a judge or magistrate, to be dealt with according to law.

SECTION 17-13-20. Additional circumstances where citizens may arrest; means to be used. [SC ST SEC 17-13-20]

A citizen may arrest a person in the nighttime by efficient means as the darkness and the probability of escape render necessary, even if the life of the person should be taken, when the person:

(a) has committed a felony;

(b) has entered a dwelling house without express or implied permission;

(c) has broken or is breaking into an outhouse with a view to plunder;

(d) has in his possession stolen property; or

(e) being under circumstances which raise just suspicion of his design to steal or to commit some felony, flees when he is hailed.

[mappow]

Thanks Islander for the Law as written. Some in this Community should review it. I do add that unless you've had training on proper take down and restraint of a suspect I would advise extreme caution. OK even if you've had training!

Upon (a) view of a felony committed, (b) certain information that a felony has been committed or (c) view of a larceny committed, any person may arrest the felon or thief and take him to a judge or magistrate, to be dealt with according to law.

SECTION 17-13-20. Additional circumstances where citizens may arrest; means to be used. [SC ST SEC 17-13-20]

A citizen may arrest a person in the nighttime by efficient means as the darkness and the probability of escape render necessary, even if the life of the person should be taken, when the person:

(a) has committed a felony;

(b) has entered a dwelling house without express or implied permission;

(c) has broken or is breaking into an outhouse with a view to plunder;

(d) has in his possession stolen property; or

(e) being under circumstances which raise just suspicion of his design to steal or to commit some felony, flees when he is hailed.

[kelcarry]

A big thank you Islander and mappow for your comments on SC Section 17-13-20. Makes me feel better that there is more to our protection in this state than being CC or owning a firearm and just watching something happen (ie a felony such as a breakin of your parked car outside your home). It is not the arrest part that makes me feel better, it is the fact that the law allows me to confront with my firearm even though I was not in imminent danger and then actually use same if the situation escalates without someone pointing a finger at me for having caused the escalation. I would assume that this is the main reason the "old man case" was never pursued. Thanks again for this info. It sure expands my potential abilities to protect not only myself but my property.

[walt629]

Castle Doctrine or not, as soon as the perp is in retreat, the eminate danger no longer exists and deadly force is off the table.

The charges on the home owner are justified, sad to say, but true.

Now if the home owner had an electric fence in place.....

All kidding aside, what law did this kid break? He "tried" this guys front door. You mean he grabbed the door knob and tried to turn it or he was trying to kick in the door? Trying the door knob, one could imply he was lost and mistook that house for his own (okay... far fetched but I've seen defence lawyers in action).

From the description in the paper, I didn't see where a felony was being committed by the 'perp'. Even the Citizens Arrest law stipulates a felony must be present to instigate a situation where a citizens arrest is warranted. At best the guy was guilty of misdemeanor tresspass.

Geeze! the guy was laying on the ground! He was complying with the demands of the home owner and the old coot shot him anyway? Book him Danno!