Even if burglar threatens you with gun, you can't shoot back

[Quantum Windbag]

There are reasons that a sane state like New York prohibits you from wildly firing at people running away.

1. They no longer pose a threat to you.
2. Recovering property is not a justification for killing a human being.
3. You may injure or kill people not at all involved in any crime.

Yet cops do it all the time.

Until you, personally, insist that every single cop who ever shoots anyone who is unarmed and/or running away, don't try to use the fact that the law treats civilians differently as an excuse to dump on people just because you are afraid of guns.

No they don't.

Shootings by the police are really rare in NYC and NY state.

Most police never fire their weapons outside the range.

If you define rare as occurring more often than full moons, but less often murders, you still don't have a point.

 

[Noomi]

Surveillance video shows burglar has a gun, but the home owner still faces charges for firing back because one of the home invaders died.

Surveillance Video Shows Burglar Firing Into Home But Police Still Charge Resident For Shooting Back!

If he shot at them while they were running away, its manslaughter. It doesn't matter what the crime was, if someone is running away, they are not a threat to you anymore.

 

[The Professor]

The problem with this story, if you get the whole story, is that he chased the burglar down and shot him in the back OFF his property. THAT is why he was charged. The headline I got on the story was that he shot him in self defense. Then when they went into the details, you realize he was chased down the street and shot.

That's what I heard on 1010WINS.

In New York State, that's a crime.

Then he lives in the wrong State.

In Florida, if the burglar/robber has your personal property you are allowed to chase him and use whatever force is necessary to retrieve your property.

If I were chasing him and shot him, I PROMISE you, they would find my personal property on him.

See, people.... Even living in a dimocrap State is bad for you.

You need to think about that.

You are wrong, and I am afraid that your advice may cause someone to do something foolish. I have lived in Florida for most of my life, and I have a doctorate in law. It is important that everyone on this forum know the following: IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, THERE IS NO RIGHT TO USE DEADLY FORCE TO RECOVER PERSONAL PROPERTY OR TO PREVENT A CRIMINAL FROM ESCAPING (there is an exception for law enforcement personal). First, here is the relevant law:

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or 776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

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, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

776.031 Use of force in defense of others.—A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1189, ch. 97-102; s. 3, ch. 2005-27. (Highlights my own.)

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

You can see that the statutes do not allow deadly force to recover personal property. The highlighted portions of Section 776.031 makes it clear that force can be used to recover personal property, but not deadly force.

I have no idea which case you are referring to, but I am aware of one case that has confused some people. Here are the facts of the case:

“In the early hours of January 25, Garcia spotted Pedro Roteta and another man rummaging through his truck and taking off with his car radio according to the Miami Herald. Roteta and his accomplice had apparently been on a radio stealing spree, and Roteta was carrying a bag filled with three car radios.

Garcia decided to chase after Roteta with a knife, and caught up to him. Roteta swung the bag of radios at Garcia's head. Garcia blocked the bag, and then countered by lunging a knife in Roteta's chest. The stabbing killed Roteta. Garcia then took off with the radio, even those not belonging to him, and never called police. Garcia hid the knife used and sold the two car radios that did not belong to him” (see first link below).

The Judge acquitted Garcia, and some people took that to mean that deadly force was permissible to recover personal property. These people were wrong. Assistant State Attorney Kathleen Houge accurately said "The law does not allow for you to use deadly force to retrieve your property.” But she erred when she said, “She [the judge] , in effect, is saying that it's appropriate to chase someone down with a knife to get property back" (see first link below). Houge ignored the fact the judge based her ruling on the fact Garcia's use of deadly force was justified only because Roteta put his life in danger by swinging a bag full of car radios at him. The judge relied on the testimony of a medical examiner who opined that the bag full or radios could have caused serious bodily injury or even death. The case was simply about the right to use deadly force to prevent serious bodily injury or death, not about the right to use such force to recover stolen property.

Judge Cites "Stand Your Ground" to Clear Greyston Garcia in Little Havana Stabbing

Greyston Garcia, Acquitted in 'Stand Your Ground' Case, Shot Dead In Miami

In summary, in the state of Florida, deadly force cannot be used to recover stolen property. You do have the right to chase the thief and to use reasonable (but not deadly force) to regain your property. If someone has stolen your property and is running away, for God's sake do not shoot him. If you do, you have committed a felony and your only hope is a very sympathetic jury. I know some of you will not like what I have said, but the law is the law.

 

[Againsheila]

I've seen men get shot and continue to run for quite a distance.

Especially with a *****-assed .38 and a hyped-up, frightened, adrenaline-filled young man.

Who's to say the good guy didn't shoot the dimocrap thief on his own property and the thief ran into the neighbor's yard?

I hope the defense Attorney has a brain.

Like I said, in Florida the worst the good guy would get is a $20 fine for littering.

Hence why he is being charged and there will a trial where the evidence is laid out and then his peers will decide if he broke the law and is guilty of the charges, or if his story of self defense holds up in court.

Innocent until proven guilty.

My rebuttal is in the way these news stories in the OP leads to false assumptions and uses the lie of omission to stir people up about something not worth more than a casual conversation soundbite at best.

with a seven month investigation my guess would be that they have some good evidence to lock this guy up. There is no good reason IMHO to shot someone in the back as they run away.

The family has video of the incident and hope that it will help clear Mr. Abdel-Gawad, who was recently indicted on manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide charges.

I think I'll wait to see the video before making a judgement on this case.

 

[westwall]

That's why I don't live in progressive shitholes. They value the lives of criminals more than the taxpaying citizen. They are simply batshit crazy and I won't give them my tax money. Screw em.

 

[Infidel]

Even if burglar threatens you with gun, you can't shoot back

You can if he's packing skittles.

 

[jon_berzerk]

The problem with this story, if you get the whole story, is that he chased the burglar down and shot him in the back OFF his property. THAT is why he was charged. The headline I got on the story was that he shot him in self defense. Then when they went into the details, you realize he was chased down the street and shot.

The story never said this. The story never mentioned him chasing him down the street. Unless you have a link to another side of the story.

Another liberal lie.

Not in this article, no, it didn't. But the information I read does detail that out, and that is why he was charged.

oes detail that out, and that is why he was charged

no not really he was charged because the state could not find a bullet embedded in the home

 

[martybegan]

Surveillance video shows burglar has a gun, but the home owner still faces charges for firing back because one of the home invaders died.

Surveillance Video Shows Burglar Firing Into Home But Police Still Charge Resident For Shooting Back!

If he shot at them while they were running away, its manslaughter. It doesn't matter what the crime was, if someone is running away, they are not a threat to you anymore.

A jury will have a hard time convicting. A group of thugs created a situation where they threatened a man's life and property. We then expect the person to respond 100% rationally when placed in a life threatening situation, through no fault of their own, or face criminal charges.

The State may have to prosecute, because of course they masses should be afraid to defend themselves, but no jury will convict him.

The thugs created the situation, all on them, none on him.

 

[candycorn]

Surveillance video shows burglar has a gun, but the home owner still faces charges for firing back because one of the home invaders died.

Surveillance Video Shows Burglar Firing Into Home But Police Still Charge Resident For Shooting Back!

If he shot at them while they were running away, its manslaughter. It doesn't matter what the crime was, if someone is running away, they are not a threat to you anymore.

There should be some common sense in the charges though. Apparently it was at night. Apparently there was a group of people trying to get into the house. Apparently there was shots fired of some kind into the house.

Does it fit the legal definition of manslaughter? Maybe...I'm not up on the statute in NY State. Does it fit anyone's definition of justice being served that the assaulted is charged with a crime during the episode of defending his home? Gosh, I hope not.

Now, what I need is a timeline...if the attack occurred at Midnight and the shooting occurred at 12:15 or 12:30...that's a different kettle of fish if there wasn't a sustained15 or 30 minutes of assault in between.

 

[.45carry]

In my state (Tennessee), once there is no longer a direct threat to one's life, all shooting (on the part of the victim, in this case the homeowner) must cease. This point was emphasized many times in my CCP classes.

Really? If the gunman grabs your wife and drags her down the street you can't shoot him? Why do I think that the laws in Tennessee don't actually say that?

If the gunman grabs my wife and drags her down the street, there is still a threat of bodily harm (to my wife). Hope that clears up your confusion to my post.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

shooting someone in the BACK is NOT self defense folks

False. In a gun battle, one might easily shoot an assailant in the back without violating any reasonable standard of self-defense with none of the apparent complications of this case anywhere in sight. It happens all the time. Your assertion is not based on the law, and it most certainly is not informed by any experience with or understanding of the dynamics of such encounters.

This case will turn, not on the fact that the intruder was shot in the back, it will turn on where he was shot in terms of geographic location and if there remained any credible threat to the defendant's life beyond the perimeters of his property.

Or, in fact, if I were on the jury, it might just turn on a jury nullification of the law in the form of an acquittal, given the fact that if the assailant had been fleeing from an officer of the law as he continued to brandish his weapon after committing a felony with it. . . .

Well, make no mistake about it, the cop would be cleared.

Why should a common citizen not be permitted to stop a criminal from escaping justice as the criminal continues to brandish his weapon, only to rob and kill someone else latter?

Huh?

That would be the cop's argument, and the cop's argument would prevail in court.

Who doubts that?

If the defendant's lawyer is worth his salt, that's the tact he will take. I would get me a former police officer with a long and impeccable record willing to testify just so.

"Now imagine, members of the jury, how much more desperate would an untrained and frightened man of relatively few years of life experience be as he defended the lives of his family against a gang of intruders' that has no decent regard for the lives and the property of others? His mother was in that house! My client wasn't even cognizant of the fact that the struggle had spilled over onto the adjacent property and expected that the assailants my turn on him at any moment with a loaded gun!"

Not guilty.

But we shall see.

 

[FA_Q2]

Hence why he is being charged and there will a trial where the evidence is laid out and then his peers will decide if he broke the law and is guilty of the charges, or if his story of self defense holds up in court.

Innocent until proven guilty.

My rebuttal is in the way these news stories in the OP leads to false assumptions and uses the lie of omission to stir people up about something not worth more than a casual conversation soundbite at best.

with a seven month investigation my guess would be that they have some good evidence to lock this guy up. There is no good reason IMHO to shot someone in the back as they run away.

How about this, he actually shot when he the guy brandished the pistol, missed, and hit somebody in the yard.

Well, actually no. This is MY opinion on such a matter but I personally believe that if you miss your target you should be held liable for that. If he was shooting at an armed assailant and missed hitting another then damn right he should be charged with manslaughter. If that is what happened here I don’t know.

My statement was rather bad though as the fact that the individual was shot in the back is not really the issue I have. The problem I have is whether or not the bugler was shot as he was fleeing and whether or not he was armed. If brandishing a weapon, fire away. If running from the scene then no, I do not think that he should just lay him out like that nor do I think that it should be legal for him to do so. I don’t understand the sentiment that makes one think killing is a proper response to theft – that is completely asinine. You don’t get to kill another simply because he stole something of yours. Broke into your home and posing a threat sure – you have a right to defend yourself. Running away – **** no.

Further, your statements about the cops are completely irrelevant. Just because the police force contains corruption does not mean that the people should be able to kill on a whim nor should such an action be legal by the police. A cop should have no right to gun down a perpetrator that is fleeing and not armed. What is good for the goose and all. I am not going to justify a civilian killing just because a cop might have done it as well. They are BOTH wrong.

As for the specific story in this thread, it sounds as if there was an exchange of gunfire though and that makes a HUGE difference. There really is no ‘fleeing’ from a gun fight as that is completely indistinguishable from falling back and he would have no idea if the man would continue firing at a greater distance in all honesty. If that individual was firing at the homeowner then he is fully justified, in my opinion, of ending that man’s life. Further, the type of weapon recovered is rather meaningless. I don’t really know if you would understand that the pellet gun was not a real weapon. It is not as though you are going to be completely level headed when you believe that another person is firing at you. Hindsight is 20/20 but that is never the standard that we should use.